Talk:Respect for Marriage Act

691:

will lead to federal recognition of polygamy. Somin says, “ If anything, Section 4 could be criticized for deferring to the states too much. Imagine if Utah or some other state decides to grant legal recognition to polygamous marriages. Section 4 would require the federal government to do the same... Such hypotheticals don't much bother me...Regardless, this slippery slope concern is is not a constitutional federalism problem. It's a matter of policy.” Somin goes out of his way to disclaim this scenario as a hypothetical, slippery slope situation, and including this claim in the intro gives more weight to the claim than Somin does. The only other sources that are even talking about this are a few opinion pieces published by the Washington Examiner, the Heritage Foundation, and 1819 News. It seems like Somin’s analysis is being misused to make an extraordinary claim about something that politicians aren’t even considering.

1595:

source material: the various opinions of notable people and experts about this primary source material. The article says almost nothing about the arguments in favour or against it. The details of the procedures, the fact that it was delayed and things like that are not really opinions about the act. So, perhaps polygamy was not central in the discussions in favour and against it, but I cannot tell, because the article is not based on secondary sources (in favour and against it) that provide opinions about the act.

666:

happen, it does not get any media attention. It actually does happen now and then in the state legislature with which I am most familiar (New Jersey), but usually only when there is a "revision" process for a particular area of the statutes and they clean out the unenforceable statutes. Even then, I don't think this is done uniformly. However, I have no real problem with your edit to my edit, I think it still gets the point across that the Respect for Marriage Act probably will not be heard from again.

344: 323: 2076:: My understanding of the situation is that it's very clear to every one that we should not ask the same question for the same material with the same sources again. There are no problematic editors here. There is no need to worry about that. But, "UNDUE" is relative to the weight given to the argument (or point of view) in the article and to the importance given to it in the sources that are known thus far. These things are not frozen and not all possibilities have been discussed. 841:. The last link states there there is "momentum in consensually non-monogamous (CNM) communities — who engage in multiple relationships with the consent of all partners involved — and structurally diverse families across the country to organize locally and pursue legal recognition of their relationships". Nor is this only a community-level issue, since the Massachusetts state's Attorney General issued an opinion in support of the bylaw in Arlington, Massachusetts.-- 2366:

certainly not material for a ban. Assume good faith applies very much here. It's not admins that are needed at this time, but more editors interested in the subject, because this would only help to create more balance. But editors will not come if there are talks of ban without any serious evidence of continuous disruptive edits. This being said, you might see things that I do not see. I am not judging you. I am only responding in terms of what I see.

354: 1573:. I stand by what I said when I started this section yesterday. And there certainly shouldn’t be a whole section just for a legal scholar’s thought experiment, one vague sentence from a book, and a handful of pundits’ slippery slope arguments. There are far more opinion pieces nd news stories about this legislation that don’t mention polygamy, and no one is trying to include those. Why the fixation on including polygamy in this article? 243: 222: 253: 473: 455: 1702:, you can choose to ignore any comments you'd like, which is your prerogative. I'm simply reminding you about the policy on verifiability, which is "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You will likely not achieve that consensus if you will not discuss procedural comments, but how you go about building consensus is again your decision. Cheers! -- 1201:, my belief that the discussion of polygamy as it relates to the Respect for Marriage Act is a fringe view, not polygamy in general. I agree with your second sentence: "there is insufficient material to suggest that polygamy legalization is a major political position and directly connected to this US-legislative topic sufficient to warrant inclusion." You put into words what I was trying to convey. -- 483: 2654: 944:

policies have little recognition, at least outside the community. As for Utah legalizing polygamy, it's important to note that Utah constitution bans recognition of polygamous unions. The history of Utah's polygamy legal status is complicated: in 2013 a court struck down parts of Utah's law dealing with polygamous cohabitation, but this was overturned in 2016, re-criminalizing polygamy as a felony

191: 2388:). The material is obviously contentious, was excluded with the RfC, and ONUS has been pointed out multiple times. If the editor is not willing to listen to community consensus or try to gain new consensus before adding back, I think a topic ban would be completely appropriate. I am not the arbiter of those, of course, but I'm happy to open the discussion if the disruptive editing continues. -- 1292:

second is only about the organization of the content. My answer to the first question is if a reference to polygamy is one of the main arguments of a significant group, then neutrality requires that the point of view of this group be included and attributed. I don't know what is the case, because I don't know the subject, but I will continue to follow the discussion.

636:. I added a couple of paragraphs about the Supreme Court decision and put the entire article in the past tense. Some of the pre-existing writing is still a little rough, but that is a project for the future. The article now makes clear that this proposal is a historical artifact that has been overtaken by the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act. 2581: 629: 793:

facts. There’s a big difference between this legislation’s effect on existent state laws recognizing same-sex and interracial marriage, and a purely hypothetical situation in which Utah legalizes polygamy, which they are currently not trying to do. To put the two claims next to each other in the intro creates a false equivalence.

1135:. The article also mentions the polyamorous domestic partnerships in the communities in Massachusetts. So things have changed since then. I agree that the book alone would not be significant coverage, but think there is enough altogether from the other sources, which I found on google. Several google searches for reference: 2133:

Mmm, I think this is where I leave you, as I am not involved in this discussion, I simply closed the RFC. I would advise caution with the material in the RFC as it was controversial, and there was a consensus that the inclusion was not appropriate. I am sorry if you feel that my comments are creating

2090:

Indeed, there may be other possibilities that weren't discussed. I'm not accusing any editors of problematic behavior. I do think that there's a pretty clear consensus here that the section proposed was "undue weight" due to "quality" and "quantity" of sourcing. You are free to propose an alternative

1882:

If anyone feels inclined to try and get me punished over this RfC, before you go and file a complaint against me, please keep this in mind: At the time I started the RfC I thought of the four accounts or IPs who from their edits and edit summaries were more or less supportive of adding one line about

1852:

The proposed question is simply should the article present the arguments in favour and against the act. It does not mention "section". I would like to add that it's not a rhetorical question. It could be that editors really think that it's not possible to do that, because even sources avoid covering

665:

Good practice though it may be, I am not under the impression that Congress generally bothers to repeal statutes that have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I do not pore through the Congressional Record every day, but my guess is that this occurs very rarely, if ever. If it does

2351:, I'm not sure why you are so adamant information on polygamy appears in this article. It was discussed at length in the RfC, and it is completely UNDUE, as many editors have stated above. If the information is added back, I will be requesting a topic ban from this information and article for you. -- 2054:

Yes, in this case, I think the RFC was probably not necessary or helpful, but it was not overly harmful. Just an extra layer of process which could have continued in a freeform discussion. Anyway, the result is clear. You may still continue to discuss the matter, but there's clearly a consensus that

1812:

Not at all. I have been summoned by bot. I have absolutely no interest in pushing one way or another. The new question that I propose shows it, because it does not push one way or another. I am just here to help. I would rather say that it's your comment that raises suspicions about your motivation.

