File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 6

Possible upcoming changes

Jan-Feb are looking like they will be months where a long of legislative actions related to this map may be taken

I just wanted to put up a watch list, so edits can be made promptly should said actions occur Going West to Eastthis list is no longer West East

• New Mexico may go from being 50% grey to pink (New governor wants to pass a statute)[1]
• Maryland may go from lblue-grey to dblue (or mblue-grey) (Dems trying to pass SSM, GOP CUs, Gov wants SSM [2]). Bill was opposed by the House and sent the bill back to committee, effectively killing its chances for passage in 2011. Proponents plan to bring it up again in 2012. Maryland House committees have passed SSM legislation, will go to full House.
• New Hampshire dblue to pink (or pink-mblue) (Republican supermajorities are trying to repeal the law [3]) being held off for a year [4]
• Rhode Island (Gov and Dem legislature working on bill [5])
• Delaware may have some changes within the next few years. A new statewide group pushing for civil unions has formed ([6]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamlance (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone prep for a change....bill passed legislature and Gov says will sign. the change shouldn't happen yet though because the bill is NOT signed. But preparations are in order considering the declared intent to sign. [7] DaveIseminger (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I will generate the necessary map for Delaware on my desktop. I will upload it when the time comes Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC) done Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Colorado may get civil unions. They need to get a couple GOP votes in their House, so I am holding my breathe [8] Issue appears dead for this year/now see [9] and [10] DaveIseminger (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Watch Minnesota going from pink to red (but not maroon). Though this wouldn't happen until some chamber votes and a 2012 election citizen vote, so that is pretty far off. [11] DaveIseminger (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Minnesota to have ballot initiative on SSM in 2012. Could move to red if voters approve constitutional amendment. If denied, no change. Vanbis01 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Add anything I missed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is going against WP:CRYSTAL please stop making changes until they happen already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not making any changes to these states. I am just pointing out that we need to keep an eye out for changes that have a decent likelihood of occurring. Big difference. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates and potential changes, Grey. Never a bad idea to know what to keep an eye on. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii

http://www.necn.com/01/28/11/Hawaii-Senate-takes-up-civil-unions/landing_politics.html?&blockID=3&apID=f5113e510f0242afbf949136441b624a

Bill passed their senate. It is going to the house soon. Just a heads up. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

[12] Another change is around the corner. Hawaii senate needs to approve the changes the house made, and then it is off to the governor. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Barring any surprises [13], the map will need to changed within the next two weeks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bill will be signed at 1 PM HST on Thursday. I will probably update the map around Thursday 3:05 PST (=1:05 HST) if no one beats me to it. [14] Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to update the map, please do it on Wednesday, the ceremony was sheduled one day earlier according to the Star Advertiser. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, someone will probably beat me to the map update due to my Wednesday class schedule. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The governor actually decided to sign the bill into law today, Wednesday, rather than Thursday. Just passing it on. [15] Yankhill (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Striping

I've tried understanding what the striping is intended to represent vs the solid colors. Based on the states involved in this graph, it appears to be pending legislation or other action, but I couldn't understand how the colors used in the stripes were meant to convey something about either the previous state of the laws or pending state. In short, was it discussed previously to include the striping colors in the legend with an explanation? Or if that would take too much space, at least a reference to an article/elsewhere that provides that explanation? Wilhelmp (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, striping has nothing to do with pending law or previous law. It simply means that two different situations are simultaneously true. Nevada, for example, has unions granting rights similar to marriage (medium blue), but it also has a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (red). 70.173.174.25 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the striping is too confusing though. Some of the situations where two apply seem obvious. For example I don't see why we need stripes for any state that has civil unions, because any state colored for civil unions obviously does not allow gay marriage, bc if it did then it would be colored for gay marriage. So it seems unnescessary and confusing to add stripes to any state where civil unions are granted. If the state grants civil unions, who really cares whether marriage is banned by a statute or the constitution? The thing that's most significant is that they allow civil unions and adding stripes for additional info is just too confusing. It's the same reason that states that do allow gay marriage are not also striped for civil unions because even though they allow both, its common sense that if they allow marriage then they also allow civil unions. Similar if a state were colored just for civil unions, it would be obvious that the state does not allow gay marriage, and gay marriage would therefore be banned by some statute or the constitution. I think there is no reason for striping any of the states.Schnapps17 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I looked at the map again and I'm going to amend what I just said. The only state that I think needs to be striped is Maryland, because a state that grants domestic partnerships would not necessarily rcognize marriages performed elsewhere, and a state that recongnizes marriages performed elsewhere would not necessarily grant domestic partnerships in their own state. On the other hand, all of the civil union states and all of the domestic partnership states are currently striped. Wouldn't it make more sense to color them just for civil unions, and then have a footnote saying all states that grant civil unions or domestic partnerships (except Maryland) ban gay marriage either through the state constitution or a statute. I think it would make the map easier to read. I also think that given the complicated situation in California, it should just be colored a different color, like yellow or green or something, and leave the footnote saying it's complicated.Schnapps17 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a good idea, except for the fact that New Jersey has civil unions, but does not have any legal bans on same sex marriage, nor does it recognize foreign same sex marriages. So it can't be striped.Adamlance (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe my point did not get across because I was too long winded. What I'm saying is that none of them (except Maryland) need to be striped, because anyone looking at the map only really cares about whether states allow gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or none of the above. That's it, just four colors (plus one for california bc "it's complicated" there). If it's banned, who really cares whether its by a statute, a constitution, or a constitutional ammendment?Schnapps17 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion comes up every couple of months on here and is archived. The striping is necessary because it is not "obvious" what statutory or constitutional hindrances there are for SSM in a state based on what form of relationship recognition the state offers (Domestic partnership, Civil Union, or SSM). It will be much easier for SSM to ultimately become legal in a state where the hurdle is a statute instead of a constitutional amendment. For example, in WA State it should be theoretically be easier for SSM to one day become legal because the legislature (or people via an initiative) can repeal the statute and enact a gender-neutral SSM law. All of these actions in WA will only ever require simple majority votes. But in a State such as Oregon the only way for SSM to become legal is if voters first REPEAL a constitutional amendment and then a separate statute is passed (remember that most states have single-subject rules for ballot questions so most state voters will never be able to repeal a DOMA law and simultaneously enact a SSM law). And in some states there is a supermajority voter requirement exists(60% in Florida and some special rules for several other states - http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16584) and frequently supermajority votes are required in the houses of a state legislature for a measure to even make it on a ballot - http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Amending_state_constitutions). Thus, the levels of red striping show how easy or hard it will be to enact a SSM law in the future (or to prevent a SSM law depending on your view) whereas the blue striping convey what relationship recognition exists in the state. And as evidence by the patchwork of prohibiting laws/constitutional amendments and positive relationship recognition laws, every combination out there exists! None of this is obvious and the two different striping types convey important, and different, legally accurate information. There is a very big difference between statutory and constitutional bans that LOTS of people care about and want to know.DaveIseminger (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

