HuffPo is reporting that the judge hearing the Ohio case will issue a ruling against the state's ban on foreign recognition on the 14th. (The current ruling under appeal is about death certificates; this would be all marriages done out of state.) His announcement is to give the state time to craft an immediate appeal, so come the 14th Ohio will be in a Kentucky situation. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we add a footnote stating the judges intention to rule (like we did before the federal judge in kentucky made their official ruling)? --Prcc27 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I've lost track of what we footnote, so if you want to add the note, feel free. Once the order is issued, I'll update File:World marriage-equality laws.svg to the beige color, since it almost certainly will be an immediate stay on appeal. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think Ohio already qualifies as "court announced intention to recognize" since the judge announced intention to recognize.. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two possible outcomes from the ruling that will be issued tomorrow.
a) The ruling will be stayed and therefore must be colored yellow.
b) The ruling won't be stayed and therefore must be colored dark gray. (Since the judge is giving time for an appeal, this probably won't be the case).
I removed the yellow stripe and fixed the footnote; a temporary stay has not been issued yet. --Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Meaning that the stay could be lifted as early as tomorrow or the stay could be extended awaiting appeal. --Prcc27 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's an especially confusing ruling. I put the yellow stripes on since it is in a current (immediate) stay; we'll see tomorrow what happens. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Making the map less busy: Is it time to remove civil unions?[edit]
With only four states having civil unions now but not marriage, and all four states requiring multiple striping, removing the civil union recognition from the map would be an efficient way to make the map less busy without losing much information. This would also remove footnote 2, and changing the map's title would be simply replacing "partnership" with "marriage." This would free up the lighter blue for out of state recognition as well.
In place of having civil unions on this map, we could let File:Same-sex unions by US counties and cities.svg be the default "other unions" map, and let this map be striped only for the stayed ruling states and Oregon's out of state recognition. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the current map without the civil union colors, and here is the map with the light blue for out of state recognition. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - Discussions about removing CU/DPs have occurred relatively recently and have failed. Remember, this map is on "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States". Taking about civil union information is taking out a lot of very important information. Also let's stop with all these proposals and leave the map as it is... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the amount of states with civil unions is relevant. Just like when Utah was the only stayed state; it still should have had a stay color. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could merge the definitions of the Wisconsin color and the rest with "Broad Domestic Partnership/Civil Union" like it says here: [1]. That way viewers know there is some type of civil union without breaking it down as to whether or not it has the full benefits of marriage. It also opens up another color for us. aharris206 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As long as civil unions continue to exist, they should be represented. I've seen several criticisms that the map is "too busy." I very much disagree; the map is busy because it reflects the chaotic state of marriage law in the U.S. right now, as it should. Tinmanic (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CTF83!: The greyanomaly didn't say anything about Wisconsin... --Prcc27 (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think CTF meant aharris' idea on Wisconsin. It's clear booting the civil unions is WP:SNOWed out, but I'm curious to see if we could get Wisconsin consolidated with the civil union trio. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. I think we should group Wisconsin with the other states and footnote it. Just like we do with Kentucky and Ohio; just to be consistent. If we do come up with a different stay color for Kentucky and Ohio then I wouldn't support it. But as of know, I support combining Wisconsin and the other civil union states. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far it doesn't look like anyone's opposed to the Wisconsin idea... (except maybe thegreyanomaly who thinks that we shouldn't be making any proposals anymore.) --Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather uncharitable towards thegreyanomaly, don't you think? He hasn't weighed in on Wisconsin yet. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you guys straightened out my mistype, thanks. CTF83! 23:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to the Wisconsin idea. Tinmanic (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CTF83!: No problem! @Dralwik: Yeah I know, they don't like all these proposals but uh.. isn't that the point of a talk page? Anyways, we should probably wait at least 24 hours from when it was initially proposed before we do anything to Wisconsin. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, patience is probably best. Wisconsin's ban might not be much longer anyways, as its case is taking the Iowa and New Jersey treks to the state Supreme Court: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merging light blue and medium blue, just as I did the last time this came up. There are too significant differences here. @Prcc27:, you do not understand my opposition. You (and others) have taken proposal suggesting to an extreme, look at this talk page and the last archive, they are loaded with tons and tons of rejected, merit-less and/or policy-violating proposals aiming to modify the coloring scheme. Every idea that hits one's mind does not need to be proposed/acted upon. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: But why do we have one color for KY/OH and MI/UT/OK but two colors for WI and OR/NV/CO? It's inconsistent! --Prcc27 (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:, that is not a significant difference. The lawsuits are all stayed, it makes no difference to a same-sex couple in KY/OH versus the others; they are barred from SSM either way. It does make a difference to said couple to be in in WI vs. OR/NV/CO as they are actually treated differently. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: In that case, why even have the stayed color at all..? (Since no same-sex couples are affected). --Prcc27 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:, sigh... Because there is a significant legal difference between the stay and nothing. There is not a significant difference (that the current footnote cannot handle) between KY/OH and the others. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the advantage of merging the civil union colors. The three types of blue (marriage, separate-but-equal civil unions, limited partnerships) are a logical sequence. So, I don't really think the map would be much clearer after removing the Wisconsin color. SPQRobin (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I proposed it, is because it has worked on freedomtomarry.org for years: [2]. Merging the two would also open up another color, I feel it would benefit the map, and it seems that there are a few others who agree. aharris206 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Freedomtomarry is a pretty crappy source to use. I've noticed many minor problems here and there with them. I think one time they said RI recognized OoS SSM, when they didn't. I fully learned to stay away from them after noticing that they don't know how to count (Note here that they list Connecticut as the second state to legalize SSM when they are actually the third...[3]). I even sent them emails about it, but they never responded to them nor fixed the page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but Wisconsin is also the same color on the world mapWorld_Map too. I just feel we could word it a bit more vaguely like it does on that one. aharris206 (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The decisions made on a map of a global scale are not comparable to a map of a country scale. There are details appropriate to leave out on a global map that are inappropriate to leave out on this map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Advocate, the Pulaski County Circuit judge hearing the state court challenge to Arkansas' ban announced he will rule in about two weeks, meaning Arkansas could be striped soon. On the other hand, Oregon's triple striping might have a month or less left, as same-sex marriage supporters are asking the District Court judge in Oregon to issue a ruling by May 23, a deadline for ballot initiatives, and the state will neither defend the ban nor appeal a ruling. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arkansas will probably have to get striped. Oregon is a different mess, because similar to what happened in CA (and what is happening in VA) people who do not have the standing to appeal will try to appeal and everything will get slowed down until someone intelligent shuts them down. Unfortunately for CA that meant waiting for it to get to the SCOTUS. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik:@Thegreyanomaly: but if this is a state supreme court ruling, how is it going to be appealed..? Arkansas might not be striped for this reason. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see what state supreme court you are talking about, but, hypothetically, if a state supreme court ruling is based on the U.S. Constitution, then it can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being a County Circuit court means the chain of appeal goes to the Arkansas State Supreme Court, akin to a US District Court going to SCOTUS. (Prcc27 might also be thinking of the Wisconsin case also announced yesterday being a direct appeal to the WI Supreme Court.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: There are two cases challenging Arkansas's ban on ssm. One in the state supreme court and one in a federal court. This is the one in the state court I believe... --Prcc27 (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Pennsylvania case may have a ruling as early as May 12. CBS Pittsburgh reports that the couples challenging the ban are seeking a ruling without trial. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, Oregon will amend marriage certificates to be gender neutral, therefore allowing same sex couples to marry. Do we stripe them blue? Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I say not until the state issues the licenses to same-sex couples, which if I understand correctly will be after the coming court ruling (and any appeal attempts get sorted out per Hollingsworth v. Perry precedent). Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the article was more clear as to when it is taking effect. But agreed that we should wait until a license is in fact issued. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are just making an administrative change, no policy change (yet) until a court ruling is issued. SPQRobin (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oregon will probably not appeal.I believe its the only state that will not appeal if the ban is struck down,and I think the judge is not going to stay his ruling.Of all the states that have its ban being challenge Oregon is the most liberal and open minded to now.The governor nor the AG are defending the ban and the majority now in the state is in favor of ssm.--Allan120102 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The state won't, but the groups behind the ban might try. Hollingsworth v. Perry implies they'd have no standing, but we'd have to see how quickly a court would decide on that. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you might want to try and read this.its actually surprising how easily the Oregon family council are admitting defeated,and I believe they prefer that a judge do it than the people .so they can still say that the majority is against and didn't vote to overturned it.
"Teresa Harke, a spokeswoman for Oregon Family Council, which opposes same-sex marriage, said the organization did not seek to get involved in the Oregon case or file a legal analysis because it does not have legal standing."