1643:

I need useful content related information based on sources. "I agree with ...", "... until a consensus ..." are political or procedural comments that do not help me. The statement "polygamy legalization is not directly connected to this topic" is content related, but it must be discussed in terms of

1594:

But something does not add up with this article. One would obviously expect a lot of criticisms and arguments against this act, but there is nothing. The section that gives the text is clearly primary source material. Primary source material is fine, but the main content should be based on secondary

869:

I believe the line, which now is in the lede, should be remove. This is speculation from a non-academic source. For now, I added attribution to make clear that it is the opinion of a journalist and not something actually in the text of the law or opinion among the judiciary. But again, it should be

1917:

In hindsight, your question is what the RfC should have been in the first place. This was my first RfC; in the past when I've thought about starting RfCs, I was too afraid that I'd get a complaint filed against me for starting one. Thank you for evaluating my comments, your opinion could help deter

1321:

The concern that the bill could require federal recognition of “marriages” of more than two persons is not far-fetched, as at least three cities in Massachusetts have already legally enshrined so-called polyamorous domestic partnerships. By making federal recognition of such relationships automatic

1291:

I was summoned by a bot (because I offered to help in RfCs). I don't know much about the subject. I see two different questions: "are the points of view expressed notorious and pertinent?" and "should there be a section for these points of view". The first question is more important in my view. The

772:

problem. That is, the bill would still be constitutional in the event that it legalized polygamy. The weight of the legalization issue to constitutionality is not the same as the weight of the legalization issue to the wikipedia article, or in bill/Act as a whole. So this is an issue of equivalence

1356:

This is exactly the kind of analysis that must be done. I wait to see if someone can find notable persons that you have not found, then that's it: if there is no notable person or a representative of a notable group expressing the view of the group in a reliable source, then it has no place in WP.

710:

from a decade ago, "polygamy" and derivations are used nine times, mostly by one of the expert witnesses, and also by one of the Representatives. So there is some awareness among the legislators that DOMA relates to polygamy, and that it is not implausible that a bill repealing the DOMA would also

690:

I think the line in the intro about Ilya Somin’s analysis that this law could lead to federal recognition of polygamy should be removed. If you read his piece, its very apparent that he’s using a hypothetical to illustrate the broadness of the law’s language. He isn’t actually saying that this law

610:

Should this article be placed in past tense with a historical note? Because Obergefell v. Hodges ruled that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right, DOMA was effectively annulled, and therefore ROMA became moot as a way to supersede DOMA. The most recent event described in this article was in

2326:

Also, the recent content satisfies Fringe, because I have been unable to find any reliable sources on either side of the political spectrum which say that the text of the bill forbids marriages of three or more people. The opposing view to Gallagher's parsing of the text isn't that the bill can't

1902:

I have no idea what reasons people could have to file a complaint about you. I feel you contributed to the RfC in a very nice manner. I don't think I will take the lead on any thing here either, simply because I do not know the subject enough. In fact, maybe the question that I mentioned (without

1662:

is on editors wanting to add information to the article to gain consensus about topics before making changes. Right now, at least with this RfC, the consensus seems to be there is not agreement for a polygamy section. My comment is stating just what it says: I agree with the IP with reverting the

1500:

I was trying to trace who exactly was producing the show, and it was the only mention I could find for it on wikipedia. It incidentally discussed Real America's Voice in distinction to the other media outlet, so I linked to the part of the article discussing the difference. Why are you editing my

1778:

There is an almost unanimous, if not unanimous, agreement that there should not be a section focusing on polygamy. I don't think it's useful to continue to collect mere votes on that issue. If the author of the RfC agrees, I propose that he closes the RfC without creating a new one immediately.

1341:

I also looked for supporters citing polygamy or polyamory, and found one non-notable person. Also there was a vague statement from a Representative from Utah. (All four Representatives from Utah voted for it.) He worded his statement in a way that was ambiguous about whether he was talking about

792:

When Utah legalizes polygamy and it’s federally recognized under this legislation, then it should go in the introduction. Until then, it’s just one legal scholar’s opinion on what a purely hypothetical situation might look like. He’s predicting how a hypothetical might turn, but he’s not stating

2608:

The lead states that a "strong majority" of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage. However the polling data provided later in the article has hovered around 60% for the past few years. This is not and should not be interpreted as a significant majority. It's a definite majority but hardly

2365:

We do not have enough evidence here to ban anyone. What I see is that Epiphyllumlover is willing to discuss and that he took into account what was said. He seems not to be aware of all rules, such as the rule that the lead should be a summary of content in the body of the article, but that is

2257:

stated that the text of the legislation would require federal recognition for marriages with more than two individuals, should someday a state legalize marriages between three or more people. He thought this could possibly happen someday, and had voted against the bill. A representative for the

1932:

I don't think anyone needs to be concerned about a complaint or improper conduct. An RFC is not improper. You are entitled to bring an RFC that fails (to a point), though now that you understand the issues better and the present consensus of editors, try to learn from that. It is OK to learn by

2332:

In response to "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", I am willing to move it to a new section for "Mike Gallagher comments", "Congressional comments and responses", "Support and opposition", or something else that might be

2114:

You speak to me as if I was an editor interested in pushing a view in the article, but my concern here is only to make sure that there is no attitude that discourages discussions in this PdD. We should not warn editors regarding a specific rule in advance, because there are so many rules, some

1886:

Dominic Mayers, if you want to start a new discussion on a broader topic, you have my support in doing so, but I don't see myself starting a new discussion at the moment. I don't see myself taking such an assertive lead in the hypothetical new discussion as I did in the RfC, but I would try to

1096:

can technically be included doesn't mean it should be. This section gives undue weight to a fringe view. I can't say that I've seen "polygamy legalization" in any of the mainstream coverage I've seen about this bill, and it gives prominence to a fringe view. The blog source and the book source

943:

polygamy, that is polygamous cohabitation even in the absence of marriage (as a misdemeanor). While in practice polygamous cohabitation itself is virtually never prosecuted, the prohibition is relevant for public policy such as recognition of polygamous unions, meaning that any local community

2039:

I prefer to speak of the expected effect of the RfC on the discussion rather than to speak of the expected effect of the past discussion on the RfC. The expected effect of the RfC is, of course, to add more ingredients to the discussion, some times, even to help restart a stuck discussion by

2006:

yes, this is also what I wrote in one of my comments above. My question was about whether you imply by that that the discussion stops when the RfC starts. I am pretty sure that you did not mean that and you might wonder why I would think that, but I like when these things are said explicitly.

