This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Same-sex marriage in Vermont article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This sentence is false: On April 2, the House passed the bill 95-52, a few votes short of what would be needed to override a veto.
April 2nd was the second reading of the bill. It wasn't passed until the third reading of the bill which happened the next day, April 3 and the vote on that day was 94-52.
In Vermont and many other northeastern states a bill must be "passed" three times before it is actually passed.
Source: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/journal/hj090403.pdf , page 22
Correct, it passed April 3. Hekerui ( talk) 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.124.121 ( talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's hold off on that for now. Same sex marriage won't become a reality until September. Czolgolz ( talk) 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It is proposed to merge the articles on Same-sex marriage in Vermont and Civil unions in Vermont into a new (to be created) article called Recognition of gay unions in Vermont. In order not to prejudge the result of the discussion I haven't created this article yet. Other suggestions for the name of the destination article are welcome.
This is part of a general proposed merger of the "Same-sex marriage in..." with the "Civil unions in..." series. Any general points can be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#"Same-sex marriage in ..." v. "Civil unions in the ...".
In essence these articles deal with the same subject matter and unified articles could deal more comprehensively with the topic and avoid unnecessary repetition. The "Controversy" section of the Civil unions in Vermont already talks about Same-sex marriage. Caveat lector 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL IN VERMONT. Perhaps, this article should be renamed "Same Sex marriage in Vermont", and then provide the historical background including the civil union info at the bottom. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.124.121 ( talk) 15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm here. Since I reverted a change that was made without explanation, I'm not sure what to say here. All I can do is wait for that explanation, and when it doesn't come, revert again. TruthIIPower ( talk) 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As it stood before, the article came down pretty hard on those opposed to same sex marriage (I'm a hard core proponent of SSM). This is an encyclopedia, and we must be neutral. Czolgolz ( talk) 03:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"and the first [state] to offer a civil union status encompassing the same legal rights and responsibilities of marriage." In practice, there are precisely zero differences between the ideas of inclusive domestic partnerships and inclusive civil unions except in name only. In California, domestic partnerships are absolutely identical to marriage except for (1) the name, and (2) certain requirements to enter into one. Can we get a citation here? GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The article has discrepant information about the number of states that had same-sex marriage before Vermont. The prolog says four states (MA, CT, IA, CA) whereas the "Marriage Legislation" section says Vermont was the fourth, implying that only three states had legalized same-sex marriage before.
It may be that there is a confusion here about CA, which made same-sex illegal later by constitutional amendment (since rescinded by the courts). But this should not affect the wording of the "Marriage Legislation" section...VT would still be the fifth to legalize and the first to do it by voluntary legislation. if it is the CA situation that led to this wording, the wording should be changed to reflect what actually happened. Bill Jefferys ( talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Same-sex marriage in Vermont article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This sentence is false: On April 2, the House passed the bill 95-52, a few votes short of what would be needed to override a veto.
April 2nd was the second reading of the bill. It wasn't passed until the third reading of the bill which happened the next day, April 3 and the vote on that day was 94-52.
In Vermont and many other northeastern states a bill must be "passed" three times before it is actually passed.
Source: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/journal/hj090403.pdf , page 22
Correct, it passed April 3. Hekerui ( talk) 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.124.121 ( talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's hold off on that for now. Same sex marriage won't become a reality until September. Czolgolz ( talk) 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It is proposed to merge the articles on Same-sex marriage in Vermont and Civil unions in Vermont into a new (to be created) article called Recognition of gay unions in Vermont. In order not to prejudge the result of the discussion I haven't created this article yet. Other suggestions for the name of the destination article are welcome.
This is part of a general proposed merger of the "Same-sex marriage in..." with the "Civil unions in..." series. Any general points can be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#"Same-sex marriage in ..." v. "Civil unions in the ...".
In essence these articles deal with the same subject matter and unified articles could deal more comprehensively with the topic and avoid unnecessary repetition. The "Controversy" section of the Civil unions in Vermont already talks about Same-sex marriage. Caveat lector 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL IN VERMONT. Perhaps, this article should be renamed "Same Sex marriage in Vermont", and then provide the historical background including the civil union info at the bottom. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.124.121 ( talk) 15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm here. Since I reverted a change that was made without explanation, I'm not sure what to say here. All I can do is wait for that explanation, and when it doesn't come, revert again. TruthIIPower ( talk) 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As it stood before, the article came down pretty hard on those opposed to same sex marriage (I'm a hard core proponent of SSM). This is an encyclopedia, and we must be neutral. Czolgolz ( talk) 03:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"and the first [state] to offer a civil union status encompassing the same legal rights and responsibilities of marriage." In practice, there are precisely zero differences between the ideas of inclusive domestic partnerships and inclusive civil unions except in name only. In California, domestic partnerships are absolutely identical to marriage except for (1) the name, and (2) certain requirements to enter into one. Can we get a citation here? GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The article has discrepant information about the number of states that had same-sex marriage before Vermont. The prolog says four states (MA, CT, IA, CA) whereas the "Marriage Legislation" section says Vermont was the fourth, implying that only three states had legalized same-sex marriage before.
It may be that there is a confusion here about CA, which made same-sex illegal later by constitutional amendment (since rescinded by the courts). But this should not affect the wording of the "Marriage Legislation" section...VT would still be the fifth to legalize and the first to do it by voluntary legislation. if it is the CA situation that led to this wording, the wording should be changed to reflect what actually happened. Bill Jefferys ( talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)