Ah, that certainly helps eliminate speculation on Oregon. Dralwik|Have a Chat 13:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, does the fed recognize the marriages that were performed, as in Utah? — kwami (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has been marriages in Oregon (except for an episode in 2004 where the marriages were quickly invalidated). The state merely recognizes out of state marriages, which the Feds already would recognize themselves. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those were the marriages I meant. I was wondering if OR deserved a ring. — kwami (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd say no, as those marriages were invalidated (eight years) before Windsor v. United States permitted Federal recognition. Since the Feds only recognize current marriages, I don't think the Oregonian marriages qualify for a ring. (The Cambodian marriage appears to have ended through the death of one of the members, but that was never dissolved and is still recognized for survival benefits iirc.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These footnotes are insane! Footnotes need to be removed. The footnote text is longer than the actual text! All footnotes should be discussed here before ever being added (and those that aren't should be reverted!).
3 Same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah and Michigan prior to their respective judicial rulings being stayed. Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage was partially struck down; the judge found that refusing to recognize same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
4 A U.S. district court issued an injunction requiring Indiana to recognize the same-sex marriage of one same-sex couple. It will last for 28 days from its initial ruling date April 10, 2014.
5 A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction that Tennessee recognize the same-sex marriages of the plaintiffs in Tanco v. Haslam.
6 A U.S. district court announced it will require Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The ruling will be issued on April 14, 2014.
The sentence "Same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah and Michigan prior to their respective judicial rulings being stayed." is too much detail for the footnote. 4, 5, and 6 are about map changes that have not occurred. 4 and 5 only apply to a specific number of couples, not to the public and thus do not belong. I am being bold and axing them. There are too many footnotes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this undiscussed edit by @Prcc27:[4], and removed the Tennessee footnote that only affects the plaintiffs and no one else. Please exhibit restraint adding footnotes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: I took it to the talk before I made the edit. [5] So if you disagree with an edit, maybe you should engage in the discussion rather than revert me. The only reason it hasn't been "discussed" is because you haven't spoke up. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was out of town with shitty wifi, if I was in town, I would have shot it down then and there. You made the edit at 01:45, 11 April 2014 and first brought it up 00:29, 11 April 2014. You have first-hand knowledge how contentious adding footnotes are from this discussion. You really need to give a discussion on footnotes more than an hour and 16 minutes before acting. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the footnote shouldn't be there, but if the Tennessee footnote is there (which it was) then the Indiana footnote should have been there too. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We axe the line "Same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah and Michigan prior to their respective judicial rulings being stayed." - too much detail for a map legend, people will read it in the articles they see the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Those states are in a different situation than the other ones. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, there situations are identical. They did once perform SSM for a short period of time, but now they are identical to the other dark red/gold states. Iowa was in the exact same situation albeit the number of marriages was 1. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We axe "A U.S. district court announced it will require Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The ruling will be issued on April 14, 2014." until the actually ruling is issued Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We footnoted Kentucky when it was in the same situation. Plus, the ruling's going to be made tomorrow anyways. In the future, I would Support Not adding rulings until they are issued. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well relative to the time, I posted it is the future. We are not shackled to bad precedences. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove federal government reference from Footnote 2. Or remove Footnote 2 entirely.
Absolutely not, it is a critical detail that the federal government will not recognize these unions. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then move the sentence about other same-sex unions to Footnote 1; it's conditional on states that have marriage equality, and makes more sense with that footnote. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Utah and Michigan references from Footnote 3, and change to "... would only overturn the states' bans ..."
I support removing the Utah/Michigan references. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose removing the UT/MI references. I also support getting rid of footnote 2, but only so then it can be added to the asterisk (it seems to belong there). --Prcc27 (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The UT/MI inclusion is merit-less. The footnote does not inform the current situation in either of those states (which is the same as in all the other beige states where SSM is neither recognized or performed). Those marriages are not even recognized in their respective states. I think the reduced (current) footnote 2 is fine-as-is. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "*" footnote is clunky: "Same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government for residents of all states based on location of ceremony."
Suggested replacement: "The federal government recognizes all legally performed same-sex marriages, regardless of the current state of residence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.140.115 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the "location of ceremony" wording, but it should be taken out of passive voice. So something like "The federal government recognizes same-sex marriages in all states based on location of ceremony." Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the wording from 67.215.140.115 better. The ceremony mention makes it more complicated. For example, foreign SSMs are recognized, and other countries may have completely different ceremony requirements. All the Feds care about is if the marriage is legally performed, so keeping the ceremony note out goes with that. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stay is imminent I'd think, but from I can tell currently no stay. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah now we need to see if couples married or its to late as I am not sure at what time they close the county clerks, and another fact we need to update the map to reflect Arkansas. The map may continue changing with possible rulings in Idaho, Oregon and Pennsylvania in the coming weeks, and yeah Arkansas will appeal no doubt about it.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm hesitant to change the map color until marriages actually occur or a stay is issued. What's been done in the past? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but usually judges issued a stay on its documents so technically same sex marriage is legal like it was in Michigan,so Arkansas for the moment should be blue,but I have never learn to change the map.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Map guy here. I think the usual method is to change the color to marriage blue once the ruling is out, and until it gets stayed. I've changed the world maps as well for now and will watch for a stay. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment, Arkansas could be changed to blue ... but the State AG has likely already phoned the duty State Supreme Court judge's office to see about an emergency stay. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. That's what we did with Michigan. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if its my computer but I can't see the color blue in Arkansas its red does it was change or its my computers fault?--Allan120102 (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try refreshing the page. The images don't update themselves until you do. (Also, hit a colon : to get the indent.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A stay is expected over the weekend. [6]. Right now though the law is not really in effect as marriages can not be carried out until the offices open on Monday. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I regretfully agree that Arkansas should be blue for the moment being. <probably offtopic>I support the ruling, but judges needs to be more cautious about not staying rulings when it is clear the opponents will appeal, so people don't get put in legal limbo.</probably offtopic> Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<probably offtopic>But remember New Jersey: no stay from the Superior Court judge, and when the State went to the NJ Supremes for a stay, the answer was "No.". </probably offtopic> 67.215.140.115 (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might help with the case too, depends anyways Oregon I believe should not be stay because no one is going to defend it and fight for it unless you count NOM which has no legal standing.--Allan120102 (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage licenses have been issued in Carroll County, and couples have gotten married. Blue is the right color for now. [1]Baltimatt (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before any brings it up, Arkansas should not have a specific mention in any of the footnotes after the inevitable stay is in place as is the current case for Utah and Michigan. The fact that SSMs were performed is something to be mentioned on articles, not templates. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do to the map if the ruling only applies to a few counties of Arkansas..? should we stripe it red and blue, add a footnote? [7] --Prcc27 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another link on the issue. We might have to change Arkansas.. [8] --Prcc27 (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stripe it red, the facts are that marriage is not taking place in the majority of the state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need any footnote! We should not be changing Arkansas until the stay actually comes. We only have data on a small number of counties both for and against. Leave the map as is until the stay comes in place.
Also, the ruling covers the entire state. If some clerks want to be outlaws and not follow the unstayed order, so be it, but that does not change the fact that currently is the law of the land in Arkansas Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how do we know it covers the entire state? It seems like a similar situation as Illinois' ruling where it only applied to Cook County. Maybe this ruling only applies to 6 counites.. It's hard to know for sure. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Illinois ruling was a completely different more complicated scenario. The court order did not single out any county, just as it did not in California. It said the state's amendment and statute were illegal and struck them down. The order did not list of what counties needed to follow it, it referred to the state itself. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme Court of Arkansas refuses emergency stay request: read here. Just an update. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given this result, I would like to reiterate that Arkansas should stay as is (i.e., dark blue) until/unless there is an actual stay. Since the state does want to appeal, it seems it will probably be on the SCOTUS or some other higher court to do that. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the Supreme court of Arkansas refuse to stay for now.... that might mean that other counties will start issuing licences to same sex couples as they were waiting for an opinion of the court. I know this is a stupid question but the Supreme court might stay this ruling as it was struck from a state judge,or the supreme court only acts when a federal judge struck the law?--Allan120102 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over state court systems when it comes to questions of Federal law (like the US Constitution), so Arkansas can appeal to SCOTUS. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee was the court case establishing this. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This just came in within the hour: [9] SSM has been put on hold in the state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So should the maps be rolled back? There's no stay yet, and the ruling for same-sex marriage is still de jure in effect. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure according to the source "The court said simply that a law banning licenses for same-sex couples remains in place" but what does that mean? I do know that no more marriages are taking place though so at the very least something should be mentioned there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, marriages are legal, but clerks can no longer issue licenses. Those with a licenses can still get married. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If those with a license can still get married should we stripe Arkansas blue and pink? Same-sex couples are allowed to get married but County clerks aren't allowed to issue licenses to them. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that only the constitutional ban was struck down and the law banning same-sex marriage was left intact. Was the statute banning same-sex marriage also struck down? Otherwise, we're going to have to change Arkansas to pink instead of blue. [10] --Prcc27 (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, did any of the stayed states get their statue struck down? Does it even matter..? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a case like this could pop up if the statute is worded especially differently? Seems doubtful. If one is struck down on federal constitutional or federal statute grounds, the other is probably not defensible. Since we haven't seen it come up, I'd guess either nobody was willing to try defending the statute apart from the constitutional bans, the full opinion explicitly mentioned the statute as an afterthought, and/or there were no full-fledged statutes separate from the constitutional ban in each of those states.-VJ (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting an end to this pointless discussion: [11]"Mr Piazza's ruling invalidated a 2004 state constitutional amendment that passed with overwhelming support, as well as a 1997 statute." They can't get rid of the amendment and not the statute in this kind of case. That would make less than zero sense, as both laws do the exact same thing and both laws were "legally" passed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarrely, the Arkansas Supreme Court appears to be thinking that way. Their denial of the state's stay request is in this USA Today article.