1829:

Regarding the latter suggestion, it's much too broad. Sections which are just "for" and "against" are usually better avoided, but of course we include various perspectives of advocates and critics. There wouldn't really be any disagreement on that -- it's just a matter of which ones, based on

2134:

a bad feeling or muddying the waters as that is not my intention. The point of FRINGE might have to do with amplifying a perspective that actually isn't held by many people or reflected in many sources. I'll leave it up to the involved editors to decide if that is useful advice. Best wishes.

1609:

I would be okay with swapping out the section on polygamy with a section that covers all of the support/opposition to the bill, with a roughly equal word count for each side's arguments/arguers. Polygamy/polyamory would be part of it, but not most of it. Earlier today, I made a step in that

2152:

I am not that much involved in the discussion. Yes, I participated, but did not take position. It might only be that we have the same purpose, making sure that things go well, but focused on different aspects. In my case, my concern was that a good discussion can happen if needed without

1878:

I hadn't seen this until now. Looks like it is already closed, which I do not contest. I'm pretty sure this article will be less controversial after the Senate has decided on it. Maybe then would be a better opportunity to work on this article. Less controversy means more time writing it.

1628:

I agreee with 2603 reverting that addition. I'm not sure why you are intent on adding polygamist information when it seems to be polygamy legalization is not directly connected to this topic. I don't think you should be adding it back until a consensus has been reached in this discussion.

930:

that he has made to several articles related (directly or indirectly) to polygamy in the US. The editor is implying through his edits and tone something on the lines of "look, polygamy is being legalized in the US!!!". This is based on Utah which has "decriminalized" polygamy (not exactly

1663:

addition. I think the polygamy discussion is giving undue weight for a tangentially related subject, as other editors have stated as well. If you are not sure what a consensus is (saying that doesn't help you), then you likely should not be adding information to a contentious article. --

650:

It would still be good practice for the legislative branch to remove unenforceable statutory provisions, thus RFMA is not entirely historical. Ih slightly reworded the paragraph to that end. I guess we can see again in the next Congress whether it will be re-introduced then.

1519:

When I said "Removing that now", I was talking about the mention of Real America's Voice on the unrelated page sourced to PRN Newswire, not your response. Editing other editors' responses is not acceptable on WP, and I did not do that here. Sorry I was not clearer on that.

931:

decriminalized, since polygamy in Utah has simply been downgraded from a felony to an infraction) and on the fact that 3 communities in Massachusetts have enacted registered partnerships available for more than 2 people. It's important to point that in the US, not only is

2235:. When reading that I thought, "Why would anyone bring this to admin attention?" After the recent addition espousing fringe commentary on the subject, however, I'm seeing where administrator action may be needed (perhaps a topic ban?). What are other editor's thoughts? -- 2315:, citing a legislator parsing the text of legislation is not that. Also, Gallagher specifically rejected slippery slope concerns; he doesn't believe in the slippery slope concerns like some conservatives do. Instead of slippery slope, he was looking at 1779:

Instead, he should close the RfC and simply ask the question in the PdD "Should the arguments in favour and against the act be presented and why not?" The point is that we do not do a RfC before a significant discussion has already started in the PdD.

728:"reason.com" is a green colored source, which means that it is generally considered reliable. The law prof, Soomin, did not bring up the topic of polygamy as opinion, and did not appear from the article to be either opposed or in favor of it. The 1097:

discussion Mormon polygamy don't discuss the proposed bill and potential polygamy effects with sigcov; it's mentioned as one of many criticisms. The book, for instance, is just the quote included in the article. There's just not much there. --

1175:

Polyamory is not a fringe view. That said, there is insufficient material to suggest that polygamy legalization is a major political position and directly connected to this US-legislative topic sufficient to warrant inclusion.

2262:

supported the bill, stating that conservatives were making "nonsensical accusations" and that their fears "have not come to pass since marriage equality began in 2005, and there's no legitimate reason to suspect that they ever

153: 2666: 2302:...the "opinion of a journalist and not something actually in the text". This is not the opinion of a journalist, it is a statement of fact by a Representative who parsed the text of the bill and explained what it meant. 1720:

consensus requires discussions about the content and sources. It should not rely on mere votes or on editors speaking of consensus or saying "I agree with" instead of discussing content and sources to actually achieve a

1322:

upon their recognition by any state, the bill would create a massive incentive for radical activists to concentrate their efforts in a single state – further lending plausibility to this potentially disastrous scenario.

858:

I've removed that whole section as grossly undue weight. It's not what this bill is about, nor is this commentary really encyclopedic or necessary to a full understanding of the bill. Hypotheticals upon hypotheticals.

723:, the chapter on "Polygamy and the Law" states, "...that the Defense of Marriage Act be replaced with the Respect for Marriage Act, which would creat a more accepting environment for alternative marital structures." 2095:

may apply here. I closed the RFC which had a very clear consensus, but I am not making any statements as to what has to happen now. If you believe there are still issues to discuss you are certainly free to do so.

1933:

failing and make mistakes from time to time, not that this is really a mistake per se. In the future though, you might want to discuss further before going straight to an RFC. We used to say on Knowledge that "

737:

is yellow colored on the sources list, the Heritage Foundation and 1819 are not listed. If they are used, an in-text reference to the source would be best. I think some description of this topic belongs in the

732:

source is libertarian, there are also sources that would generally be considered conservative which also brought up this topic as an opinion instead of as a fact relating to what could hypothetically happen.

1455:

website, I don’t think any editor could in good conscience argue that meets sourcing requirements in any way. Their articles, which feature no bylines, include such gems as “Dr. Jill, Cry Me A River” (seen

1371:

You added "in section 4 of the bill, there is a question whether it would even be limited to two persons". This is a bit of a support, but it is still very low weight. I wait to see what else can be added.

2536: 2327:

require the federal recognition of polygamy, it is that such recognition won't happen because states won't legalize it. So Gallagher's analysis about what the text of the bill entails is not fringe.

