Template talk:Same-sex unions in the United States

This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

United States

This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

Archives

/Archive

Civil unions recognized but no longer available

What should we do with states that legalized same-sex marriage, and consequently phase out civil unions, i.e. they are no longer available/performed but still recognized (until a certain date or indefinitely)? This is the case for Delaware, soon for Rhode Island and probably more to follow. I added a note for Delaware to be consistent with showing states where same-sex marriage is recognized but not performed, but User:Ron 1987 removed Delaware. I just think we should be consistent. SPQRobin (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same as we did for Maine, Maryland and Washington State. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is... leave them in the template? But their situation is different in that (afaik) their domestic partnerships are still available. SPQRobin (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government

The reference to the federal government's recognition of SSM is more appropriately placed in the 'Same-sex marriage legalized' section, as opposed to the 'Same-sex marriage recognized but not performed' section. I think the implicit assumption of the 'SSM recognized but not performed' section is that any jurisdiction listed there has the authority to issue marriage licenses (whether opposite- or same-sex). Because the federal government does not have this authority--and any change to that seems highly unlikely--I think it's more accurate to list in the 'SSM legalized' section.Ronnotronald (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the federal government does have the right to legalise same-sex marriage, through two avenues: a Supreme Court decision that most likely declares marriage bans unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, or a law forbidding marriage bans that exercises Congress's power under the same amendment. The decisions of Perry and Windsor are carefully worded to mandate federal recognition but not federal legalisation for the meanwhile. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Court section

Maybe it should be more broad and cover Kentucky (stayed but only about out-of-state recognition, not licensing) and Ohio (Death certficate recognition only, being appealed but IIRC still in effect).--occono (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana

I changed Indiana's listing here to marriage, but the link remains for now at Recognition of same-sex unions in Indiana. Should we redirect that? Bearian (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utah

Um ... in a second decision today, Utah also has marriage equality! Bearian (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado

very shortly

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section to template

I was wondering what everyone thought of adding a section where the gay marriage bans were upheld. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the bans on Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. 2602:306:372B:CAC9:347A:B716:B0BE:D6FA (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC) (Mike in Missouri)[reply]

Makes sense.--occono (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation

This template it a little messy right now. I feel like it would be easier to navigate if the above section didn't have so much stuff in it for one.★Trekker (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now a ton of redirects and red links in the template, which I don't think is an improvement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no redlinks. I'm pretty much using it as of now to make redirects to make into articles so I can move it all to a separate navbox. Feel free to remove the redirects now that I'm done making them.★Trekker (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]