From page 6 of the Supreme Court's ruling: "Therefore, the circuit court's order [overturning the marriage ban] has no effect on Ark. Code Ann. S 9-11-208(b) and its prohibition against circuit and county clerks issuing same-sex marriage licenses." It almost sounds like the constitutional ban is gone but the statute ban remains, somehow.Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that is the case should we color Arkansas light red Pink then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well its unfortunate but we cant leave it blue given the situation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I flipped the US map to have Arkansas pink, but I think we should try and find something more concrete -- or wait for clarification -- before purging Arkansas from the Same-sex marriage in the United States article. Dralwik|Have a Chat
I added an update note on the situation for the table. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if clerks aren't allowed to issue same-sex marriage licenses, what do we do to the wikipedia articles? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right now by law SSM is still banned in Arkansas per the RS and the outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So AR should be pink like PA, right? — kwami (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that AR now has a state law effectively banning SSM, so it's like PA in that regard. Some people got married, but people have gotten married in PA as well. What would you stripe it with? To me it just looks like PA, except of course for the history of how it got there. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: I was thinking blue. Although light gray might also work (especially since the legality is still being determined). The other difference between PA and AR is that marriage isn't defined between a man and a woman in Arkansas and there's no law against ssc marrying but issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples rather. The restriction is on the county clerks not the same-sex couples. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. I suppose that if a clerk broke the law and issued a license, the marriage would be legal? Marriage is not open to SS couples, though, in any practical sense. Rather a subtle point for a map. — kwami (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the deal here seems to be that in Arkansas, in addition to the constitutional amendment ban, there were 2 separate statutes regarding same-sex marriage--one that made same-sex marriage illegal and one that prohibited country clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Both the constitutional ban and the statute ban on same-sex marriage were struck down, but the judge failed to mention the second statute concerning county clerks in his ruling. So, same-sex marriage is now technically legal in Arkansas, but if county clerks issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the clerk can be fined by the state. I suggest we stripe Arkansas to be both blue (for legal same-sex marriage) and pink for statute prohibits same-sex marriage. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's the best we can do. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could follow that. What do others think? Prcc27, Kwamikagami? The plaintiffs' lawyers are trying to get a clearer order from the judge, so this situation may be resolved soon. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I disagree as there's no statute prohibiting their marriages. Solid blue is best, or perhaps add a footnote. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What of out-of-state marriages? If marriage is legal, they should be recognized, right? Do we have a ref for that? Should it be striped OoS/statute? — kwami (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should put reinstalled or something else in the timeline as it says Arkansas same sex marriage is discontinue.--Allan120102 (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[12] The inevitable stay has come. Arkansas has been updated to be like Texas and the other stay states. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Idaho's ban struck down. [13] --Prcc27 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if there was a stay.. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No stay yet; this is saying the order is set to take effect the morning of the 16th (Friday). Since that's akin to a legislative act with a set start date, I'm changing the maps to have Idaho blue for now (which also means both Arkansas and Idaho waiting on appeal). Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added a footnote. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HRC reported that the judge refused to stay the ruling. [14]. Since the state does want to appeal in this case, the SCOTUS will probably be the group to give the inevitable appeal. Idaho should remain blue as-is until then. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ninth Circuit issued a temporary stay in Idaho. No marriages tomorrow. [15]. I've updated the map. I don't know how to properly align the stripes with Utah to make it all pretty. Tinmanic (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way I align the stripes is to simply adjust the first coordinate in the "translate" parameter. That shifts the origin for the state's color scheme. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! How did you know to change it from 185 to 172? Where do those numbers come from? Tinmanic (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trial and error. I have the SVG saved to my desktop and have a copy open in Firefox; each time I change the number I refresh the tab and see if the stripes align yet. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! I thought there was some super-secret formula... Tinmanic (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As one leave another enters I mean this because Idaho's ruling is stay and Arkansas same sex marriages resume. I just read that many counties in Arkansas says that this rulings not affect them only to 6 or 7 counties is this true?--Allan120102 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and some of those counties refused to go along with the ruling. I don't know if that's changed. But the others said it had nothing to do with them. So it's a bit of a NM situation. — kwami (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an appeals court rules that a same-sex marriage ban isn't unconstitutional, would the state remain striped with yellow or would it go back to solid red/pink/etc.? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend if the appeals court kept the stay pending Supreme Court involvement or not. If the appeals court upheld a ban and did not stay its decision, the state would be back to the shade of red. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is correct. If the appeals court says same-sex marriage bans are constitutional, then the yellow striping should be removed immediately from the states that the appeals court has jurisdiction over, even if the case is appealed to the Supreme Court. The yellow stiping is only used to indicate "Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal". Rreagan007 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more in favor of changing against to about and retaining the beige for any sort of stayed ruling. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against that change. I don't think there is a need to note on the map when a court has reaffirmed state law. We do the striping to signify that a court decision has been stayed pending appeal. A court decision that does not strike down state law is not stayed pending appeal, because there is nothing to stay. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Oregon United for Marriage via this blog post, "The federal judge in Oregon’s marriage equality lawsuit said he plans to issue an opinion at noon [Pacific Time] on Monday." It's too weak of a source to put in the article unless we find a news article to that effect, but something to keep an eye out for. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good - with any luck we'll be able to get rid of that headache-inducing triple striping. Tinmanic (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until a possible scenario of the 10th Circuit affirms the Oklahoma and Utah rulings, applies the ruling to the entire circuit, it gets appealed to the US Supreme Court, and we get a triple-striped Colorado. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would Oregon continue to have its stripes if the ban is overturned and later appeal or it would be the same colors as the others like Texas, Virginia etc??--Allan120102 (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone would to appeal the upcoming (presumably) pro-marriage ruling and get a stay? I'm not quite sure, although I don't believe anyone but NOM is appealing and they won't get a stay. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources I have read said that the judge already rejected NOM's arguments for standing. Chances are he will rule against the ban, and then the state will formally declare their agreement with the ruling. I presume there will be no stay since the judge doesn't know of anyone with standing who will try to appeal. Since the Prop 8 appeal-a-thon was also part of the Ninth Circuit, the other judges in the circuit will probably not look at NOM's motions. It is not completely impossible that the judge could rule in favor of the ban though. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NOM action I referenced is that they're appealing their lack of standing to the 9th Circuit. A hail Mary attempt by an organization down to only hail Marys. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Oregon is struck down but the ruling is stayed, I think it has to quadruple striped, as the case only involves marriage in Oregon; other relationships and out-of-state marriages aren't affected. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; if Oregon's ruling is stayed, there will have to be four stripes: Yellow, Dark Gray, Light Blue, and Light Red. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Oregon's ruling will be stayed. There's nobody to appeal it, so there's no point in a stay. Tinmanic (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple news sources say the ban has been struck down. It seems the ruling is immediate. [17]Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bye, triple-striping. I also removed the dark gray category (recognition of out-of-state marriages) from the legend but retained it as a comment in case it's needed again at some point. Oregon was the only entity on the map that was using it. Tinmanic (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on keeping it as a comment; keep in mind the Ohio and Kentucky rulings are for out of state marriages. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once Nevada's case comes through (similar case as OR except that the Gov is a pro-SSM Republican instead of a pro-SSM Democrat), the last of the former Pacific Time Zone striping eye-sore will be gone! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The northern half of Idaho is in the Pacific Time Zone. But we've got the whole coast solid blue now! Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it comes as no real surprise, Oregon being a democratic state. The stay that the National Organization for Marriage requested has been denied so yeah I do not see anything else down the line either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of whether we should be using stripes at this point, the "score" of the 50 states is