But the map isn't titled "how hard or easy would it be for it to happen in the future" it's about the current status now. I really think it makes the map much more confusing, and I haven't seen the archived discussion so maybe I'm in the minority, but that's my opinion and I doubt that I'm alone.Schnapps17 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the map isn't about the "future" my reasons were any explanation of why the designated ACCURATE differences in current state laws/constitutions prohibitions might matter to people. Regardless of anyone's personal views in whether they think there is a difference between a statutory and constitutional ban there are significant legal differences. "Activist judges" can strike statutory bans down on constitutional grounds (see Iowa and CA) whereas courts cannot generally strike down constitutional amendments (expect on procedural defects in the amendment process). I think this debate really comes down to if people want a one-stop shopping kind of map or want to look at one map for + rights and one for - rights. The past debates came out in favor of 1stop shopping. Sorry! DaveIseminger (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, this map is primarily used on the SSM page of wikipedia (see the file header). So knowing the differences in SSM limitations (statute versus constitution) is crucial to the content of the article. So for this map for this page the stripes should stay. Theygrey also points out the maps you seek (one with just blue designations and separate one with the red designations) exist on wikipedia and are used elsewhere.LGBTlawguy 21:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people being confused is not reason to remove stripes. If you want a map that just has coloration for LGBT-positive legislation you should see File:Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States.svg. Censoring information because some people think it is confusing is wrong. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

New Jersey

While we are the subject of striping, what actually distinguishes NJ from WA, IL or HI? Doesn't NJ also have a statute banning SSM? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. See [16], [17] Ron 1987 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii

As Hawaii has a small area, could the blue/rose stripes of Hawaii be made thinner to make the striping more apparent, at first glance, I thought the state had relegated the legal decisions to its counties. --Shibo77 (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is possible, it is just how the striping works. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Michigan

I think Michigan should be striped with light blue just like Wisconsin. State employees will recieve benefits akin to Domestic Partners.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/04/15/Michigan_DP_Policy_Survives_Vote/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.139.93 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1) Disagree. The situations are not comparable. Like Colorado and Maine, Wisconsin law provides for a registry that couples must enter into and record their relationship to receive a variety of enumerated rights. These rights are available to any and every lgbt person in Wisconsin who signs up --- not just state workers. There are many states that allow for lgbt state workers to have health benefits for their significant other. But these states often MUST provide health benefits to all state workers because of their employment non-discrimination laws. But again, state's granting state employees access to health benefits is a significantly different situation from any sort of registry that any and all lgbt residents can access. Also, if Michigan is stripped because some lgbt residents who happen to be state workers can get health benefits for their partner then Alaska, Montana, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania would also need to be stripped. (See triangles on this map http://www.hrc.org/documents/Employment_Laws_and_Policies.pdf).

2) Note, Maryland is a different ball of wax altogether....though there is not a state registry in Maryland, any and every gay couple who fulfills certain requirements can get certain "hospital and death" related rights. http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/904.htm. But since those rights are accessible by EVERYONE in Maryland, not just state employees, it makes sense to strip it on this map.