2742: 2614: 1580: 692: 800: 2384:, but I think administrator action will be needed if the material is added back. It's been thoroughly discussed above, and at this point it seems to be just a failure to "get the point" (see 2115:

encouraging inclusions, some discouraging them and so you can create a bias in doing that. Besides, it creates a bad feeling. Please stop doing that. Honestly, I haven't even check what is

2424:, I left a note saying that I thought it would be best for everyone as a whole to postpone these proceedings until after the bill is passed, or until after Congress adjourns for August.-- 2040:

bringing new insights. As far as the expected effect of the past discussion is concerned, the first goal is of course to make the RfC even unnecessary, which I assume is what you meant.

1977:

Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page.

947:. Then, in 2020, the legislature downgraded polygamy from a felony to an infraction. But regardless of legal penalties, Utah can't legalize polygamy unless it changes its constitution. 900:

re-added material about polygamy. Also, the edits on 13:55, 24 July 2022‎ and 17:38, 24 July 2022 indicate either support or toleration for some description of polygamy in the article.

948: 2277: 384: 1316:, a Catholic archbishop known for conservative politics. He was writing due to his role as the chairman of a committee of bishops covering marriage and other topics, and he stated: 2535:

I certainly take trouble with it being called "bipartisan" in the very first sentence; I don't think there's much precedent for doing so, looking at other major bipartisan bills (

147: 401: 1226:. There are no major parties asking for polyamorous marriage in Mexico either, but they are already getting it according to this news article from July 22, 2022, from a 1074:), and it is written by a group of law professors. The Knowledge article for it states, "It is one of the most widely read and cited legal blogs in the United States".-- 696: 935:(being married to more than one person at the same time) illegal in all 50 states under state law, as well as illegal under federal law, but federal legislation - the 804: 44: 2543:) it's mentioned later in the lead. That makes intuitive sense to me: we should define a bill by its contents and effects, not by its supporters. So I've removed it. 1937:" because it can shut down productive discussion. A poll is a good way to gauge consensus or make it very explicit, but they are not necessary to achieve consensus. 1336:

The “Respect for Marriage Act,” would do... In the case of the latter, in section 4 of the bill, there is a question whether it would even be limited to two persons.

2273: 1342:

same-sex, inter-racial, or polygamous marriage. It didn't seem worth putting in the article without media attention directed towards it with respect to polygamy.--

2737: 1883:

polygamy, in addition to two words added to a list. So it seemed plausible that the proposal might succeed at the time. I wasn't trying to make people miserable.

437: 427: 1644:

sources. The question I ask is why the article does not cover the notable arguments in favour and against the act. I would need an answer in terms of sources.

1119:.) It refuted him by saying that there was no organized movement to legalize it. By now there are multiple groups, which are listed under "organizations" on 1479: 1434: 2747: 2732: 952: 391: 2757: 1254:

What's happening in Mexico is not being paralleled in the US and is unrelated to the US legislation. And I didn't say anything about political parties.

79: 2311:..."Fringe slippery slope mongering based on opinion columns and low quality sources." Now, there are better sources. A major metro daily owned by the 1887:

participate. An exception to this intention is that if someone files a complaint about me over this RfC, I might decide to stay away to help my case.--

2563:

There is a grammer problem on the house vote to agree to senate amendment, but I can't seem to fix it. If someone else could, it would be a huge help

1127:, which is drawn from Harvard Law School, the American Psychological Association, and the Chosen Family Law Center (which I haven't heard of). Also, 760: 396: 2269: 2540: 1830:

sources. I think all of that is already assumed in the current RfC (i.e. yes, we want to include perspectives, but this particular perspective is

511: 1157:

With that additional information, I still think it's undue. The more I think about it, the more I think it's actually "grossly undue", a phrase @

2421: 2403: 2686: 2224: 909: 838: 892:

re-added material about polygamy, stating, "Section 4 would require the federal government to do the same" sounds like it does". And earlier,

826: 85: 2722: 2254: 575: 305: 295: 822: 1962:

correct me if I am wrong, but you did not mean to imply that we discuss before the RfC, because the RfC is not the time for discussions.

763:

concluded, "bigamous groups may continue to find success in using constitutional arguments to seek legal recognition of their marriages".

2453: 612: 367: 328: 2618: 1584: 1433:. Yes, I misunderstood the source of the interview. Now that you corrected me, I looked, but can't find any color coding for it on the 168: 2752: 2227:("significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"), it also runs afoul of 1398: 507: 497: 460: 379: 2494:

Would anyone will willing to upload a legislative history map for the House of Representatives and Senate for this bill? (Similar to

1798:

that seems like a coatrack way to just introduce the polygamy info once again when consensus has obviously determined it is undue. --

135: 2727: 2717: 2452:

The bill just passed the senate a few minutes ago, 62 votes to 37, with 12 republicans joining all democrats in voting for the act.

1265: 1187: 1066:

Because "Washington Examiner" is colored yellow on the list, I had attributed the source so people would know that it is partisan.

568:

How can you have this range of "support" and say that people support this? It seems most of the people do not support the issue.

2632:, not 60%. And 70% is undoubtedly a very strong majority, especially given how devisive the issue was just a decade or two ago. 1561:. Grossly undue weight, for reasons explained above (quality of sourcing, quantity of sourcing, tenuous relationship to topic). 1430: 1237: 905: 720: 99: 30: 1478:

Also, the WP link you've included for Real America's Voice is for an uninvolved project, sourced to PRN Newswire, which fails

1128: 975: 104: 20: 1684:

is also rude. On that basis, you will understand that I find this other comment of yours even less useful and I ignore it.

817:

In the post above I explain how it isn't just one person. Yes, there are people currently trying to legalize polygamy, see

375:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

1874:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

129: 74: 818: 202: 1136: 837:

enacted a domestic partnerships program which allows for "multiple domestic partnerships at the same time", following

65: 2021:

No of course the discussion doesn't stop, but as a practical matter it can have a chilling effect on the discussion.

1140: 830: 611:

early 2015, before Obergefell v. Hodges was decided, so that likewise tends to suggest ROMA was overtaken by events.

125: 1092:

thanks for the response. Even with blog being green-level, that arguably takes the RS up to three. Just because the

2282: 2233:

If anyone feels inclined to try and get me punished over this RfC, before you go and file a complaint against me...