17 Dark Blue - Marriage Equality
10 Dark Red - SSM & Related Banned by const.
9 Dark Red/Gold - SSM & Related Banned/overturned and stayed.
6 Medium Red - SSM banned by const
4 pink - SSM banned by law
2 Medium Red/Medium Blue SSM banned by const/ has Civil Unions (CO/NV)
1 Dark red/baby blue (WI)
1 "Oregon"
So even through we have Nine colors, we have striped concepted has the third most common. Just putting this out there...Naraht (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we make them plain gold? The color's already been accepted. — kwami (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the number of stayed states is growing quicker than I think anyone anticipated, I'm thinking sold gold at least would be easier on the eyes. For reference, Here is the discussion that came up with the gold stripes. The rationale was to preserve what type of ban was being struck down, but that is information that can be found in the image history. Thegreyanomaly, your thoughts? Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support any changes. The striped gold is necessary, sooner or later one of the Pink or Medium Red bans will fall akin to the 9 fallen Dark Reds. When that happens the striping will be very important. Remember, Hollingsworth v. Perry took three years after Walker's district ruling to actually get a SCOTUS decision. These beige stripes will be up here for a long time. Being able to know what precisely is stayed is important without needing to go anywhere else. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At what point do we sacrifice detail for readability? As it is now, the map is quite an eyesore. We can always switch back if your predictions come to fruition. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the difference between the two reds is trivial: If a ban is in the constitution, statutory bans are essentially irrelevant. If a statute is struck down and stayed, that would be different, but then we can color it striped gold/pink. (Though I don't know if they'd bother with a stay if it's just a statute.) — kwami (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't sacrifice detail for readability. We used to have a large swath of the west striped medium blue with medium red for the longest time. Major eyesore, we did nothing about it and everything went fine. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly prefer the current system of gold striping for adverse court decisions that have been stayed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it advisable to differentiate between stays by the Federal and State court systems: State decisions have no influence on other states, but the results of appeals at the Federal level are binding on all the states in the circuit? If so, Arkansas would be the new colour instead of gold, and Texas would be triple-striped. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. It would depend on how narrowly the appeals court chooses to apply its ruling. It is possible for an appeals court to just give a decision specifically about the one state law in question and leave it to lower courts in other states to apply the ruling at a later date. And since we have no way of knowing beforehand just how narrow an appeals court will tailor its ruling, any distinction we make would be purely speculative in nature. If an appeals chooses to apply the ruling to all states in the circuit, then we just change the map when the ruling comes out. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what you said, it's not quite true that a circuit court can choose which states in the circuit are subject to its ruling. The circuit court makes its ruling, and any similar law in any state in the circuit is subject to that ruling. It might be the case that the basis for the ruling is narrow; for example, the Ninth Circuit ruled in the Perry case that once the marriage right is granted, it can't be taken away, but the only state in the Ninth Circuit that had such a situation was California. But it doesn't seem likely that a circuit court could, or even would, find a way to rule just on Utah in a way that didn't apply to all the other states in the circuit.
That said, I don't think we need to differentiate between state court stays and federal court stays. The point of the striping is to show that the law in a particular state has been struck down but is still in effect. Tinmanic (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinmanic: Actually, a circuit court could find a way to rule just on Utah. If the Ninth Circuit ruled in the Perry case that once marriage rights are granted, they can't be taken away; Utah could get a similar ruling since same-sex marriages were performed there briefly. Oklahoma on the other hand (in the same district as Utah) wouldn't be able to rule that way. --Prcc27 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:, actually Utah cannot have a similar ruling to California. The vacated Ninth Circuit decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry was CA-centric because SSM was already legal before Proposition 8 passed, meaning a well-established right was being taken away. In Utah, this is not the case. Utah never had legalized SSM before banning it. The district court judge not giving a stay is not a comparable situation. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the striping. Yes it's an eyesore and I don't like having 3+ stripes. However, the only way do get rid of the stripes without sacrificing important detail would be to get rid of the civil unions/domestic partnerships and create a separate map for them. This proposal however was already defeated. The problem with making a separate map would be what do we do with states that have ssm and cu/dp?
Even though I don't think there's anyway to get rid of striping without sacrificing important detail, we could get 4 stripes for Oregon if the ruling is stayed tomorrow. FOUR STRIPES!!! REALLY!?? SERIOUSLY!?? The eyesore could get worse... .-. --Prcc27 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Oregon decision is not going to be stayed. There's nobody who can appeal the decision so there's no point in staying it. Tinmanic (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, do we have to bring back the recognition color for Utah? I think it might have to be striped now because (it has a date it will go into effect in 21 days). The only problem is that it's in state same-sex marriages that will be recognized, not out-of-state. What did we do for California? [18] --Prcc27 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do nothing for three weeks and hope for a ruling that doesn't involve adding a footnote, which I think is what we'd have to do if the stay expires. Mw843 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What we've done before in the past is add footnotes for stays that have a set date rather then an indefinite one. Should I remove the footnote I added..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote "Yes" to remove for the moment: the order is stayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw843 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I lean towards keeping it but I'm not strongly in favor of doing so; I wouldn't have that big of a problem removing it (especially since most of the temporary stays eventually get extended anyways). I'd like to hear what other users have to say before removing it though. Prcc27 (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your link has NOTHING to do with Utah I Ctrl+F "UT" and "Utah" and see nothing. We do not need to do anything to Utah. As has been noted multiple times, Utah's situation has no similarity to California's (where SSM was legalized and then later by completely separate legal actions temporarily suppressed). The only reason any SSMs were performed in Utah was because a judge chose not to apply a stay when it was clear there would be appeals. Leave Utah as is, no footnote, no change. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found an actual citation on the matter [19]. I don't think there is need to be any map change. I don't think there should be any footnote, but I will wait for other to weigh in before reverting the footnote. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would cut the footnote as well, at least now when the order to recognize is not in effect. To me, Utah recognizing the previous marriage is best suited to the Same-sex marriage in Utah article(or the ring on the world maps), and not notable enough for the current map, which ought to cover the states' treatment of currently issued licenses, not the grandfathered-in pool of Utah marriages. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When/if the stay is lifted ssc in Utah will have more rights than ssc in Oklahoma, Texas, etc. I support footnoting or striping Utah gray when the stay is lifted. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, but the gray would not work. The gray would imply for example that a couple could get married today in Oregon, move to Utah, and have their marriage recognized once the stay is lifted, which won't be the case. If the stay is lifted and the state recognizes the December/January marriages, then it might be footnote worthy, but I don't see a relevant striping as the dark blue ought to be reserved for currently issuing states. Honestly with Utah, I think the best strategy might be patience and seeing what the 10th Circuit rules. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: Then I think it should be footnoted. As for the world map, should there be a green ring and a blue ring? How would that work out..? --Prcc27 (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The color might work on the North American map... --Prcc27 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait to footnote it though, until the order actually comes to pass. For the world map, I'd imagine the current blue ring takes precedence over the green ring. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when the stay is lifted. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also set a new precedence for rulings with stays that have a set date? We used to add a footnote when the stays weren't indefinite, but so far many of those "temporary" stays became permanent stays. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:, this is one case where footnotes are not contentious to add. Since we update the map before new legislation takes effect, these kind of footnotes unlike others are essential. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's not removed, the Utah portion of the Footnote 3 needs to be changed: it reads as if Utah is acting voluntarily ... something like: "Utah has been ordered to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the state between their ban being struck down on December 20, 2013, and that order begin stayed on January 6, 2014. The new order becomes effective on June 9, 2014." Mw843 (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:, you really need to stop it with footnotes. You know they are always contentious, but you add them before you even have consensus for them. Utah does not need any special demarcation on the map. Anything that is going on in Utah pertains to a very small number of SSMs ever performed. The details involved for Utah are best meant for articles, not templates. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Okay, but I didn't know this footnote was going to be "contentious". I thought this was the same situation as California.
@Mw843: I actually already removed the footnote. If we re-add it how about "Utah has been ordered to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the state before the stay"? I'm still leaning towards having the footnote. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't re-add the footnote, there is no support for it. I have already pointed out to you how Utah is nothing like California in the Current ""Score" of the 50 states" section... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Actually, there might be some support for the footnote, weak support, but some support nonetheless. Most of us actually seem to be a little iffy on the footnote, which is why I removed it, just until there is stronger support for the footnote. Yes, you did point that out. However, this was a different ruling and you didn't discuss how the recognition differed but rather how the court would rule on it differently than they did for California. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: - Any comparisons between Utah and California are completely moot, that is what it means. The 18,000 marriages between In re Marriage Cases and the passage of Proposition 8 were legally sanctioned by existing law. That is, the Prop 8 federal court case had zero relevance to their legality. Even if that case went the other way, the 18k SSMs would still be be valid. Also, California did used to have footnotes primarily because of a 2009 law passed by the state legislature to undermine the amendment leading to the map being completely misleading without a footnote to the article. The Utah marriages may mean nothing if the appellate court and the SCOTUS rules against the plaintiffs, which is completely uncomparable to California. Comparing California to Utah (or Michigan or Arkansas) is highly dubious. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: You're probably going to get mad at me for asking but, would anything change if the state of Utah decides that they won't appeal the decision? If that happens, even if the appeals court and SCOTUS upholds the ban those marriages would be recognized right? --Prcc27 (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we stripe Utah light blue? If Utah doesn't qualify as light blue in this case then maybe it's time to change the wording for light blue. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: I don't get your fixation with Utah... Utah deserves no changes. It does not have any limited recognition. There are a small number of SSMs that might be recognized, but that does not mean it needs any special coloration. Giving it special coloration will do nothing but mislead and confuse readers. Also, everything I said in my last comment on Utah is still completely valid. There is no present recognition, (assuming there is no appeal) there is only recognition of a past sitution - no new relationships in Utah are being recognized. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: It's enumerated privileges granted to a limited group of people. I do agree that it could possibly confuse readers and shouldn't be added unless it could somehow be made clear why it is colored that way. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: - Wrong on both counts. It is not enumerated, it is legal recognition of grandfathered SSMs. It is not granted; it was granted. The map is supposed to depict the present and the immediate future. SSM performance in Utah was the past! It is not on going! It does not belong on the map. Please give up on this already. There is no merit in treating Utah differently from any of the other dred/gold states. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: I kinda already said that it shouldn't be added unless it was more clear that the situation represents that color. I don't know what you mean by "give up" but maybe that might qualify as giving up...