3) Arguably, Rhode island should be stripped on this map. Like Maryland there is no state registry in RI. And like Maryland, any and every gay couple can prove a domestic partnership status (via a domestic partnership agreement or relationship contract) and get death related benefits (can arrange a partner's funeral) that private funeral businesses must honor. (Bill ultimately passed by veto override = http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText09/SenateText09/S0195B.pdf) See also, http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/1750.htm I'd be ok with stripping Rhode Island because Maryland is stripped. MD and RI should either both be stripped or neither should be. Some might argue the rights given under RI law are "not substantial enough" to warrant stripping because RI's rights are even less than MD's. I'm not sure what the standard is, or should be, but I for one think MD and RI are similar enough situations that they should be treated the same on this map. But regardless MI, AK, MT, NM, and PA should not be stripped.DaveIseminger (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island

MD is striped 50% grey, because it recognizes SSM from out of state. RI is striped light grey, they are different. RI may soon be turned dark blue anyways Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I know they are differently marked on this map and the difference is gray is correct. But my point was not suggesting a difference in the "grayness" of RI. I was pointing out that RI should have a light blue stripe like MD does. Please review my prior post thinking about light blueness and relationship recognition. RI, like MD, does not have a state registry but recognizes domestic partnerships (according to domestic partnership relationship contracts --- see links above). So there is relationship recognition in RI, minimal but it is still there. And HRC designates MD and RI similarly on this map http://www.hrc.org/documents/Relationship_Recognition_Laws_Map.pdfDaveIseminger (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's hold off on RI until their SSM bill passes/dies. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

RI SSM bill is dead, they will be trying a CU bill instead. That bill has strong chance at passing and Chafee has promised to sign it. [18]. I will be abstaining from all discussions pertaining to recoloring any state (outside of instances where a new law passes; e.g., Delaware), as I am extremely busy these days. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Delaware

Delaware legalized civil unions today. The law confers identical rights as marriage, so it should be dark blue. Raul654 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed above. The bill is not yet signed and the bill says "it is not the legislature's intent to revise the definition or eligibility requirements of marriage under Chapter 1, Title 13 of the Delaware Code" so it should not be made dark blue. Thegreyanomaly will upload an updated striped version (light red/civil union blue) once this is signed. Hekerui (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

[19] May 11th = signing day. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Made the update (though it may or may not be a couple hours early). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we perhaps switch the striping colors against each other? One hardly notices the "blue corner". Regards Hekerui (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Doing so will effect the striping order of all statute-ban "everything but marriage" states. As a result, HI and WA will get inverted too. I will do it when I am at home (in the library right now). If another small or oddly-shaped state enters this class, we will have to figure out what the plan of action is. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Delware should be updated on this map too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_in_the_United_States.svg 70.173.174.25 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Weigh in

Can people weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. It is about the map colors. I posted it there cause I thought it would get more attention/responses, but nothing in a week. CTJF83 02:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

your point is the same one discussed above in the striping discussion. Davei comment covers exactly why the red/pink negative stripes and blue poistive stripes are needed. Plus the reason for pink versus red he explains well, too. This idea and question comes up a lot and users have turned it down several times174.253.195.75 (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, thanks, CTJF83 11:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

New York

I have prepared the SVG file. When Cuomo signs it, I will upload it. I think this is the first time such a bill passed in a Republican controlled legislative house. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds quite sensible. Underneath the map in most articles is a footnote indicating that in certain states, the law making same-sex marriage legal might not have entered into force yet. By that reasoning, I see no reason why the map shouldn't be updated as soon as Cuomo signs it into law. Haku8645 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Cuomo's signed the bill into law. http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/NY-Gov-Cuomo-signs-gay-marriage-law-1439604.php Liberal92 (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That was quick. The new version is uploaded. My understanding is that a RI update is coming in a few days. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

New York doesn't show up as blue for me unless I go to this image page and scroll down and click on specifically the top image in the table. Why? Leonxlin (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Works now as I loaded the original. Cashed thumbnails maybe? --98.215.170.71 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Clear your cache or click restart when you the image with a grey NY. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

California

I have two disputes with this map in regard to California:

1. The current lumping of CA into the striped "anything but marriage" category is inaccurate and misleading as it implies the laws there are identical to those of Nevada or Oregon - when they are not. CA recognizes "grandfathered" same-sex marriages performed in CA or elsewhere before Prop 8 passed. The mere addition of footnote 2 is inadequate; a different coloring scheme is needed. Since all other states marked with that color to not recognize *any* SSM status.
   • Constitution bans same-sex marriage (red) <-- Existing catagory
   • Constitution partially bans same-sex marriage (new color for CA to replace current red stripe)
2. -OR- Footnote 2 should be added to "Constitution bans same-sex marriage" as that color is one of the CA stripes and it is inconsistent to have it on one color and not the other since the footnote applies to all CA SSM-related laws.

Thank you for your time. - Davodd (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We've tried to address this in the past and it confused too many people. California was striped black instead of red, people didn't like it, so it was undone. There is a footnote that says SSM laws in CA are very complicated. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Then, maybe the footnote should be on BOTH colors used in CA? - Davodd (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Footnote has been added to the red as well. Vanbis01 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Should not the red in California be removed because the 9th Circuit Court decision on February 7, 2012 declared Prop 8 unconstitutional? I know the decision has been petitioned for rehearing so the court ruling was not put into effect, but as far as the talks on this page go, whether or not a legislation or court ruling is in effect is not the question; the main point is that under current legal/judicial decisions the State Constitution cannot ban same-sex marriage. There is also no estimate of when the 9th Circuit Court will decide whether to accept or reject the petition, so as far as the State Constitution currently is, the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. - X-Sparker 108.67.65.148 (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

New Mexico - PLEASE CORRECT

At the moment, New Mexico is shown in gray on this map, indicating "Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized." This is flatly NOT true.

