Talk:U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions

March 2006

Needs info on '96 federal DOMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.159.239 (talk • contribs)

No it doesn't, that's the Defense of Marriage Act. --Hyphen5 07:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Desperately needs a list of which states have passed gay marriage amendments, esp. now that TX is voting on one later this yr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.205.101 (talk • contribs)

Good point, I'll try to get that info. --Hyphen5 07:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

It would be nice to say how many states have passed such amendments, and which states they are. I moved some info here from the Federal Marriage Amendment page because it is about state amendments, not the federal amendment. --Fagles 01:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The full-size static picture of Defense of Marriage legislation, that must be linked to, is incorrect in coloring Nebraska and South Dakota as black. They should be changed to dark red.

Title

If there are no objections, I'm going to move the article to "State amendments banning same-sex unions." "Defense of marriage amendment" is POV, and since it's not the term generally used by reliable sources, WP:POVTITLE does not apply. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The term is used generally by reliable sources as explained previously on Talk:List of U.S. state constitutional bans on same-sex unions by type and sourced in said article. Boldness is nice but waiting just three days for name changes on articles where people (like me) might not look every day is too little and looks like a way to push a name one might like better. Hekerui (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out where in the article your claim is sourced? I see one source where the term's first occurrence is in scare quotes; nowhere do I see a source that says the term is in common usage, nor is that claim reflected in actual sources. "One use" =/= "common use." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"not generally used by reliable sources" is quite a claim since one can produce lots of examples easily by typing "Defense of marriage amendment" in the google news archives. The discussion of whether a name change should be done should not rely on this and "no one objects" in three days. Hekerui (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest deleting whole article sections should be explained on the talk page rather than "discussed" in an edit summary. Improving this article would require some source work as opposed to merely scrubbing a certain wording. Hekerui (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A great many of the GNews hits are in scare quotes, indicating that the source does not endorse the wording. What exactly is the problem with a neutral title, pray? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the name is a common name and a reasonable search term that easily identifies what the article is about whereas "state amendment banning same-sex union" is not common and because of the usage of the ambiguous "same-sex union" not as clear and descriptive. Moving it with the condition of not on objecting on a three day deadline is not really consensus building, but imo applying the bold principle without a good enough reason. Again, the discussion can be had; you might have thought this change was obviously better and didn't need much discussion, which happens. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's still searchable on a redirect. But in the absence of a common name used by reliable sources, we should use a descriptive name as the title of the article. (Yes, it's clunky, but WP:POVTITLE, ie. non-neutral but common names, does not apply in the absence of a "significant majority of English-language reliable sources" that prefer the current title.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, we shouldn't conjure up article titles when perfectly fine ones are obvious. And the name is not "absent from reliable sources". Regards Hekerui (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem not to realize that "defense of marriage" is not a perfectly fine title by WP standards, and that "presence in reliable sources" (largely in scare quotes!) does not equal "presence in a significant majority of reliable sources." Now that this has been pointed out, would you like to comment again? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We had that discussion already and I reject the reasoning. I'm against using a made up title to be more PC and that position is consistent with WP standards. Hekerui (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a case where Wikipedia's standards support the title you deride as "PC" - I've already referred you to WP:POVTITLE, which requires a significant majority of RS using the term in order to surmount ordinary POV rules. I hope you'll read the policy and realize why it applies, but in the meantime, I'll open a requested move. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move April 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I'll add that some future adjustments may be needed to address the scope. While there is some discussion about adding US in some way, other countries are linked here from at least one template. So what the scope is and what it should be may affect additional name changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Defense of marriage amendment → State amendments banning same-sex unions – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) The title is hopelessly POV, obviously, and the article itself notes that this is the name used by proponents of the amendments. WP:POVTITLE, which would cover these cases, does not apply here because the idiom is not used by a "significant majority of English-language reliable sources." (Once you eliminate mentions of the titles of individual amendments, which obviously don't count as the source using the phrase, and uses of the phrase in scare quotes which indicate that the source does not endorse the term, the results are far from a "significant majority.") I have proposed "State amendments banning same-sex unions," which is a little clunky, but descriptive and neutral. While the phrase itself is not, as far as I can tell, used by a lot of sources, many sources use phrases like "amendment to ban same-sex marriage," "amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions," "constitutional ban on gay marriage," etc. etc. indicating that the description of these amendments as such is adopted by reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per the discussion above. The original title is a common name and reasonable search term - it can be sourced and "commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment" per WP:POVTITLE. The proposed name is ambiguous and not descriptive ("union") and fails the "significant majority of English-language reliable sources" criterion listed as a reason to replace the original title. The name for these amendments comes from the same source as Defense of Marriage Act and the groups pushing for this act also pushed for state versions, in law and amendment - I think the name is the most clear and descriptive we have. Hekerui (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  The proposed title is actually less ambiguous and more descriptive than the current title, because the proposed title clearly addresses the fact of how "marriage" is to be "defended": banning same-sex unions. And it is same-sex unions, because in many cases these amendments do not only address marriage or simply ban same-sex marriage, but they also try to stop recognition of a variety of legal same-sex unions. Quigley (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Ng.j (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that WP:POVTITLE, the policy I referred to above, is designed specifically to guide cases where the title is common but not neutral? It would need to be found that a significant majority of reliable sources use this term - or indeed, per the very policy you cited, that it is the term used most frequently. As I said, try Google News. Omit cases where the term is introduced in scare quotes or with "so-called." Omit press releases, letters to the editor, and other unreliable sources. Omit instances where the term occurs in a quote. Omit proper titles, like Nebraska's amendment. How many have you got left? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly support; the current title is horrendously POV. I would need to see overwhelming evidence that it is by far the most common term in both legislation and common discourse before even considering it to be an acceptable title for a neutral encyclopedia. If any policy or guideline supports this POV title, the policy or guideline needs to be changed. Period. Powers ^T 02:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you about legislation. The Defense of Marriage Act has its article titled so because that is the proper name of the legislation, and specific articles on other specific pieces of legislation can also be titled by their proper names. I mean, there's not much that can be done there! But as a common noun, it would be improper (laws are titled by their proponents and these titles are likely to be POV, and we shouldn't artificially generalize). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is variation among titles for specific legislative acts. Some acts are better known by their bill number; Arizona SB 1070 instead of Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Other acts are best known by their sponsor; Cable Act instead of Married Women's Independent Nationality Act. The key is that the unofficial name is commonly accepted. Quigley (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's true. Perhaps I could be more clear: such articles could be named after the law's title (ie. it is not a POV problem), but don't have to be. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: "Defense of marriage amendment" is not the common name, and is furthermore grossly biased. A redirect will suffice, if, as Hekerui asserts, that the current title is a "reasonable search term". Quigley (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Current title adequately describes the article, proposed title is ambiguous per Hekerui. It also is consistent with DOMA. Lionel (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