1232: 1116: 707: 1309:

I looked to see if notable people opposing the bill were talking about polygamy in a notorious way like you said,

748: 2429: 2338: 2172: 1923: 1892: 1619: 1539: 1506: 1442: 1403:

Fringe slippery slope mongering based on opinion columns and low quality sources. PS: the material attributed to

1347: 1245: 1148: 1079: 1024: 901: 846: 782: 266: 227: 2167:

Andrevan, thank you for your advice and supportive response; yes, the high level of controversy gave me pause.--

1112: 175: 2525: 2371: 2158: 2124: 2081: 2045: 2012: 1967: 1908: 1858: 1818: 1784: 1730: 1689: 1649: 1600: 1377: 1362: 1297: 579: 24: 1461: 190: 2287: 945: 2457: 1659: 616: 554: 270:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the 109: 2470:

However, I definitely think a legislative voting map should be added once it is completed. (Something like

2521: 2385: 2259: 1262: 1184: 1067: 1041:. The entire section is for four opinions, one of which is from a blog and another which comes from the 208: 2588:

I fixed the capitalization, which is what I assume you're talking about. The grammar is fine, I think.

1223: 141: 2425: 2348: 2334: 2216: 2168: 1919: 1888: 1615: 1576: 1535: 1516: 1502: 1483: 1438: 1343: 1313: 1241: 1144: 1089: 1075: 1020: 927: 842: 839:

the lead of Somerville, Massachusetts. Afterwords, Cambridge was followed by Arlington, Massachusetts

796: 778: 744: 571: 359: 2568: 2495: 2381: 2367: 2154: 2120: 2077: 2041: 2008: 1979: 1963: 1904: 1854: 1840: 1814: 1795: 1780: 1763: 1726: 1699: 1685: 1645: 1596: 1413: 1373: 1358: 1293: 1131:

describes how California accepted three names on a birth certificate, with a book about it titled,

908:

are not fringe sources. In particular, the MMfA source appears to draw on this recent article from

895: 875: 161: 55: 2295:

The recent content satisfies the Undue concerns, because previously the previous additions were...

1853:

that or for some other reasons. It's better to ask the question, just to be clear on the matter.

2674: 2657:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

2142: 2104: 2063: 2029: 1989: 1945: 1236:. So I think that is too high of a bar to set for warranting inclusion. It should be enough that 1004: 656: 550: 70: 343: 322: 1240:

was picked up by three independent sources, besides the statements from Somin and Cordileone.--

711:

relate to polygamy. It is something politicians are aware of. It is not an extraordinary claim.

2698: 2678: 2506: 2479: 774: 716: 671: 641: 51: 2637: 2593: 2548: 2411: 2393: 2356: 2240: 2116: 2092: 1803: 1707: 1668: 1634: 1525: 1491: 1469: 1328: 1257: 1217: 1206: 1198: 1179: 1166: 1102: 1054: 549:

Should we include a section listing those relevant officials that support the Act? Thanks.

2520:

Most of the republican party opposes it. I don't think means both parties are cooperating.

2471: 2312: 1831: 1562: 1426: 1158: 1038: 860: 2422:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover_additions_of_polygamist_information

1934: 1834:). BTW: What is PdD? An odd typo for RfC or something I'm not familiar with (clearly not 506:-related issues on Knowledge. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the 2613:. Simply stating "a majority of Americans" without any adjectives would be sufficient. 2564: 2228: 1759: 1310: 1227: 871: 768:

Somin's stated that the relation of the bill to the legalization of polygamy was not a

2711: 2137: 2099: 2058: 2024: 2001: 1984: 1957: 1940: 1835: 1457: 1046: 999: 756: 652: 372: 2702: 2641: 2628:

Multiple polls from recent years show support for same-sex marriage hovering around

2622: 2597: 2572: 2552: 2529: 2510: 2483: 2461: 2433: 2415: 2397: 2375: 2360: 2342: 2244: 2176: 2162: 2147: 2128: 2109: 2085: 2068: 2049: 2034: 2016: 1994: 1971: 1950: 1927: 1912: 1896: 1862: 1847: 1822: 1807: 1788: 1767: 1734: 1711: 1693: 1672: 1653: 1638: 1623: 1604: 1588: 1565: 1543: 1529: 1510: 1495: 1473: 1446: 1420: 1381: 1366: 1351: 1301: 1270: 1249: 1210: 1192: 1170: 1152: 1106: 1083: 1058: 1028: 1009: 956: 879: 863: 850: 808: 786: 700: 675: 660: 645: 620: 599: 583: 558: 2694: 2682: 2670: 2502: 2475: 667: 637: 488: 242: 221: 1230:, which produced an English version of the story based on a Spanish article from 1222:, in the U.S., there is no major political party asking for it, but in Mexico, a 2653: 2633: 2589: 2544: 2407: 2389: 2352: 2236: 1799: 1703: 1664: 1630: 1521: 1487: 1465: 1202: 1162: 1111:

There was a paragraph of coverage of Edward Whelan's anti-polygamy testimony by

1098: 1050: 936: 887: 252: 1120: 759:

from this past May concluded that legalization "may not be far distant", and a

472: 454: 2215:

I'm not sure why, since this was settled mere days ago in the above RfC, but @

912:, which looks at the potential for getting a state court to legalize polygamy. 870:

removed altogether (from here, and from all pages the user has added it too).

594: 478: 349: 258: 248: 2467:

What got voted on was the motion to cloture. It hasn't officially passed yet.

2316: 833:, "The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy". 371:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 743:

It is not implausible that polygamy could become legalized in Utah, since

1429:

Real America's Voice shows at mediamatters.org. So they are republishing

834: 1070:

is not any old blog, it is published in a green-colored publication (

932: 1682:

you likely should not be adding information to a contentious article

2290:

bias rating of "center" can write about this, why not use it here?

503: 502:, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all 2280:. Reference 1b was copied to other at least three papers. If the 1129:

Polyamory in the United States#Legal issues and legal recognition

1238:

Whelan's testimony on polyamory and the Respect for Marriage Act

708:

look at the testimonies relating to the Respect for Marriage Act

590:"Seems"? Knowledge operates on sourced content, not "seems." TY 1331:, instead of to the Senate like the other letter, and he stated 2250:

The text you reverted, which hadn't been part of the RfC, was:

2223:

of polygamist content to the lead. This not only goes against

1460:) and “The January 6th Obsession Claims Another Victim” (seen 1452: 1124: 271: 184: 15: 1224:

Judge gives go-ahead for Mexico’s first polyamorous marriage

2153:

unnecessary fear. You might see things that I do not see.

1161:

used above. It's hypothesis stacking for a fringe view. --

915:

I will start an RfC on this and see what the consensus is.