Please read the article Recognition of same-sex unions in New Mexico, which I have updated and corrected several times in recent years. Bottom line: the state law is ambiguous, but no same-sex marriage has ever been officially recognized there.

I hope one day soon they will recognize all marriages equally, but meanwhile this map is perpetuating false information. Textorus (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The NM AG submitted an opinion indicating that OoS marriages are valid in NM. This is the exact same situation as MD. As a result, we (the people who regularly edit and discuss this map) decided that NM should be the same color grey as MD. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What the attorney general said, which is quoted and sourced in the article, is that "it is likely" that same-sex marriages are valid in New Mexico. But as the article also makes clear, this opinion is not legally binding in New Mexico, regardless of whatever the situation may be in Maryland. No New Mexico court has ruled on it, and the state has never yet officially recognized any same-sex marriage. Your "we" is putting totally false information out for readers of Wikipedia, are you sure you want to do that? I thought wiki articles were supposed to be based on reliable sources, not anonymous consensus. Eh? Textorus (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tex makes a valid point...perhaps it's time to revisit the consensus. CTJF83 11:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like it is more accurate to put it in the light grey "No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions" category. Raul654 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough,  Done

Thanks, guys. Textorus (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island

NOTE: the civil union bill has passed, been signed, and (I think!) gone into effect. See http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/rhode.island.civil.union.signing/index.html?eref=rss_politics It appears that the small image in the article is updated for RI, as is the huge .svg file. However, the medium-sized map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg seems to still show RI as gray. I've refreshed my browser, but that doesn't seem to turn RI light blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv (talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A civil union bill just passed their legislature. When Chafee signs it, the state will be recolored. It will be entirely medium blue, unless the text of the bill says something along the lines of "marriage is between a man and a woman" (in that case, it will get a pink stripe). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just checked, no such definition in the bill, so it will be solid medium blue after the bill is signed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I updated the image (or, rather, restored yesterday's premature update) now that Governor Chafee has signed the bill, but it doesn't appear to be showing. Not sure what I did wrong.Tinmanic (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What's also weird is that when I go to a different browser, the file page shows no image history since June 27. But when I use this browser, the file page does show history since that date. I'm totally confused as to what's going on.Tinmanic (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The update seems slow. I see Ron1987 reuploaded a file and it still doesn't work. I suggest waiting. Hekerui (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bill has been signed. Please update this map! Also could someone update the North America map as well please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.71.169 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I originally reverted Tinmanic because they uploaded before the bill was signed. I just tried to upload a fix. Also, I noticed that someone tried to edit the map with inkscape. The tag format had been completely distorted, so just for future reference, this map does not work with Inkscape.

Anyways when I click on the map, it shows me the update, otherwise it shows grey RI. I think we just need to clear our computers caches. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, the file works now, thanks. Hekerui (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the image sizes are still not showing RI as updated. The image embedded in the "SSM in the US" page has it correctly, as do the "full resolution" and 1000px versions. The 200, 500, and 2000px versions still show RI as gray, even after I've cleared my cache. Anyone else? Tinmanic (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that too. Same exact issue. Could it be a Wikipedia server problem? -epicAdam^(talk) 14:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it takes so long, but that happened before and can hopefully be waited out. If not, we should contact someone from the Commons technical side. Hekerui (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this would help: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FAQ#Why_is_the_old_picture_and_not_the_new_uploaded_picture_on_my_screen.3F_.28Or--_my_thumbnail_is_wrong..29 Tinmanic (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I still have a problem with that, despite clearing the cache. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Maybe it's time to ask the Wikicommons folks what gives? -epicAdam^(talk) 00:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Commons have a note up how their thumbnail creation is currently having problems, but they are working on it. Hekerui (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Does Rhode Island need dark gray stripes? Or did it not recognize gay marriages from other states prior to the civil union law passing? --Wbush89 (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not by law. And I don't believe we do dark gray stripes, that would make the map even more complex than it already is. Hekerui (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant the shade of gray used for states that recognize other states' gay marriages, as opposed to the gray used for no laws relating to gay marriage. nvm. --Wbush89 (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do put dark gray stripes on states. Maryland has them. Take a look at it, Hekerui. But, that's irrelevent, since Rhode Island doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. Also, The large view of the map shows Rhode Island as a different color than the small view of the map. Ever since I've been following this discussion, Rhode Island has been colored WRONG. I personally can't wait until Rhode Island becomes a dark blue state, if only to bring consistency to the map, once and for all. The fact is that Rhode Island has Civil unions. It should be solid, civil union blue, just like New Jersey. It is correct on the small map, but wrong on the large map. PLEASE FIX IT. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamlance (talk • contribs) 06:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1) The thumbnail is not updated because of a glitch on Commons that they are trying to fix, 2) I don't know what exactly I argued because Maryland has stripes, I probably meant that RI is too small to see them (?). Hekerui (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The thumbnail is correct. It's the full-sized map that is in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamlance (talk • contribs) 01:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's also a thumbnail of the actual svg file. Please, sign your comments. Thanks a lot. Hekerui (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Washington