But the state will be granting rights to same-sex couples married before the stay. Yes, you're right, they will no longer grant same-sex marriage licenses; that's why Utah isn't blue. However, even though the couples got married in the past, that doesn't change that they'll get recognized in the future.
I don't know if there's any good way to represent Utah's situation on this map though. I do however view Utah's situation as being significant since some couples would have more rights than others in the other stayed states. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: - This map is supposed to represent the same-sex unions that are currently available in each state. No SSUs are available in Utah, which is what the map needs to represent. Unions that are no longer available do not belong on the map. Depicting it on the map is kind of like saying something that is not available is currently available. Several states used to give out CUs/DPs and no longer do, but they still recognize those unions yet they have no bearing on the map (since they are no longer available). Same goes for Utah. Utah's present situation is no different from all the other stay states. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly:Those states are represented under the "Some states also allow other same-sex unions" footnote. When you click on the link you can read and find out which states no longer perform CUs/DPs.
I've finally come up with a potentially beneficial solution. My solution is to replace the 3rd footnote with "some stayed states' situations may vary." That way it covers states that have partial bans struck down, states that performed same-sex marriage before a ruling was stayed and states that recognize "grandfathered" same-sex marriages. Not only would it reduce the 3rd footnote, but it would also redirect the readers to a link to go to for further information.
The biggest problem with this solution is that the article seems to lack some information but this can be fixed (and I will try to work on it). --Prcc27 (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just tweaked/added some stuff to the article. Btw, I really think this proposal is our best option! --Prcc27 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: - You are wrong in citing the CU/DP footnote. You are confusing past and present. The text in the footnote refers to the present and present day CU/DPs, the page it links to may cover past situations but that is not what the footnote actually refers to. That said, the condensed suggestion might work, but you should make a new section at the bottom of the page to discuss it where it won't be lost in the wall of text Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Yes, the footnote does refer to the present, but the link mentions the past as well. I'm satisfied with significant past situations being represented (even though it wasn't the original intent of that footnote). The reason I say "significant" is because I do think it's important we don't go overboard with addressing every single ssm event that happened in the past, especially if it isn't relevant anymore. I think the footnote I proposed is good because it covers how the current situation varies, but also links to past situations that might also be of importance to note. I will make a new section at the bottom for the footnote proposal. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: - But Utah isn't all that significant. It was a small set of marriages over a very short period of time. Nothing about it is significant other than how homophobic the state of Utah is relative to other red states. I would say something like the Australian Capital Territory ceasing SSM be an example of a past significant event. Utah comes nowhere close. I don't think very many other editors share your view on Utah, otherwise someone would have chimed in in your support in this really long back-and-forth. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Utah was added to Template:Same-sex unions under the "Previously performed" section by someone else. I'm the one who added ACT with a line through it (which got removed for some reason). --Prcc27 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What we do with that template is independent of what we do here. Having a previously recognized section in one place does not translate to being accepted here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. Also, I don't think anyone's strongly opposed to it either since nobody's chimed in to declare that their opposition. The footnote has had weak and insufficient support. And I don't think that Utah has to be referenced directly in the key. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it has support at all is questionable. Four people wrote in this section. Two people in this section are opposed to Utah recognition, two in support. That does not translate to weak support, it translates to no consensus (with a small sample). You don't need to chime in to support the status quo. If you want to make a change, then you need to get support. Support is more important here for Utah-inclusion. Anyways. I am not responding to this section anymore. You may want to focus your efforts on convincing people to go with your footnote 3 re-write then responding here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: - Please stop crystal balling and drawing up convoluted scenarios to justify your damn footnotes... Questioning whether the reddest state in the nation would not defend an anti-SSM law is a waste of thought process. Unless the current Utah governor and AG (who have said they will appeal and are appealing) are no more and they somehow get replaced by pro-SSM replacements, there is no logical reason to think they won't appeal. If the SCOTUS or the appeals court says that banning SSM is constitutional, then most likely those marriages will be moot. And it is not above NOM to challenge their legal validity if that happens. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: I am not crystalballing.. "Marty Carpenter, spokesman for Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, said in a statement that the state is reviewing the ruling, evaluating options and determining how this relates to other pending cases." [20] So it's possible that they won't appeal this particular ruling. Yes it seems likely that those marriages would be "moot", but we can't be completely certain. Also, Where did you see that they are appealing the decision..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... @Prcc27: you are crystal-balling. You are reading into a text and are drawing up a scenario that does not exist and you are using it to justify a Utah footnote. The Utah appeal is underway, assuming that they will pull out is an assumption. A couple recent sources from Google News [21]"Appeals are under way in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Idaho"[22]"The coming days will see the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rule on the Utah’s appeal of Judge Shelby’s ruling" Utah is appealing the overturning of the ban on the SSM from Judge Shelby. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: That's not the ruling I was referring to. I'm actually trying to figure out whether Utah should get a footnote, which is why I asked you if Utah not appealing the most recent ruling affects anything (since you seem to be the expert). Once again I was not referring to the Shelby case but the most recent one rather. Prcc27 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:. The second ruling, which you were talking about but were not initially very clear about, is under stay. Unless Utah does not appeal, there is nothing going on in Utah. Even if they don't appeal, those marriages will be affected by whatever the court in Denver says since they were borne out of a Shelby's ruling. Even if those marriages are validated by the state during the court proceedings, that is not significant enough for a note. They represent the relics of a past situation. They do not say anything about the present or immediate future. If those SSMs were validated by the state, it does not affect any other SSCs who are not part of those SSMs. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that pink & gold striping combo could make its first appearance.[23]Mw843 (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should also be prepared to color Pennsylvania solid blue if there is no stay. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Governor Corbett is opposed to same-sex marriage, but that opposition is costing him politically in a blue state, so we could have a New Jersey-like situation where the Governor goes through the motions of an appeal but drops it after a few days. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New Jersey was not federal court though and it has a complicated backstory. The NJSC had ruled years ago that SSCs needed to have access to all the rights of marriage but not necessarily the title marriage. When DOMA Sec. 3 fell, suddenly broad CUs/DPs were no longer legally equivalent since they aren't federally recognized and SSM is. That sealed New Jersey's fate and isn't the case in PA. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the pink and gold stripes will not make its appereance for now as Pensylvania governor would not appeal so it will probably appear until Indiana,Wyoming or West Virginia ban is struck down,whichever comes first.Imo it will be Indiana.--Allan120102 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Wyoming is in the 10th with Utah and Oklahoma, a broad ruling from Denver could effect Colorado, Wyoming and Kansas as well. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Tanco v. Haslam, a US District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction that the marriages of the 3 plaintiff couples be recognized immediately ... a PI is a very strong indicator that the judge believes plaintiff's suit will be successful. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals later stayed the injunction, pending review. I think that the fact that there's a case at the appeals court is enough to stripe Tennessee red and gold. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The primary question is whether Gold striping represents a couple who have had a legal decision that they should be married stayed or is it one which will wipe out the law entirely (like the one recently in is thatUtah)Naraht (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tennessee is similar to Ohio and Kentucky: the cases ponly deal with recognition of out-of-state marriages, and not the right to marry in the state. Mw843 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since OH, KT are striped, TN should be striped it as well. I have updated the map. @Dralwik:, can you do the stripe alignment? Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got Tennessee aligned nicely with Kentucky (and thus Virginia, etc.) when I realized that since TN borders Arkansas as well, Tennessee is the missing link between the two conglomerations of striped states; i.e. all the striped states are now bordering. I'll have the new map up in a couple minutes. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this seems to be an individual case rather than a case that will strike down the ban entirely. The only difference between Indiana and Tennessee (both individual cases) is that the Tennessee case got stayed and appealed and the Indiana case didn't. It's as silly to stripe Tennessee yellow as it is to stripe Indiana dark gray for recognition. Also why would Kentucky and Ohio get a footnote but Tennessee wouldn't P.S. if this case being appealed somehow challenges the entire ban then I'll support the striping. Prcc27 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if Tennessee is striped then Utah should definitely be striped (especially since there isn't even a footnote for Tennessee)! Why not stripe Utah light blue in that case (for limited privileges to couples who were married before the stay)? Prcc27 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. There is a footnote but my phone just wasn't showing it. Sorry! :/ Prcc27 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an injunction was stayed, not a ruling against the ban itself. Prcc27 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wisconsin AG has filed a pre-emptive stay request with the US District Court, which likely means he's expecting a ruling sooner rather than later. Mw843 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, more (potential) triple striping. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The supreme court of Wisconsin refused to hear a ssm case. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to proposal that we condense the 3rd footnote. My proposal is to replace the 3rd footnote with "some stayed states' situations may vary." That way it covers states that have partial bans struck down, states that performed same-sex marriage before a ruling was stayed, and states that recognize "grandfathered" same-sex marriages. Not only would it reduce the 3rd footnote, it would also redirect the readers to a link to go to for further information. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the change; I preferred explicitly pointing out that two states had only partial rulings against their bans. The current set up makes it seem like Ohio is in the same situation as Texas. I'd favor either bringing back the old footnote or finding a new color for the recognition rulings, and restoring the footnote would be simpler. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: That's a good point; without the new footnote there is absolutely no way to distinguish between Utah and Texas though. (However, thegreyanomaly would argue that UT, AR, & MI previously performing same-sex marriage isn't significant and Utah recognizing those marriages isn't either. They also argued against having a separate color because "The lawsuits are all stayed, it makes no difference to a same-sex couple in KY/OH versus the others; they are barred from SSM either way.") So currently they might be in the same situation, but eventually they wouldn't be. I also agree that it is important to note the difference between the possible future outcomes of KY/OH vs the rest. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 1: "Some states also allow other same-sex unions" - why is this necessary?[edit]
Why is it necessary that footnote 1 include the sentence "Some states also allow other same-sex unions"? That's already covered by the light blue and teal categories that apply to Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin. I deleted the sentence from the footnote but then @Prcc27: reverted it and told me that "we already agreed to include it." I don't see where that was agreed upon. Can someone explain why the sentence is necessary? If not, I propose deleting it as redundant. Tinmanic (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence was formerly in Footnote 2. Including the sentence avoids the situation of having dark blue/medium blue striping in about nine states, when the key point is that they allow same-sex marriage. Mw843 (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I get it now - it's referring to marriage-equality states that also allow types of unions. I'd like to make that more clear, i.e. "Some states in this category also allow other same-sex unions." Tinmanic (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is the wording for light gray: "No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions in territory law." Is "In territory law" really necessary..? I think it should be removed.. --Prcc27 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, a viewer may overlook the territories shown on the map. The light grey color is only seen on the territories. It cues the viewer to look down at the territories now that NM and RI are no longer in that category. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of wish we would have caught it when ssm was briefly legal in Michigan.