DOMA is a proper name, and "the title adequately describes the subject" has got to be the weakest argument anyone has put forth. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My argument doesn't matter. What does matter? Is your argument strong enough to generate consensus. And it isn't. Lionel (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been barely twelve hours since I opened the move request. We'll see. I would point out, though, that arguments do in fact matter, and I suggest that pursuant to this, you make a policy-based argument, rather than anything that paraphrases to "these amendments totally defend marriage guys." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That characterization of yours is very unfair. Please, get off that soapbox. Hekerui (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. While I think POVTITLE outweighs COMMONNAME, which you and Ng.j have cited, COMMONNAME is at least a policy-based argument; "'defense of marriage' is an accurate descriptor," not so much. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this has nothing to do with Australia. Which state is this about? Victoria? New South Wales? 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest Ammendments to U.S. states defining marriage. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's less POV, but it also doesn't reflect, for example, the fact that many of these also ban civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other non-marriage unions (and none "define" marriage beyond banning same-sex marriage). Your observation about specifying U.S. makes sense, but I would phrase it rather as "U.S. state amendments banning same-sex unions." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Common name. - Haymaker (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • • Are you aware that WP:POVTITLE, the policy I referred to above, is designed specifically to guide cases where the title is common but not neutral? It would need to be found that a significant majority of reliable sources use this term - or indeed, per the very policy you cited, that it is the term used most frequently. As I said, try Google News. Omit cases where the term is introduced in scare quotes or with "so-called." Omit press releases, letters to the editor, and other unreliable sources. Omit instances where the term occurs in a quote. Omit proper titles, like Nebraska's amendment. How many have you got left? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Got any evidence, or just a bald assertion? Powers ^T 12:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I think people might be confusing this with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I haven't heard "defense of marriage" used as a WP:COMMONNAME for state amendments, so it makes sense to use a more descriptive, more recognizable, more neutral term. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything in the article that suggests this is about states, rather it is about US subnational divisions frequently called states or commonwealths, instead of states, entities also called "countries". 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Hence my suggesting above that "U.S. state amendments..." instead of "State amendments..." be considered. If this change were adopted, would you support the proposed move? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. Clearly, nobody is "defending" marriage through these amendments, but rather attempting to impose their beliefs on society. That's fine, but wikipedia isn't in the business of promoting a position on social issues... Hence, this WP:POVTITLE should be remedied. BelloWello (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"rather attempting to impose their beliefs on society" - please, stop the political arguments, that's not what talk page discussion is for. Hekerui (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support move although perhaps make it clearer in the title that your referring to US states. The current name is absurdly POV (although it comes across as rather tounge in cheek to me as a Brit) and is not in common usage - its used by some people on one side of the debate and it appears that it's not used by state legislators. Bob House 884 (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content removal