SSM passed the state senate. It will soon pass the lower house and get signed. It is quite obvious that there will be a likely successful signature drive to put it to the voters. Given precedent, this is what we probably should do:

1) We don't do anything right now, since it is not 100% known the bill will pass and be signed.
2) The second the bill is signed, we turn WA dark blue
3) If the anti-LGBT community collect the necessary signatures (which they will likely do), we will revert the edit. WA would then only be re-blued if the voters support the referendum
3b) If that never happens, then we don't have to deal with re-editing the dark blue WA

Anyone have a take on the issue. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I second this. Edit: perhaps we should wait until the law is in effect, see below. Hekerui (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That procedure makes sense to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

CNN breaking news just told me the bill passed the House. I assume/hope the governor will stall on signing so that the opposition will have less time to collect signatures (they can't start until the bill is signed). Also, there is a chance that the referendum will fail but the initiative will succeed. In this case, the bill would activate in June as planned but a Prop 8 type situation will ensue Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't the process for updating the map based on when a law goes into effect? For example, the WA bill only goes into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, which is the SAME deadline for turning in referendum signatures. And WA state won't recognize marriages until the law is in effect. Thus, wouldn't it be more prudent to wait and see what happens 90 days after session because then the law will (a) be in effect or (b) on hold pending a referendum. Also, assuming the bill is sent to the Governor's desk before the end of the month, she must sign or reject it within 5 days. If the bill isn't sent to her office until the last couple days of session she has about 20 days to sign it. I'm in WA state, and the plan is for it to be sent and signed next week so that the issue doesn't "distract" from the state budget issues anymore. 71.217.19.56 (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to this argument, if we change the state-colour before the law goes into effect, we could have the map falsely stating that WA allows marriage, even if the law is put on hold in case enough signatures for a referendum are collected and if it passed we would have to switch back the map, all the while no SSM happened in the state. Hekerui (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's good idea.Ron 1987 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that violates the crystal ball and speculation policies to make changes or fail to make changes on a presumption that signatures will be collected; is it likely they will be? yes; is it absolutely certain? no. I still stand by what I proposed. As we always do, we make the change when the law is signed, and if the referendum is successful at staying the law until it is voted upon then we will change the color back. This was a precedent we had set before (I believe it was what we did when Washington Referendum 71 (2009) was in this situation) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not crystal balling if you wait for the law to take effect before making the change. Not changing the colour before the law has its due date would not be crystal balling but a reflection the situation-as-is. I have to say we maybe jumped the gun in the past if we didn't wait for enanctment before changing colours - on the other hand, as with New York, other editors would have likely jumped to change the map regardless of specific dates. Hekerui (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

But it is, the long-held policy is that we update once the law is signed. Washington is being cherry-picked as an exception because of an assumption that it will go to the ballot. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the intent is to cherry-pick WA because it may go to the ballot. I think the question raised is to change the "long-held policy" of updating the map before a law becomes effective. Wouldn't it be ironic to not reevaluate "long-held" ideas. If you were to ask me from the beginning of this map, I would always pick accurately reflecting what the law currently says on day someone looks at the map. I wouldn't have updated NY until the law went into effect, not when Cuomo signed it.71.217.19.56 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Long held consensus is that we change the map once the law is officially signed into law, even if it has not yet gone into effect. Therefore, that is what should be done with Washington once the governor signs it, unless there is consensus to only change the map from now on once the law goes into effect. Personally, I like the old rule of changing the map once the law is signed. The good thing about Wikipedia is we can update things quickly if they change, so if the law is overturned at a later date, we can just change things back then. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So right now it looks like 2 for "signature date" and 2 "effective date". Anyone else on whether to keep the existing policy or to change the existing policy?71.217.19.56 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I will message other frequent editors on this page about this discussion. Also just to make it clear, consensus is not purely defined by a majority of !votes (though that is a factor).Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To the both of you, the past practise is not a policy. Something on POLICYLIST is. So let's not get confusing here. Bak to the topic at hand: Ultimately, a better argument should lead to a change in practise - I'm convinced, for one. I also don't recall a detailed discussion about this, so the claim that there was consensus is actually someone making bold changes and no one objecting. Hekerui (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is usually implicit based on past editing history. The map has always been edited this way without anyone objecting to it, so a consensus can be inferred from that. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with changing the map this early on and would have been against it if I had been here when the other states changed over. As it stands, the map is misleading. Washington does not allow gay marriage, and until it does, it should not be marked on the map as allowing it. I personally believe all visual representations should be designed to quickly convey information accurately. A reader would likely assume the image represents the current status in all of the states and would have to read the article in order to identify which state has laws "which have not entered into effect yet". Weebro55 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The map is only misleading to those who fail to read the footnote. I am in communication with the person who coded the map to see if there is a way where we can put a label on states where the laws on the books have not yet gone into effect. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