Also, I might make a Same-sex marriage map for Native American Tribal Jurisdictions but I would need help from others in order for it to be good enough quality. --Prcc27 (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop suggesting footnotes. Not everything needs a footnote. As for the map you suggest, that will be very difficult given how tiny and non-contiguous tribal reservations can be [25]. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's good to be prepared to add it if ssm resumes in Michigan. Prcc27 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know this has been brought up before, but I really think changing the stripes to solid gold would be more reader-friendly. The reason we have pink vs red vs brown is that a constitution is more difficult to amend than a statute. But once it's overturned by a court, the distinction is moot. Sure, if the ban is reinstated we'll want to know which color to use, but at that point it's unlikely to change and so still moot. If it comes to that and people really think it's necessary, I suppose IN, WV, and WY could be striped gold-pink, but meanwhile solid gold for overturned constitutional bans is more legible. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY OPPOSE The differences are important. We literally just had this suggestion within the last couple weeks. There is not enough support for this idea. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit): How will they know what kind of ban is being challenged? I'm weakly opposed, but I do think it would be nice to make the map less complicated. Prcc27 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter what kind of ban is being challenged? But like I said, we could have stripes for a statutory challenge. Or maybe light gold. We could decide that when the issue comes up. Meanwhile, gold would mean a constitutional ban has been struck down & stayed. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Light gold? That could work.. Prcc27 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am against the idea of stayed const-bans be solid and statute-bans striped. I might be open to multiple shades of gold, but I don't know if getting consensus for that is possible. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be on board with multiple shades of gold. Maybe a brighter yellow for statute overturn and the current old gold for constitutional bans being stayed? Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the example of what I'm thinking, using a theoretical 10th Circuit decision being stayed to affect Wyoming. Notice how the number of striped states goes from 14 to 3, and we would avoid triple striping Colorado. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Looks much better. Though if I might make a suggestion, it's not intuitively obvious that the yellow refers to the same kind of thing as the gold. A lighter or brighter shade of the gold might make things clearer. But if people like the yellow, that's okay by me. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can darken the statute stay color; I merely grabbed the default yellow to make the map quickly. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just have one question, what would we do with the medium red states? I'm assuming they would be gold as well..? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shades of gold? Huh, I guess... makes the legend longer, but map simpler. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There'd be one more line in the legend with my proposal, two if we distinguish both levels of constitutional ban being stayed, but we'd eliminate all but the civil union striping. It's a worthwhile trade in my estimation. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support having different shades of yellow. Unless someone has a good reason why we shouldn't do it... --Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I'm confused, I thought darkest gold (█) was for dark red (█) + stay and medium gold (█) was for medium red (█) + stay. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my idea is dark gold for the constitutional bans (dark and medium red) and light gold is for statute ban (pink). I see what you mean; give me a minute to work up the new map. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that, but Thegreyanomaly is concerned about loss of information. Also, I'd choose dark gold (█) over medium gold (█) if I had to choose. More contrast. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably keep the three levels of bans distinct in stay colors as well. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the proposed map using Tennessee as the mid-level guinea pig. Keep in mind the two lighter golds would not appear on the current map yet. I support this (three-color stay) scheme due to being an improvement over the current mass of striping. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added legend info in hidden text since the colors are not currently used. Edit here. Will need to translate legend info for dark gold (█) soon. I'll take care of Japanese and French tomorrow. Tagging Dralwik. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. So if and when Wisconsin goes, and is stayed, it would be dark gold and light blue striping, while Colorado would be medium gold and medium blue? Also, would it make sense to interleave the red and gold descriptions, so the dark gold is moved to after the dark red, and when medium gold happens, it goes between medium and dark red? It would better show the relationship between the corresponding reds and golds. Mw843 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the civil union states would keep their striping, the only current striping scenario in effect. As for rearranging the legend, that might be clearer to emphasize (eventually) three stay levels for three ban levels, although I'm fine with leaving the rearranging of the legend until we cross the bridge of having the other stay colors in effect. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You all might have waited at least a day or two to let people comment before making such a big change, instead of ten hours, especially on a long holiday weekend. How does ten hours allow anything remotely close to a consensus to form? I log in this morning and suddenly the stripes are gone. I actually liked the stripes and I find the proposal confusing with so many different shades of yellow. Not happy about how this was done. I'm not even sure how many yellow categories are being added. Is it just two? And why is Wyoming bright yellow in one of the maps in the file history? Tests should not be made to the main map. Tinmanic (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After ten hours, a unanimous support is a good example of WP:SNOW so I was bold. I apologize if you felt slighted, but consensus was clear when the new map went in. Also yellow Wyoming wasn't a test but uploading the wrong map. Firefox doesn't show the preview on Commons. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about me feeling personally slighted, it's about whether 10 hours is enough time for a consensus to form. Respectfully, I don't think it is. Everyone isn't necessarily checking this Talk page all the time, especially not every 10 hours. At any rate, what's done is done. Tinmanic (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the "waited at least a day or two" part. I would've opposed adding two new colors for future changes (medium gold █ and yellow █ in addition to the dark gold █ already used in stripes). The map will become too distracting—it already may be—as this map is about same-sex marriage, not civil unions, or constitutional bans on civil unions and other relationships. I would simplify it further and use only one color of red and get rid of the light blues. At least we've become accustomed to the "striping." Now we've got to get used to striping and all these additional colors? MarkGT (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on removing civil unions, but just last month that conversation was voted down. It looks like this map is as simple as standing consensus will permit: either have the stay striping with the three ban colors and thus a very noisy map, or the three solid stay colors. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Imo this is a great idea its easier for a reader to read and see. I might say I prefer there should be a different type of shade of gold for rulings that have been completely overturned to the ones that have been just partially overturned for recognized only.I might add that Oregon ruling might be stay if the supreme court gives the stay NOM is asking them.I hope they fail and the stay is not granted as it was given to Utah.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question... Do the judicial rulings also apply to same-sex unions? "Judicial ruling against a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and similar unions stayed pending appeal" implies that the ban on similar unions is being challenged and stayed pending appeal too. If similar same-sex unions aren't being challenged then I suggest the wording be fixed. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rolled the legend back because those concerns seem like they're an explanation searching for an ambiguity. If you browse the state laws (here is our summary of each), you'll see the marriage and other union bans are the same sections of the statutes/constitutions, and I don't see how a ruling against a marriage ban could not apply to other unions as well, since both involve the deprivation of state recognition of relationships for the same rationales. Our goal is to provide a quick summary map to our readers, not to try and give a seminar on potential legal loopholes. (Your first edit to "similar unions" was a better wording though.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: Because in Ohio and Kentucky, the rulings only partially strike down the ban. It doesn't affect the ban on performing same-sex marriage and I haven't heard anything about it affecting similar unions. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm thinking we changed the wrong scheme on the map; instead of three solid stay colors I'm thinking we should have kept the stripes and used the yellow to reflect the distinct situations in Ohio and Kentucky. Maybe we ought to discuss that reversion to the stripes. If a situation requires three lines of text to be explained, we're doing the map wrong. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we might have to go back to striping. Would Ohio and Kentucky be striped too, just with a different color? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like them to be; I'm thinking go back to striping, and use a brighter yellow for the Ohio/Kentucky stay striping to reflect the partial overturn. That way, we also remove a footnote which is always nice. If I get further input, I could set up an RFC with the new "original striping + yellow OH/KY stripe" situation. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we go back to how the striping was originally right now and then try to get consensus for a different color for OH/KY or do we have to do two seperate RFCs for both possibilities? --Prcc27 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking try and get the reversion and the new color in one RFC and giving the board a couple days to weigh in; after the itchy trigger on the solid stay colors I want to be cautious about protocol.