2537:

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

1464:). This should not be used as a source in any capacity. — 2220: 1611: 1016: 1407:

is not an MMfA interview, it's just a transcript from

160: 1329:

in another letter which he had addressed to the House

1017:

a section on "Implications for polygamy legalization"

2743:

Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance

1758:. Grossly undue weight, for reasons explained above. 1658:

It doesn't really matter what you need, per se. The

974:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

984:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2091:treatment of the material, but keep in mind that 926:I would like to add something about the edits of 1534:Oh, good. I feel better about your remarks now. 1405:the left-leaning Media Matters for America show 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1501:response to remove a wikilink on a talk page?-- 1678:It doesn't really matter what you need, per se 2648:Wiki Education assignment: Gender and the Law 987:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 749:Judge finds some right to have “sister wives” 174: 8: 2490:Legislative history House/Senate map request 2231:and the RfC. Up above, Epiphyllumlover said 1435:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 996:, it is undue and not sourced sufficiently. 2496:how the Affordable Care Act article has one 188: 1574: 1045:, which is not listed as a good source at 794: 569: 449: 317: 216: 1049:. There's no reason for its inclusion. -- 2615:2600:8801:710E:7E00:452F:D4D2:F4F0:8A1D 2541:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 1903:asking it explicitly) was superfluous. 1581:2603:6000:A503:4CA9:3518:8002:E0F8:CFE0 693:2603:6000:A503:4CA9:3D4B:F7C2:B0B7:CFC4 451: 319: 218: 2232: 2073: 1681: 1677: 1404: 801:2603:6000:A503:4CA9:2802:342:5638:639F 2738:Low-importance United States articles 761:law journal article from last October 751:, Lyle Denniston, December 15, 2013, 7: 2402:NOTE: I have opened a discussion at 365:This article is within the scope of 264:This article is within the scope of 1228:media outlet thought to be reliable 412:Knowledge:WikiProject United States 274:and the subjects encompassed by it. 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2748:WikiProject United States articles 2733:Start-Class United States articles 2662: 2658: 1918:someone from filing a complaint.-- 1125:Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition 520:Knowledge:WikiProject LGBT studies 415:Template:WikiProject United States 14: 2758:WikiProject LGBT studies articles 2253:On July 26, 2022, Representative 949:2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:CCC4 523:Template:WikiProject LGBT studies 2665:. Further details are available 2652: 2579: 1870:The discussion above is closed. 884:In the edit history, previously 829:, and from the opposing side in 627: 481: 471: 453: 352: 342: 321: 251: 241: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2516:Should it be called bipartisan? 906:University Press of New England 721:University Press of New England 494:This article is of interest to 432:This article has been rated as 300:This article has been rated as 2609:enough to be characterized as 1411:posted to the MMfA website. — 559:16:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 1: 2693:— Assignment last updated by 2642:14:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 2623:00:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC) 2530:18:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC) 2511:21:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC) 2484:21:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC) 2462:21:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC) 1255: 1177: 745:it was decriminalized in 2020 600:21:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 584:21:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 42:Put new text under old text. 2598:22:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC) 2573:17:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC) 2553:05:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC) 2211:Continued polygamy additions 2723:Low-importance law articles 2380:That's a fair assessment, @ 1113:People for the American Way 1015:Should the article include 676:19:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC) 661:17:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC) 646:01:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2774: 2703:05:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 2283:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 564:Plurality 40-49% "support" 438:project's importance scale 306:project's importance scale 2753:Start-Class LGBT articles 2434:17:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 2416:18:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2398:18:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2376:17:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2361:17:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2343:17:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2245:16:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2177:16:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2163:02:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2148:01:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2129:00:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2110:00:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2086:00:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2069:22:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 2055:this material was UNDUE. 2050:22:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 2035:21:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 2017:21:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 1995:21:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 1972:21:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 1951:18:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 1928:04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 1913:01:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 1897:00:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 1863:18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1848:18:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1823:18:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1808:18:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1789:18:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1768:02:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1735:17:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1712:17:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1694:17:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1673:17:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1654:16:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1639:15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1624:01:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1605:00:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1589:23:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1566:21:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1544:22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1530:22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1511:21:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1496:21:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1474:21:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1447:20:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1431:from Real America's Voice 