When to update map? Effective date or signing/ruling date

From the discussion above, the question of when we should update the map has arisen. Historically, we update the map when the new status is on the books as opposed to waiting for it to take effect (i.e., if new legislation is signed we update right away instead of waiting for its powers to start), so we can infer that the consensus has been to update early. Hekerui and the IP above wish to change this consensus, so I would request that anyone who edits this map or talk page please provide their opinion. Thanks. I for one, prefer to keep updating when the law is signed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified pretty much everyone (minus IPs) from the this current talk page and the most recent archive of this discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe we should continue on updating the maps when the legislation is signed. The article pages elaborate on when things take effect, and the matters surrounding it's taking effect. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would concur. The part that matters is when legislation is passed; that's what people are looking for. The difference between "legislation passed; not yet in effect" and "legislation passed and in effect" is much smaller than the difference between "legislation not passed" and "legislation passed". In the first, we expect the move from A to B; in the second, we don't know if the state will move from A to B. But it doesn't matter to me that much either way. Thanks to everyone who has put time into this file. Leonxlin (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the discussion, Greyanomaly. I lean more towards updating the map only when a change goes into effect. For better or for worse, such graphics are inexact by design. I believe someone looking at such a map wants the answer to a simple question: Can same-sex couples get married in _____? and going by effect answers that question. It also solves the problem of court decisions or pending voter initiatives. For example, if we go by "legality" versus "effect" in regards to California, the state should be listed as blue for "allows same-sex marriage", and should have been changed as soon as the judge issued his verdict striking down Prop 8. But, of course, same-sex couples cannot get married so the map remains the same; just as the vast majority of users (I believe) would expect. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 23:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the CA situation, because there is a stay on the ruling meaning the ruling does not have any final meaning yet. Also California is an exceedingly rare and confusing situation. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A stay on a ruling is the same as a law that has not yet gone into effect. The ruling is law unless/until a higher authority says otherwise. It would be the same in California as anywhere else in the country. Think of it this way: if a governor signed a same-sex marriage law but then a judge issued a stay, the law would be that same-sex marriage is legal (and under current policy, this map would have been changed to reflect that the law was signed) even though same-sex marriages can't be performed. However, making that change would be (at best) confusing to most readers. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Thegreyanomaly's request for comment on when to update the map: Perhaps it would be helpful if we ask ourselves, what is the purpose of this map? Who is the intended audience? What do they know, or what are they seeking to know when they look at this map? One day, perhaps the crazy-quilt situation among all the various states of the Union will be resolved, but for the time being, it is a complex situation. So what function does this map serve in helping someone who comes looking for clarity on this subject - and who unlike many of us here, may not be very familiar with the ins and outs of the marriage issue, and may not take much time studying the map and its footnotes? Who is this map intended to help, and how can we make it most helpful to them? Helpfulness and clarity should take precedence over all else, it seems to me.

And having said all that, let me also take this opportunity to say that this is the ugliest map ever created, and very unhelpful even to someone like me who is quite familiar with the subject. Not only do the colors clash in a most unappetizing way, the map tries to present far too much information, confusing the reader. Much better to have two maps presented in tandem: one showing marriage/CU/DP laws, and the other showing anti-SSU legislation/constitutional amendments. Cf. the maps at the HRC web site, which are very clear and easy to read - a glance tells you what you want to know, unlike our current mish-mash of a map.Textorus (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We've got two maps that served that purpose. If you go back through the archives, we had a rainbow color scheme. Nothing looked horrendous, but it wasn't color-blind friendly and there were other problems. We all know the West Coast (which is the best part of the country) looks horrendous due to the striping. Recoloring the map would be a good idea, but that would be a different discussion. (On a side note, if the WA legislation survives the ballot attacks and the CA case gets rejected by the SCOTUS, much of the West Coast striping headache will be gone) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