Do others think this would be attainable? Better ideas? Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I don't think the original wording has the problem you're seeing. Of course sources aren't mentioning civil union bans; if the marriage ban is struck down who is going to want a civil union instead? To me, the ambiguity over civil unions is a point for removing civil unions from the map and limiting the colors to how the state laws impact marriage, not turning the legend into a semantic pretzel. I still think it might be wise to find a distinct color for KY/OH. Maybe a pale cream color? Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"when wording in dispute, the page goes to the original while it is being hammered out" Does that apply to the map too?
Yes, which would be the map in effect when this conversation started. Dralwik|Have a Chat 03:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only support removing civil unions if there is a civil union map made. I don't think the county map should be the de facto civil union map like you suggested though. And if there is a civil union map, what do we do with states that have both civil unions and same-sex marriages?
(Edit) Wait, hold up. So there are 3 stay colors currently right? If we do recognition wouldn't we have to have 3 different versions for them as well (to distinguish between the different bans). 6 stay colors, 1 marriage color, 2 CU/DP colors, 1 recognition color, 1 no law for or against color, 1 statute ban on ssm, 1 constitutional ban on ssm color, and 1 constitutional ban on ssm and cu/dp color. That's 14 colors.--Prcc27 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support going back to striping or fixing the wording. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced your issue of the civil union bans not being struck down with the marriage laws actually exists. Dralwik|Have a Chat 03:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: It does exist. For KY/OH it does exist. Since Ohio and Kentucky aren't different colors yet, I think we should change the wording for now because it's inaccurate. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source? If it's just KY/OH then noting the civil union bans are still intact would be more befitting the footnote, until/unless we get a KY/OH striping to consensus. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, footnote then. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: I know this is probably an annoying question but doesn't that mean the U.S. same-sex marriage map has to be updated as well..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you created two separate maps for marriage only and civil unions only, despite that very idea being shot down on this page? Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: I don't remember that idea being shot down. The idea that was shot down was removing content from this page. In fact, @Rreagan007: said that I was free to make all the maps I want, so I did. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I made this clear on your talk... --Prcc27 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please properly indent your replies to people -- it makes it easier to follow discussions. Thanks. Tinmanic (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the indentations to be one smooth thread. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So with the stay colors in place, Ohio and Kentucky still appear the same as Texas, despite the different reach of their individual rulings (merely recognizing out of state marriages against the state ban struck down). So I was thinking, why not stripe the out of state recognition stay color, akin to how we stripe out of state recognition? Making a state recognize out of state marriage has no effect on the state's performance of marriage, so we could still stripe the ban color. Full marriage is a solid color; full marriage ban stay is a solid color. Out of state recognition is striped, out of state stay is striped as well. We would also eliminate footnote 3.
How is this for a OH/KY color map?Here is the adjusted map. 14:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I prefer that both of them are stripe so people can know that it was a partial struck down and not a complete one.The only think I don't like is that white/yellowish color But that is something trivial--Allan120102 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would still prefer going back to the prior striping of all the stayed states, but then use a different shade of yellow for OH & KY. I'm not sure of the logical reason for using stripes for one type of stay (OH & KY) but solid color for another type of stay (the other states). But if we go with this test map, you might want to tweak the stripe alignment with OH & KY, and maybe a different color than white. Tinmanic (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The stripes versus solid color is reflecting the scope of the rulings; solid stay states have the entire prohibition on same-sex marriage struck down and to parallel the solid marriage color, while the striped stay would reflect the partial overturn of the states' marriage bans while the main prohibition on in-state marriages persist, and parallel how we stripe out of state marriage recognition. Also, a map that would have 12 striped states and growing quickly turns into an eyesore. As for the color, I'm open to suggestion. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I chimed in on this topic. I for one am glad to see that there's less striping on this map than their used to be and I'm quite in favor of avoiding steps that introduce yet more striping to the map; it's just visually jarring and messy. As I have stated in the past, it's all a result of trying to do what is, in my opinion, too many things at once. If I were the King of Wikipedia, I'd strip this map down to a barebones version that answers what I believe to be the question most users have when they see it : Is same-sex marriage legal in a given state or not? Well intentioned efforts to add more layers of information to the map have resulted in an ever-shifting plethora of different shades and striped configurations. Now the map is trying to tell us not only whether SSM is legal in a given state, but to differentiate between types of bans, to shoehorn in the status of marriage-like unions, recognition of foreign marriages, and so on. All good intentions but all resulting in information overload; we're asking one map to try and do what two or three should be doing. However, I am not the King of Wikipedia, and there's no way anyone is going to take my stand on it seriously, so I'll offer up a TL;DR version : Don't go back to more stripes. The map is much more user friendly without them. Shereth 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a good point about this map turning into a transient stew of coding and stripes, and I will admit the KY/OH striping is not as important to me as retaining the simplifying solid stay colors. Whereas the solid stay colors was to make the map easier to read at a glance, this newest proposal is a means to visualize the current footnote. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support striping for KY/OH because I don't like the contradiction between the key and the footnote. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the civil unions... I'd have to see a proposed civil union map before I'd support having separate maps.
I think it would be alright to bring the civil union situation up again since there wasn't a proposal for a new other unions map last time. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any changes to Kentucky or Ohio. I think the footnote is sufficient for now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, the footnote contradicts what the key says. Prcc27 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please come up with better wording!? I don't like the contradiction between the key and the footnote... Prcc27 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prcc27 To play devil's advocate, the stay color mentions a ruling against a ban, not necessarily a ruling invalidating the full ban, and the footnote, ugly as it may be, does cover the difference. I still favor a new color and striping for OH and KY, but I don't think we're as imprecise as you fear. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support striping Kentucky and Ohio. The striping would mean that marriages would be recognized meanwhile a change in color will show a complete struck down meaning the ban was completely overtuned.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the striping. It seems to make sense to stripe them, since when the stay is lifted (assuming the ruling doesn't change) the states will be striped again anyways. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support striping, or at least some map based distinction, for Ohio and Kentucky. It's a very different situation comparatively. The distinction is worth more than a footnote. (I'm personally of the opinion that the least important distinction on the map currently is dark and medium red. I think states having civil unions is of reasonable importance, but I don't really care about their banning status at this point.) --Siradia (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current vote tally is 4-1 in favor of striping KY/OH, with two further comments. Tinmanic, Shereth, what are your stances? Here is the map, with the striping aligned and the stay color darkened a bit.