1421:19:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1382:22:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1367:22:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1352:22:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1302:19:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1271:17:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1250:05:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1211:22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1193:19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1171:18:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1153:18:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1107:17:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1084:17:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1059:17:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1029:17:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 1010:20:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 957:17:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 902:Media Matters for America 880:07:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 864:03:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 851:19:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC) 809:18:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC) 787:18:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC) 701:16:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC) 466: 431: 368:WikiProject United States 337: 299: 280:Knowledge:WikiProject Law 236: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2728:WikiProject Law articles 2718:Start-Class law articles 1872:Please do not modify it. 981:Please do not modify it. 835:Cambridge, Massachusetts 757:essay by a law professor 621:17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 498:WikiProject LGBT studies 373:United States of America 283:Template:WikiProject Law 25:Respect for Marriage Act 2074:this material was UNDUE 1612:but 2603... reverted it 1486:. Removing that now. -- 967:RfC concerning polygamy 686:Polygamy and Ilya Somin 1338: 1324: 747:, and before that see 717:In this scholarly book 418:United States articles 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 2669:. Student editor(s): 2260:Human Rights Campaign 2119:. It's irrelevant. 1334: 1319: 1133:Three Dads and a Baby 1068:The Volokh Conspiracy 510:or contribute to the 100:Neutral point of view 1409:Real America's Voice 1314:Salvatore Cordileone 928:User:Epiphyllumlover 360:United States portal 105:No original research 1935:meta:voting is evil 1311:and found this from 1117:link to the hearing 1043:Washington Examiner 976:request for comment 735:Washington Examiner 386:Articles Requested! 2667:on the course page 2604:"strong majority"? 1037:. It's completely 910:Harvard Law Review 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2268:The sources were 2221:added a paragraph 1591: 1579:comment added by 1402: 1115:back in 2011. (A 939:- also prohibits 811: 799:comment added by 775:false equivalence 719:published by the 586: 574:comment added by 542: 541: 538: 537: 534: 533: 448: 447: 444: 443: 316: 315: 312: 311: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2765: 2705: 2687:article contribs 2664: 2660: 2656: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2317:cause-and-effect 2146: 2145: 2108: 2107: 2067: 2066: 2033: 2032: 2005: 1993: 1992: 1961: 1949: 1948: 1845: 1843: 1418: 1416: 1396: 1269: 1221: 1191: 1008: 1007: 983: 899: 891: 635: 631: 630: 597: 593: 528: 527: 524: 521: 518: 491: 486: 485: 484: 475: 468: 467: 457: 450: 420: 419: 416: 413: 410: 362: 357: 356: 355: 346: 339: 338: 333: 325: 318: 288: 287: 284: 281: 278: 261: 256: 255: 245: 238: 237: 232: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2708: 2707: 2692: 2650: 2606: 2580: 2578: 2561: 2522:The big parsely 2518: 2492: 2450: 2448:the bill passed 2426:Epiphyllumlover 2406:. Thank you. -- 2386:WP:ICANTHEARYOU 2349:Epiphyllumlover 2335:Epiphyllumlover 2313:Gannett Company 2286:, which has an 2217:Epiphyllumlover 2213: 2169:Epiphyllumlover 2141: 2135: 2103: 2097: 2062: 2056: 2028: 2022: 1999: 1988: 1982: 1955: 1944: 1938: 1920:Epiphyllumlover 1889:Epiphyllumlover 1876: 1875: 1841: 1839: 1776: 1774:Closing the RfC 1616:Epiphyllumlover 1536:Epiphyllumlover 1517:Epiphyllumlover 1503:Epiphyllumlover 1439:Epiphyllumlover 1414: 1412: 1399:Summoned by bot 1344:Epiphyllumlover 1242:Epiphyllumlover 1215: 1145:Epiphyllumlover 1090:Epiphyllumlover 1076:Epiphyllumlover 1021:Epiphyllumlover 1012: 1003: 997: 979: 969: 893: 885: 843:Epiphyllumlover 779:Epiphyllumlover 688: 628: 626: 608: 595: 591: 566: 547: 525: 522: 519: 516: 515: 487: 482: 480: 417: 414: 411: 408: 407: 406: 392:Become a Member 358: 353: 351: 331: 285: 282: 279: 276: 275: 267:WikiProject Law 257: 250: 230: 201:on Knowledge's 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2771: 2769: 2761: 2760: 2755: 2750: 2745: 2740: 2735: 2730: 2725: 2720: 2710: 2709: 2659:9 January 2023 2649: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2605: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2560: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2517: 2514: 2491: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2468: 2449: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2400: 2382:Dominic Mayers 2368:Dominic Mayers 2329: 2328: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2297: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2265: 2264: 2255:Mike Gallagher 2251: 2212: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2155:Dominic Mayers 2121:Dominic Mayers 2078:Dominic Mayers 2042:Dominic Mayers 2009:Dominic Mayers 1964:Dominic Mayers 1905:Dominic Mayers 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1855:Dominic Mayers 1842:Rhododendrites 1827: 1826: 1825: 1815:Dominic Mayers 1796:Dominic Mayers 1781:Dominic Mayers 1775: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1727:Dominic Mayers 1700:Dominic Mayers 1686:Dominic Mayers 1646:Dominic Mayers 1597:Dominic Mayers 1568: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1476: 1415:Rhododendrites 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1374:Dominic Mayers 1359:Dominic Mayers 1339: 1332: 1325: 1317: 1294:Dominic Mayers 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1013: 991: 990: 989: 970: 968: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 919: 918: 917: 916: 913: 896:Mehmood.Husain 856: 855: 854: 853: 790: 789: 770:constitutional 765: 764: 740: 739: 725: 724: 713: 712: 687: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 607: 604: 603: 602: 576:192.197.128.13 565: 562: 546: 543: 540: 539: 536: 535: 532: 531: 529: 493: 492: 476: 464: 463: 458: 446: 445: 442: 441: 434:Low-importance 430: 424: 423: 421: 405: 404: 399: 394: 389: 382: 380:Template Usage 376: 364: 363: 347: 335: 334: 332:Low‑importance 326: 314: 313: 310: 309: 302:Low-importance 298: 292: 291: 289: 263: 262: 246: 234: 233: 231:Low‑importance 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2770: 2759: 2756: 2754: 2751: 2749: 2746: 2744: 2741: 2739: 2736: 2734: 2731: 2729: 2726: 2724: 2721: 2719: 2716: 2715: 2713: 2706: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2690: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2675:GhostFreak777 2672: 2668: 2663:28 March 2023 2655: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2586: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2559:Grammer issue 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2515: 2513: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2499: 2497: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2454:73.51.146.248 