I restored the article to the version before any mention of "defense of marriage amendment" was scrubbed from it in order to prepare for a move. I also restored content removed without a proper discussion. Hekerui (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent revisions

As Quigley notes, there were few substantial changes - my edit consisted almost entirely of changing the POV language to conform to the new title. There was also removal of some minor redundancies. The only major change was the removal of the section on constitutional amendments in other countries. I don't think it belongs in this article: while, as "constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions," they have superficial similarities, the fact that they are on a national level and most of the article content deals with such amendments in subdivisions of nations with their own constitutions (ie. U.S. states) makes them slightly out of place. It's potentially a good topic, but I think it would have to be its own article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You merely re-deleted the content. The closing admin stated that the title is not currently U.S. specific because of some links about other countries, therefore removing content that concerns regions outside the U.S. doesn't make sense. If you want to make it U.S. specific you have to do some actual work sourcing and improving the article, which you haven't done. Hekerui (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in the paragraph directly above your comment, which hopefully you read, I didn't remove it for the sake of conformity with the title, but rather because it doesn't belong in this article. "You didn't discuss it in talk" is not a valid reason to revert, and wouldn't have been even if that statement were true - what is your objection to the removal of the content, which, as I've said, is similar only in name given that it concerns national laws and not regional laws? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My reason? How about the closing admins reason? Now you cleaned the article from foreign topics, then why the vague title? It's not specified what countries' states are meant, it's not clear that the amendments don't band SSUs but their legal recognition, which is a huge difference. I can find no interest in improving the content beyond changing a title to something that's obviously nonsense. If you want me to take of it, say so, otherwise contribute something other than pressing the undo button when someone objects to unexplained removal of content. Hekerui (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look over "What links here," it appears to be all U.S.-related pages in spite of what the admin said, so neither you nor zie should have any problem with moving the article to "U.S. state...." as I suggested during the move discussion and removing the irrelevant section. And, as I said elsewhere, this "but they only ban legal recognition of same-sex unions!" is a silly argument; no one interprets "Maine bans same-sex marriage" to mean "Maine says you can't have a legally nonbinding marriage in a synagogue." And you should be the last person to be complaining about me only undoing other editors' changes. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Move request for better name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

---

U.S. state amendments banning same-sex unions → U.S. state amendments banning recognition of same-sex unions – This change would bring consistency, for the article should be named like all the articles that discuss both marriage and civil unions and other legal arrangements (see articles in Category:Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States). This also corrects the title to avoid confusion. Hekerui (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: unnecessarily unwieldy, no one understands "ban on same-sex unions" to mean anything other than "ban on recognition of same-sex unions." The "recognition of" is implicit in the current title. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"ban on interracial relationship" I understand as a ban on its existence, not its recognition, and this title is the same thing. "no one understands X as Y" is presumptuous when not substantiated with evidence. Hekerui (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This is presumably why the language refers to "unions" and not to "relationships," which would indeed have that connotation. Next! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Saying "two people in an interracial union" or "two people in an interracial relationship" is the same thing. Hekerui (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be your own idiosyncratic interpretation rather than the actual meaning or usage of either term. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: When a law is said to "ban same-sex marriage" or to "ban same-sex unions", especially in the United States, the phrase is understood as the law banning legal recognition of that marriage or other union. This phrase is used all over Wikipedia and the sources that Wikipedia refers to. Certain articles need the "recognition of" disambiguator: clearly, "Category:Same-sex relationships in the United States" is ambiguous because it could refer to articles about the marriages of specific individuals, or it could refer to legal recognition in general. But "U.S. state amendments banning same-sex unions" has no such ambiguity. Anyway, the distinction is not so salient for opponents of same-sex marriage; the Texas GOP platform advocates making it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Because state proposals banning recognition of same-sex marriage are likewise bans on the performance of same-sex marriages, to limit the title to only "recognition of" would be incorrect. Quigley (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex union is a much broader and vague term that includes same-sex relationships, and those cannot be legally voided and commitment ceremonies for other kinds of union are still legal. Hawaii specifically excempts non-marriage solemnization ceremonies from its ban on SSM. Where same-sex marriages are constitutionally banned though, they are legally non-existent. This lack of clarity in the word is why I proposed the name change. Hekerui (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, "same-sex union" is a subset of "same-sex relationship," not the other way around, and I've already addressed your argument that the current title is somehow ambiguous. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: As already stated in previous threads, recognition of some sort is implicit in the word "union" and that is the language that reliable sources use. This isn't terribly complicated. Let's stick with plain language. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support: What do the ammendments do? The ammendments define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Therefore the ammendments not only ban same-sex marriage, but they also ban 3 or 4 people marrying together, or a person marrying his pet. Therefore, since the ammendments do not specifically ban same-sex marriage, but simply define how the states will define and recognize marriage, the title of the article should reflect what the ammendments do. Rodchen (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your reasoning isn't really valid here, the question is whether inserting the words 'recognition of' is justified in terms of legal accuracy and readability, perhaps you should reconsider your response? Bob House 884 (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose a 'same-sex union' is used here as a catchall term for legal relationships between same-sex couples which bear some resemblance to 'traditional' marriages. Within the confines of a specific state it would be virtually tautologous to refer to such a union as 'legally recognised' and a contradiction to have an 'unrecognised union'. The federal dimension I think does give some traction to the title because it does become possible for one state to say 'we refuse to legally recognise any civil unions from other states' - however I'm inclined to feel that this is a secondary issue to the main business of stopping such unions happening within state borders. I think that it's questionable whether this move adds any value at all, and if it does I'm not sure it's justified from an editorial point of view. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article move

