This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The count of states is incorrect.
I can't edit this myself because I don't know which count is wrong. The first paragraph says twelve states allow SSM.
the second paragraph has the following line:
While several jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage through court rulings, legislative action, and popular vote,[3][4] nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 prohibit it in their constitutions.
Either the nine or the 30 is wrong - because adding 12 to them will get 51 states. I also think that if you say twelve and nine, you should spell out thirty to be consistent. 72.74.136.148 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Jon Welch
- The count of nine prohibiting by statute does seem that it will soon be incorrect. By my count, there are only six left in this category: Hawaii, Wyoming, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. This is likely a result of the recent changes to the law in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware. However, Delaware's change is not effective until July 1, and Rhode Island and Minnesota's laws change Aug. 1. The difference lies in the exact wording - those three states have legalized SSM, as the first paragraph states, but they still prohibit it by statute until the legalization goes into effect. Luckily, the problem will soon go away as the laws enter into force. At the moment, there are 30 constitutional bans, six statute bans, nine with legal SSM, three with legalization not yet in effect, one with just unions but no ban and one with no law at all, making 50.
- As for the numbers, I'd actually argue to use the numeral for 12, per AP style, for the sake of consistency, but I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is. AP calls for spelling out one through nine and numerals for 10 and up. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Guidelines on this are at WP:NUMERAL, and they give us flexibility in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
My edit was rejected incorrectly! The number of states banning SSM by statute are 6, not 9, cause 3 of such states already passed SSM legislation. If in mentioned 3 states (recently passed SSM legislation) the ban was contitutional, it wouldn't be possible to pass such laws. Hence, the quantity of states whith constitutional ban is 30 and states with statute ban is now 6. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The recently passed laws in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware have not yet gone into effect. While SSM will be legal in these states soon, as legalization measures have been passed, it is still prohibited by statute at this time. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Research
Two editors, with differing povs, resolved a sentence which now reads: "It is the first court decision to cite the "New Family Structure" research of Mark Regnerus, which research has been discredited by the American Sociological Society."
We have a long term problem, it seems to me, with all "research" into matters on family type issues involving SSM. Unlike tracking individuals and finding out about them later on a single (maybe objective) issue, we instead have a (or multiple) researchers trying to track a "family," which in modern America does not often consist of the same two parents through a child's history. At least one criticism of the research is that some of the SSM existed for a short time. Well, so do non-SSM!
When I have asked in the past, editors replied that there was "all sorts" or history on such matters with lots of children. I am not at all sure about this. SSM would have (in the past) wound up with children (their own from a non-SSM). How does a researcher select children, track them through 18 years and then ask for a subjective evaluation? (This is a rhetorical question).
And establishing criteria for a non-SSM "sample" to compare winds up with similar problems. So that any research which doesn't produce the results that one side or the other is looking for is "suspect" and is "widely criticized."
There are too many subjective criteria, too few subjects (!) to track, too long a time to track, too little experience with SSM with children, no standard agreement on what constitutes a "family" for research purposes. Must it persist intact for a child's time at home? Then, is that a "typical" family?
Having said this, there should be no "higher" standard IMO for SSM research than there is for any other family research. If single teens can raise children in a family for 18 years, then a single LGBT should be able to as well. The basis of the criticism above was that some LGBTs weren't together or LGBT the whole time. Actually, I think the "T" allows for that, doesn't it? Student7 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I"m having a little trouble following your concern here, both due to some awkward language but more due to not seeing how the sentences I do seem to understand apply to the sentence being quoted. You're repeatedly referring to SSM, but the Regenerus study was not about same-sex marriage. I'm not sure how "Transgendered" applies to the question of whether someone had shifted their sexual orientation. And if what you're saying is about what standards the American Sociological Society should have for research, I'm not sure how raising that on a Wikipedia talk page is going to change that, nor serve the purpose of the talk page.
- So if there's something about the article that you wish to see changed, you might to better by suggesting a specific change and saying why you want that change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how any research pertaining to "long term effects" of SSM can be conducted, using high standards, quite possibly higher than used for non-SSM. If research denying good effects of SSM is rejected, then all long term studies should be similarly rejected.
- Or both should be accepted. Different standards should not be applied because someone essentially "doesn't like it" and dreams up a reason, which may, superficially, seem valid. But would render all other long studies on all marriage invalid as well.
- There should be one standard. Not two. Student7 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Same-sex divorce
I don't have time to tackle it at the moment, but this article could use a section on the troubles with same-sex divorce due to the varying ercognitions of sch marriages within the US. Here's a usefuk source.--Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I made some additions to the US section of Divorce of same-sex couples. I believe what I added re DE and MN were innovations not found in earlier SSM legislation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)