2447: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2331: 2330: 2325: 2324: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2284: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2261: 2256: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2210: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2094: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2031: 2027: 2026: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2003: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1991: 1987: 1986: 1981: 1978: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1936: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1884: 1880: 1873: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1844: 1837: 1833: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1754: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1593: 1592: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1572: 1569: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1557: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1484:WP:PRNEWSWIRE 1481: 1477: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1454: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1417: 1410: 1406: 1400: 1394: 1391: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1318: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1290: 1272: 1267: 1264: 1261: 1260: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1229: 1225: 1219: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1182: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1095: 1094:Wash Examiner 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1011: 1006: 1002: 1001: 995: 992:Consensus is 988: 985: 982: 977: 972: 971: 966: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 929: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 914: 911: 907: 903: 897: 889: 883: 882: 881: 877: 873: 868: 867: 866: 865: 862: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 810: 806: 802: 798: 788: 784: 780: 776: 771: 767: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 741: 736: 731: 727: 726: 722: 718: 715: 714: 709: 705: 704: 703: 702: 698: 694: 685: 677: 673: 669: 664: 663: 662: 658: 654: 649: 648: 647: 643: 639: 634: 625: 624: 623: 622: 618: 614: 613:153.31.112.20 605: 601: 598: 589: 588: 587: 585: 581: 577: 573: 563: 561: 560: 556: 552: 551:Aristophanes2 544: 530: 526:LGBT articles 513: 509: 505: 501: 500: 499: 490: 479: 477: 474: 470: 469: 465: 462: 459: 456: 452: 439: 435: 429: 426: 425: 422: 409:United States 403: 400: 398: 395: 393: 390: 388: 387: 383: 381: 378: 377: 374: 370: 369: 361: 350: 348: 345: 341: 340: 336: 330: 329:United States 327: 324: 320: 307: 303: 297: 294: 293: 290: 273: 269: 268: 260: 254: 249: 247: 244: 240: 239: 235: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2691: 2679:LemonLioness 2651: 2629: 2610: 2607: 2584: 2562: 2519: 2500: 2493: 2451: 2288:allsides.com 2281: 2214: 2136: 2098: 2057: 2023: 1983: 1980:WP:RFCBEFORE 1976: 1939: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1871: 1777: 1755: 1722: 1717: 1680:is rude and 1575:— Preceding 1570: 1558: 1408: 1392: 1335: 1320: 1306: 1258: 1233:El Universal 1231: 1180: 1132: 1121:this website 1093: 1071: 1063: 1042: 1034: 1014: 998: 993: 986: 980: 973: 940: 857: 831:The Atlantic 795:— Preceding 791: 769: 752: 734: 729: 689: 632: 609: 570:— Preceding 567: 548: 517:LGBT studies 508:project page 496: 495: 489:LGBTQ portal 461:LGBT studies 433: 397:Project Talk 385: 366: 301: 286:law articles 265: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2333:suitable.-- 1725:consensus. 1718:significant 1610:direction, 1451:If that is 1427:list of the 1259:SMcCandlish 1218:SMcCandlish 1199:SMcCandlish 1181:SMcCandlish 1123:, like the 937:Edmunds Act 606:Past tense? 272:legal field 199:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 2712:Categories 1563:Neutrality 1425:This is a 1159:Neutrality 1072:reason.com 861:Neutrality 827:New Yorker 753:SCOTUSblog 730:reason.com 512:discussion 259:Law portal 2565:LordEnma8 2117:WP:FRINGE 2093:WP:FRINGE 1760:Eccekevin 1327:Earlier, 872:Eccekevin 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2501:Thanks, 2138:Andrevan 2100:Andrevan 2059:Andrevan 2025:Andrevan 2002:Andrevan 1985:Andrevan 1958:Andrevan 1941:Andrevan 1838::) ). — 1832:WP:UNDUE 1577:unsigned 1000:Andrevan 941:de facto 904:and the 819:Politico 797:unsigned 653:SPQRobin 572:unsigned 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2695:Fbodine 2683:Fbodine 2671:Tcc1046 2503:KlayCax 2476:KlayCax 2278:this 1c 2274:this 1b 2270:this 1a 2229:WP:ONUS 2225:WP:LEAD 1307:Comment 1064:Comment 773:versus 706:If you 668:Neutron 638:Neutron 545:support 436:on the 304:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2634:Guycn2 2611:strong 2590:Ovinus 2545:Ovinus 2408:Kbabej 2390:Kbabej 2353:Kbabej 2276:, and 2263:will." 2237:Kbabej 1836:WP:PDD 1800:Kbabej 1723:useful 1704:Kbabej 1665:Kbabej 1631:Kbabej 1522:Kbabej 1488:Kbabej 1482:. See 1466:Kbabej 1203:Kbabej 1163:Kbabej 1099:Kbabej 1051:Kbabej 1047:WP:RSP 933:bigamy 402:Alerts 205:scale. 126:Google 2404:WP:AN 1039:UNDUE 823:Slate 755:. An 738:lede. 596:Moops 504:LGBTQ 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2699:talk 2661:and 2638:talk 2619:talk 2594:talk 2585:Done 2569:talk 2549:talk 2526:talk 2507:talk 2498:.) 2480:talk 2472:this 2458:talk 2430:talk 2412:talk 2394:talk 2372:talk 2357:talk 2339:talk 2241:talk 2219:has 2173:talk 2159:talk 2125:talk 2082:talk 2046:talk 2013:talk 1968:talk 1924:talk 1909:talk 1893:talk 1859:talk 1819:talk 1804:talk 1785:talk 1764:talk 1731:talk 1708:talk 1690:talk 1669:talk 1660:ONUS 1650:talk 1635:talk 1620:talk 1601:talk 1585:talk 1540:talk 1526:talk 1507:talk 1492:talk 1470:talk 1462:here 1458:here 1453:this 1443:talk 1378:talk 1363:talk 1348:talk 1298:talk 1246:talk 1207:talk 1167:talk 1149:talk 1141:this 1139:and 1137:this 1103:talk 1080:talk 1055:talk 1025:talk 953:talk 876:talk 847:talk 805:talk 783:talk 697:talk 672:talk 657:talk 642:talk 633:Done 617:talk 580:talk 555:talk 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2689:). 2630:70% 2474:.) 2420:At 1846:\\ 1716:A 1614:.-- 1480:RSP 1437:.-- 1419:\\ 1268:😼 1190:😼 1143:.-- 1019:?-- 888:Sjö 777:.-- 428:Low 296:Low 277:Law 228:Law 176:TWL 2714:: 2701:) 2681:, 2677:, 2673:, 2640:) 2621:) 2596:) 2571:) 2551:) 2539:, 2528:) 2509:) 2482:) 2460:) 2432:) 2414:) 2396:) 2374:) 2359:) 2341:) 2272:, 2243:) 2175:) 2161:) 2127:) 2084:) 2048:) 2015:) 1970:) 1926:) 1911:) 1895:) 1861:) 1821:) 1806:) 1787:) 1766:) 1756:No 1733:) 1710:) 1692:) 1671:) 1652:) 1637:) 1629:-- 1622:) 1603:) 1587:) 1571:No 1559:No 1542:) 1528:) 1520:-- 1509:) 1494:) 1472:) 1445:) 1395:- 1393:No 1380:) 1365:) 1350:) 1300:) 1256:— 1248:) 1209:) 1178:— 1169:) 1151:) 1105:) 1082:) 1057:) 1035:No 1027:) 994:NO 978:. 955:) 878:) 849:) 825:, 821:, 807:) 785:) 699:) 674:) 659:) 644:) 619:) 582:) 557:) 156:) 54:; 2697:( 2685:( 2636:( 2617:( 2592:( 2567:( 2547:( 2524:( 2505:( 2478:( 2456:( 2428:( 2410:( 2392:( 2370:( 2355:( 2347:@ 2337:( 2319:. 2239:( 2171:( 2157:( 2143:@ 2123:( 2105:@ 2080:( 2064:@ 2044:( 2030:@ 2011:( 2004:: 2000:@ 1990:@ 1966:( 1960:: 1956:@ 1946:@ 1922:( 1907:( 1891:( 1857:( 1817:( 1802:( 1794:@ 1783:( 1762:( 1729:( 1706:( 1698:@ 1688:( 1667:( 1648:( 1633:( 1618:( 1599:( 1583:( 1538:( 1524:( 1515:@ 1505:( 1490:( 1468:( 1441:( 1401:) 1397:( 1376:( 1361:( 1346:( 1296:( 1266:¢ 1263:☏ 1244:( 1220:: 1216:@ 1205:( 1197:@ 1188:¢ 1185:☏ 1165:( 1147:( 1101:( 1088:@ 1078:( 1053:( 1023:( 1005:@ 951:( 898:: 894:@ 890:: 886:@ 874:( 845:( 803:( 781:( 695:( 670:( 655:( 640:( 615:( 592:— 578:( 553:( 514:. 440:. 308:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index