Moving this from "U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions" to "Former U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions" didn't make any sense. The amendments are to my knowledge still part of the various state constitutions, they're just unenforcable. It's also unnecessary verbage in general. -LtNOWIS (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type with U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions

I'm not seeing a need for these two articles to be separate. Both are not incredibly long, and one being merged into the other would better enforce the main topic of these articles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Hekerui (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. I'm also not convinced that we need to have the language of each bill in the main article (although I do think the division by "what exactly did it ban" remains useful), since each bill appears to have its own article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I boldly went ahead. The article could use some polish but looks cohesive to me. One thing that's left is the featured list status of the previous article, I think it'll lapse automatically, and some information on 2020 Nevada Question 2, although updating the graphics could wait until the vote was held. Hekerui (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wording

I removed "and/or Constitutional Recognition of Same-Sex Unions" from section 4.5 because it's this effect of the repeal is not in the scope of the list and it makes the listing less clear. Hekerui (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Graphic

File:Marriage amendment animation.gif has lots of value for this article despite not having been updated for Nevada yet. I requested an update by the creator on 6 November 2020 without response. Unless the person removing it can update the page it does not make sense to remove the animation. Hekerui (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Repealed amendments

2002 Nevada Question 2 cannot be listed as an amendment that recognized same-sex marriage. The wording of this section makes sense because of the article subject. Hekerui (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Title Change

I believe the title should be changed to "U.S. state constitutional amendments regarding same-sex unions." This way the page would be able to list 1)Amendments that were repealed 2)Amendments that specifically protect same sex marriage. Do others agree? KroyCollab2 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the article subject allows coverage of changes to these types of U.S. state constitutional amendments. Hekerui (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Changes in June

The edits in June made the article much less visually accessible and clear and removed the relevant maps, so I restored the article in its form preceding an overhaul by User:Gengeros. In addition, plenty of external links have been introduced into the article body contrary to the content guideline, see WP:NOELBODY. Hekerui (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I added some changes back, but keep the article in it's form with relevant maps and sections? Gengeros (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You should refrain from copyright violation first of all, I see content was made inaccessible and you were blocked. Otherwise an edit is good if it improves an article. Hekerui (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed a lot of the content recently added because it belongs to the individual state same-sex marriage Wiki pages or is redundant on this very page and not relevant for this page's topic. Inflating word count in an article does not necessarily make it better. Hekerui (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Changes in November 2024

I updated the page while restoring an earlier version. The changes in between were redundant, putting information from the list into text form. Hekerui (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Added section - "Constitution implicitly recognizes same-sex marriage". Should this be included?

SVG was updated by user GKarastergios regarding Amendment 1 since Amendment 1 states that you cannot deny rights of someone based on sexual orientation. The SVG file language is their state constitution "Constitution implicitly recognizes same-sex marriage." The color is light blue on the map. Should a section be added for situations like this? KroyCollab2 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)