As well, my proposed wording for the map legend is "Judicial ruling for a state to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages only stayed pending appeal." Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support striping and I like the new color. I would change the wording to "Judicial ruling striking down ban on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages stayed pending appeal." Tinmanic (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Since it looks like we have a clear decision, I'll put the new map in around 6 PM Central time (4.5 hours from now). Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! I know it's redundant, as the new map is in, but I support the change, as I've been advocating a new look to KY and OH since the start. I feel this is necessary for viewers to differentiate whether the whole ban, or part of the ban was struck down. aharris206 (aharris206) 05:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "removing civil unions" from the map what if we just had 2 separate maps for same-sex marriage and other same-sex unions at the state level? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having this map be the same-sex marriage only map would get rid of medium blue (Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex domestic partners), light blue (Limited/enumerated privileges granted by state), and would merge the two darkest reds into one (since bans on other same-sex unions would be reflected on the other map). Here is a rough draft proposal of the dsame-sex unions map [26]. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC
Strongly oppose - This is the map on "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States". That includes CUs/DPs, they belong on this map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This map is too cluttered, 2 maps can do the job. Prcc27 (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: - please don't modify my (or anyone else's) messages. You changed my text away from "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States" Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: It definitely wasn't intentional.. It was probably a mobile edit. Prcc27 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping information from three states is not going to make the map any less cluttered. This proposal is pointless. Multiple recent discussions to remove CU/DPs have failed. This proposal is pointless and redundant. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would affect more than three states... it would merge dark red and medium red into one (since the cu distinction would become unnecessary). Prcc27 (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't suggest having a map exclusively for civil unions though. Instead, they proposed we use a state/county/local level map with civil unions and marriage. I'm suggesting two separate maps for two separate unions. Prcc27 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit) I would like to add that there is a possibility of having eleven different colored states on the map. My proposal (unlike the other civil union proposal) would get rid of three colors (plus one of the hidden stay colors we added). This would decrease the maximum possibility of colors to seven. Still a lot, but at least it's better than eleven! (we currently have eight different colored states/territories on the map btw). --Prcc27 (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you're proposal isn't 100% identical, it is still extremely similar. Everything you have said has been said in some form or another in that discussion that took place just barely over a month ago and it did not sway the opposition. This is too soon to be bringing it up again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Some people might support the idea of having two separate maps rather than just removing civil unions altogether and having them represented on a state/county/local same-sex union map that includes marriage. The reason why I didn't support removing civil unions before was because I didn't like the map that @Dralwik: suggested to be the "'other unions' map". --Prcc27 (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can happily support this proposal; it quite neatly goes along with my comments in the above section. I can think of no compelling reason why the information in these maps cannot (or should not) be split into two maps with a more narrow focus. The name of this file is, after all, "Samesex marriage in USA" and not "Samesex unions in USA", description and longstanding consensus notwithstanding (consensus can change). It'd be much nicer to see this map with only 4 colors (Legal/Banned/Judicial action/None), and then a separate map for 'other types of unions' with a similar number of colors. Footnotes can be added for KY and OH in the event they are ultimately forced to recognize, but not offer, SSM. Shereth 13:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what the "just marriage" map looks like. I like how simple this map is, and I agree that civil unions are becoming irrelevant to this map as the focus of the current movement is on full marriage and the recent rulings are largely silent on allowing civil unions. However, I'm doubtful we'll find the consensus for this cleaner, but civil union-less, map. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: Thank you for making that map. It looks much better than our current map! The only thing I'm concerned about is that there's dark blue for same-sex marriage and pink/medium red against same-sex marriage. But that's probably a problem that would have to be solved later on. --Prcc27 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Makes more sense to have a map that has all the information in one place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But does it really? The dividing line between "appropriate amount of information" and "too much information" is admittedly arbitrary, but this map certainly doens't contain all of the information. Pardon the foray into reductio ad absurdum here, but one could argue there is value in adding yet more shades of blue to differentiate between states whose pro-SSM laws are derived from legislative action vs. judicial action vs. popular initiative, or perhaps further shading to indicate what year the SSM laws went into effect, or so on. My point being that there's always a way to stuff more information into a map but it's not always a good thing, and I'd argue that this one already suffers from having too much. Shereth 17:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: Why? All of the information on same-sex unions isn't in one article. In same-sex marriage articles having civil unions on the map is unnecessary and vice versa. --Prcc27 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Shereth:, you are completely in the wrong here. This map is "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States." The file name is irrelevant. CU/DPs are types of same-sex partnerships, they belong on the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The map is "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States" because that is what the current prevailing consensus says it is, not because of some innate and immutable quality. Consensus can change and if a discussion leads to a new consensus, then this map can change. There is no harm in bringing it up for discussion, but it's hardly useful to paint my argument as being "wrong" because it is not in agreement with the previous consensus. Shereth 02:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose creating a separate map. There is no need for it. There are only 2 civil union states and 1 "limited privileges" state, and the trend is away from doing civil unions and towards same-sex marriage only. At this point it seems highly unlikely that any more states will be doing anything with civil unions. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: Even if same-sex marriage is legalized in all of those states, we'll still have to have 3 shades of red instead of 2 because of civil unions as well as 3 shades of yellow instead of 2. We could potentially have 11 different colored states if we keep civil unions! Prcc27 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should only have 1 shade of yellow no matter what. I actually think we should just go back to the yellow striping. And by your logic, why stop at just 2 shades of red? Why not just have 1 shade of red and have it be for "same-sex marriage or civil unions illegal". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: Here's a quote from @Shereth: "one could argue there is value in adding yet more shades of blue to differentiate between states whose pro-SSM laws are derived from legislative action vs. judicial action vs. popular initiative, or perhaps further shading to indicate what year the SSM laws went into effect, or so on." So you tell me, at what point do we decide how many colors to have in the legend? Why not have more than 1 same-sex marriage color..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As nobody is actually proposing doing that, I'm not sure what relevance it has. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if there are never ever going to be anymore civil unions like you claim, there's no point in the distinction between the two reds. Fine, if we're going to have a detailed map then I'll suggest it. Why have one standard for blue and one for red? Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well then I would say that if something is legal (like gay marriage) it doesn't really matter very much why it is legal, or how it ultimately became legal after a period of illegality. After all, in our legal system, as it is traditionally understood, everything is legal unless there is some specific law that makes it illegal. Conversely, for something to be illegal there must be a specific law that makes it illegal, and what kind of law makes it illegal (e.g. statute vs constitutional prohibition) is important because one type of law is more difficult to change than the other due to things like supermajority requirements or immunity from judicial review. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW the process by which a pro-SSM law came into being has every bit as much bearing as the process by which an anti-SSM law came into being, vis a vis the difficulty in changing them : a law legalizing SSM brought into effect by a state legislature can be revoked by the next state legislature, or by popular initiative, or by judicial action, whereas a pro-SSM decision by a judicial review is immune to any overturning except by a court higher up in the appeals process. To claim that the process by which a law came into being is relevant for "negative" laws but not "positive" laws is inconsistent. Not that I intend to push the point further, I'm just being a little pedantic. Shereth 02:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, civil unions are legal in way more than 2 states. Check the proposed civil unions map. Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 matter for purposes of this map. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having a separate CUs map would allow for more information on civil unions though. Prcc27 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to make all the maps you want, but the creation of new maps does not mean information must be removed from this map. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, thanks for the idea. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose creating a separate map. I wish people would stop proposing solutions for non-existent problems. Leave the map alone for a while. Tinmanic (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to get others to exhibit restraint with all their proposals (some of which are completely meritless), but those same users just keep making them (and in this case they made one only a month after a very similar proposal failed...) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I am not sure if the proposal above this one about Kentucky and Ohio being stripe won? Are they going to be stripe or we are going to wait more?--Allan120102 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: - I've noticed you have been trying to replace this map with your new PNG map that lacks CU/DPs on a variety of pages... By doing this, you are essentially undermining the consensus against your proposal. Please stop! Thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: It isn't necessarily replacing the map. On some articles both of the maps appear. It was actually suggested that I make all the maps I want, so I did. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: But some of the articles have more than one of the maps.. I based it on relevance. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, just stop. We didn't ask for the maps. Someone saying you could make them doesn't mean we need to use them. This map is sufficient, and people support the inclusion of CU/DPs in it. Please stop trying to replace it or post partly-redundant maps Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all articles deal with CU/DPs though. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CU/DPs have some-to-all of the state level rights of SSM, they are intrinsically relevant to SSM. Trying to replace the map with whatever justification you want to makeup is still undermining our voices. Anyways I am going to sleep soon. Gnite. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems changes to the map are constantly proposed and discussed. I would like to suggest to not make too much changes too often, because
It increases confusion to readers if we are changing colors once in a while.
Each time all color keys need to be updated. Other Wikipedias use this map as well, and they do not watch all changes, so their key would be (and probably already are) outdated.
We now only have three states with stripes anyway. Striping seems to be of most concern often, but we had much more striping in the past.
And above all, while I know Wikipedia should be neutral, I think anyone can agree that the Supreme Court will relatively soon rule on same-sex marriage, making this map redundant. So whatever we are still changing, it will be temporary anyway. For the future, it would only increase the difficulty to compare historical file versions. And making another map for civil union seems to me completely redundant since they will be gone in the relatively near future.
I'm not going to bother discussing much, but here are just my thoughts. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well regardless of whether or not we get rid of civil unions, there are going to be changes to the map unfortunately. There are currently 2 stay colors in the legend that are hidden but it's very possible that they will be used in the future. Getting rid of civil unions would remove 1 of those stay colors from the legend. Also, it's not just about striping. Getting rid of civil unions would decrease the maximum possibility of having 11 different colors to 7 different colors (that's less than we have right now!) --Prcc27 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:, you are misinterpreting the message from @SPQRobin:. People (this includes you) have been frequently and pointlessly been proposing to change the colors in the map, changing the meaning of colors, remove information, etc... Changing colors of individual states is inevitable. That is not the problem. Continually making merit-less proposals to add/remove colors all the time is getting tiring. You need to exhibit some restraint with all these proposals. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: I'm not saying we remove information, I'm saying that we could have a separate map for that information. The new stay colors would have an effect on the map in other wikipedia pages too. That was my point. Prcc27 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please properly indent your comments. Yes you are suggesting removing information - You are suggesting removing information from this map and directing it elsewhere. You are advocating removing information, an idea that was just recently rejected. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Indiana_Footnote){kind=link}
![[26]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/0d/20140531042911%21MSM_Blood_Ban_Map.png){kind=link}