While we are waiting... A Footnote (2) needs to be put after the constitutional ban.- Davodd (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Footnote two applies to darkest blue, medium blue, and medium red for all languages that have a footnote two. As on off-topic note, if you are fluent or good-enough in any of the languages that as of yet do not have translated footnotes, please help us by translating the footnotes. Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I like updating when signed/court decision, etc. CTJF83 22:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Washington bill is going to signed very soon [20]. As of now, this discussion seems to be evenly split. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I think we gave an argument, that the map should show the access to same-sex marriage at the moment. We can't be certain whether, say, Washington's law will go into effect at the designated time because we are not disconnected from the news and know signatures are being collected. So why confuse readers and say SSM is legal when the map is better understood as "Where can SSMs etc. be legally performed at the moment"? The changing back of Maine's color when SSMs could never be legally performed irked me at the time, too. With California, SSM was taken away so the map did fulfill the "what's going on at the moment" criterion. How about it? Hekerui (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading all the arguments I have to agree that we should wait until marriages are being performed in a state due to legislation or court order. I believe the purpose of this map is to answer the question "where are same sex marriages performed?" When we add coloring before a state is actualy performing marriages i feel it unnecessarily creates confusion on the map.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am still seeing no consensus on changing the standard practice. This argument doesn't really need to be on policy since all we are trying to do is hammer out a style consensus. I'm a bit busy this week, so I am not going to touch the map for a while. If someone else wants to update the map after the signing today, they can technically do it with breaking any rules, but I think we should let the existing rule (=early update) slide for WA while we have this discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has only be up for 2 days, and over a weekend at that. I'd give it some more time. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The bill has now been signed into law and I see no reason to delay updating Washington on the map today. Failing to update the map today would be a de facto change to previous consensus to update the map when the law is signed. If after this discussion has ended there is a new consensus, the map can always be changed back later. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Give a link where a discussion got this "previous consensus". Hekerui (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I support changing the map according to dates of bill signage/state high court rulings as opposed to effective dates of such bills or rulings, mainly due to the fact that, barring unforeseen circumstances that are not ensured to occur (ballot initiative and/or state constitutional amendment), the relationships pertinent to those bills or rulings will take effect as scheduled. In other words, we should not assume that such rulings or bill passages will be reversed before the effective date.Liberal92 (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? Then why didn't we update Barack Obama's page to say he's president on November 5? He was not yet President, that is why, even though we had a fixed day when he should. You can't assume everything will go unchallenged, especially since you have Google. Hekerui (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the map should be changed when the bill is signed. When it is signed it is law of the land and we should not misinform people. The map is about legality of same sex marriage, and not whether it can be enforced yet. The states laws say it is legal, it just hasn't taken force yet. In my eyes, the date of enforcement doesn't matter, the law is already there. Lumping states that permit same sex marriage but did not pass the date of enforcement together with states that do not permit it at all is wrong. If it is a big deal then perhaps we can create an additional color to indicate the bill has not yet taken effect. However I think that turning Washington to blue right now is the easiest and best solution. Infernoapple (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the law of the land, meaning people live by it, when the law is effective, not before. Additional colors only make the map more confusing imo. Hekerui (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Washington for at least another 3.5 months, so let's not confuse the readers. Hekerui (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When New York passed its same sex marriage law we (I) updated the map. Why not for Washington? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Because you cannot marry. And instead of insisting on your point of view, you could have participated in the discussion. Hekerui (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 1 states explicitly that the map "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." Same-sex marriages are legal in Washington, but are not yet performed. I concur with above discussion that if the legal challenge goes into effect which suspends the enactment of the law until the resolution of said challenge, the status should return to pink-and-blue striped; however, unless we are to remove this footnote entirely, in order to maintain uniformity, Washington should be made solid dark blue. Faulah (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Then the footnote is a bad idea. Why argue against a change to procedure by pointing to the procedure? Hekerui (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

Question for thegreyanomaly: Is it really conductive to ask users to participate in a discussion with a notification text and an introduction that makes assertions like the ones you made ("it can be inferred that the consensus is"), and now all the discussion miraculously comes down to people commenting "it's always been that way" instead of giving arguments? And this is the point where you think we should close the discussion? Where is the broad discussion that garnered consensus for the way you used to update the map? In fact, you updated the map, no one bothered to suggest any different and now you claim it's been agreed to all along. Hekerui (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Consensus: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Rreagan007 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny how it's used to mean "binding precedent" in this discussion. People only point to "consensus", not to arguments. "In my eyes, the date of enforcement doesn't matter ..." is not an argument for any practical purpose, mind you. Hekerui (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of the previous implicit consensus have been made. But if you want to change the previous consensus you have to be able have people agree on a new consensus. I think the current way we update the map is the correct one. The law in Washington has been officially changed even if it has not come into full effect yet, and the map with the footnote reflects that. The point of the map is to reflect the current state of state laws on same sex marriage, as the map is used in the various articles that cover same sex laws in the various states. Now, is it possible that something else could happen to change the law before it comes into full effect? Yes, and if such an event occurs, the map should be updated to reflect that. But not updating the map because of speculation that something in the future may occur is silly. Laws can always be changed, and when they are the map will be updated to reflect that. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You argue that the "point of the map is to reflect the current state of state laws". The current state is that no same-sex couple can go get a marriage license because the state-DOMA is legally binding until the new law takes effect. The speculation is that the law will take effect, not that is hasn't taken effect. True? The other, similar, argument put forward in the discussion before your response was that we can change the map back if the inevitable happens. Didn't that look silly when it was done for Maine, which has not seen one legal same-sex marriage although this map had shown SSMs to be legal there? Hekerui (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)A

Regardless of whether you thought the way it was handled looked "silly", the map accurately reflected the law of the law. This is the way the map has been held - reflecting the law of the land on the books. Just because there might be some change to the law (just like there might be a meteor tomorrow that destroys Washington state) is not a basis for the map not reflecting the law signed by the governor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.182.231 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hekerui, the only policies relevant to this discussion is WP:Consensus (and WP:Crystal for assuming that this law will go to the ballot). This entirely a STYLE issue, there are no other policies or arguments needed, we are seeking consensus for what is essentially a style of how we edit the map. As of now the consensus has not changed (it could, but it hasn't quite yet), so please stop reverting the map. We don't want any edit wars over this issue. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am currently in favor of updating the map as of the bill signing (in Washington State's case, today) because it can easily be explained by a footnote suggesting the effective date. I would not have a -big- problem the other way around, as long as the information on the newly-passed and soon-to-take-effect law is easily discernible. Getting to my peeve now: We must remove either Footnote 1 or leave WA blue (doing otherwise is contradictory). It would be nice if we could list footnote numbers themselves within the boundary of a state (see my quick example made in Paint) so we know to which state(s) each footnote applies to. Putting a footnote number in each "complicated" state would help eliminate the map striping scheme - as it looks horrendous and is confusing for new readers. Note that "complicated" situations will keep growing as will the debate, we have quite a few already: California needs a footnote to describe the complex situation there, Maryland needs one to say it accepts out-of-state SSM but doesn't grant it's own, New Mexico needs a footnote to say that there is an advisory opinion allowing for out-of-state SSM, but that it hasn't been fought in court yet - the entire group of states in the 9th Circuit need another footnote...and so on. On how to best handle it, I'd say let editors (us) come up with map alternatives, maybe post them here, and establish a consensus on which looks the best and conveys information in the most practical and encyclopedic way. MarkGT (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, MD doesn't need a footnote, not performing SSM is implicit from the 50%-grey stripe for OoS marriages. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support two maps I think the best way of avoiding all the stripes and the confusing colour scheme is to put the info into two maps as has been suggested above. This map and this map are much neater and less confusing for the reader. It would also make the "Same-sex marriage legal/illegal" colour scheme much simpler, thus leaving room for a new colour for "Law not yet taken effect". Two maps solves all the problems, no need for footnotes, stripes, or arguments about when to update. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

From a somewhat related discussion: "Washington has had an act that would provide for same-sex marriage at a future date unless countermanded by referendum. That is by no means the same as having same-sex marriage." That's certainly true, is it not? Hekerui (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Washington referendum clarification

I read the argument above that SSM is now the law in Washington. So I wonder: when opposing groups gather the signatures to put the issue on the ballot in the state, wouldn't it logically follow that we would have to leave the state dark blue until the referendum happens and not revert to the previous map? After all, the law was not "unsigned" by a referendum campaign, and so remains the law (according to the argument given) until/if it is repealed via referendum. And people still can't marry until the referendum, so no change from the current state of affairs, which has the state dark blue. Hekerui (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the state should be reverted from dark blue because THE LAW HAS NOT GONE INTO AFFECT YET putting Washington as blue goes against WP:CRYSTAL because as you pointed out there is a possible voter ballot that could reverse the outcome. Footnote or not it is still misleading to readers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Knowledgekid, your argument is completely flipped. It is Crystal Balling to ASSUME that the signatures will be collected. You yourself recognized this when you referred to it as a "possible voter ballot". Assuming that it will be on the ballot is what is wrong. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right. We cannot assume that the signatures will be collected and that it will appear as a referendum on the ballot. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

How you can assume that it is effective already is the question. Zero marriages can be performed, but the map declares marriage legal. False. Hekerui (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hekerui, yes a referendum campaign would "unsign" the law and a majority of votes in favor would effectively "re-sign" the law Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We would go from number of marriages performed: 0, to number of marriages performed: 0, and for that you would change the map back? That's not user friendly and not friendly to the reality of SSM in WA. Hekerui (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If the bill is stayed by a successful referendum, then we will revert the map as is the norm. We did this exact same thing with Washington state back in 2009 when the everything-but-marriage bill was signed. When it was put on the ballot as Referendum 71, the edit to the map was undone and then redone when the law was upheld by the people. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the responses to the original point: assuming the referendum happens, a majority will have to vote YES for SSM to remain in effect. It's not letting voters reverse the law; it's adding them as another hurdle to pass it. That's the way referendums work (at least, in Washington State). So once it goes on the ballot, the "default," no-action scenario is that it would fail and revert, so (if and when that happens) WA should go back to stripes until the election. Bennetto (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The map should be reverted back to dark blue. Same-sex marriage is now technically legal in Washington because the bill was signed, even if it has yet to come into affect (or might not.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Please can someone fix the map, WA Should be dark blue, it is currently the law of the land, whether it has taken effect or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.44.136 (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Clear your cache and then look again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

New color should be added

Just a thought but I feel a new color should be added for states that have laws signed for same-sex marriage but have not gone into effect yet. The words "May include" bother me as the footnote looks to be too broad. The color would only apply to one state right now so adding it would not be too much of an issue and would help clarify things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Even better if the info in the map was spread over two maps. An extra colour for Washington's (and previously Maine's) situation would help clarify where same-sex marriages can actually occur. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Making readers cross reference between multiple maps to try to figure out what's going on doesn't sound like a great idea to me. And the map already has a ton of different colors and striping combinations. Adding more colors will make things more confusing, not less. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Right now at first glance it appears that Washington is amoung the states that allow SSM on the map as all the others currently allow SSM but one. It is misleading the info as it is now and one color addition would just mean that Washington would turn just that color to inform the reader that the state is in a process, I see no issues in two or more states at a time having this same thing done that would affect the map badly as it would just apply to SSM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Think ahead for a second. adding any extra color will open a can of worms. Right now we are talking about adding a color to say "SSM coming soon", what about the next time a state has "Everything-but-marriage coming soon" or "Enumerated rights coming soon"? We already have two separate maps File:Constitutional bans on same-sex unions types US.svg and File:Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States.svg, the purpose of this map is so that you can get all the information in one stop. The footnote more than sufficiently makes it clear that the map refers to signed laws or court orders rather than effective dates. The readers need to actually read something instead of thinking that just looking at one picture without looking at any footnotes or reading article will give them an idea of the complexity of SSM/CU/DP laws. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Washington 2

RfC responder(s) please consult the debate above, the past implicit consensus of this map is to update it based on when a new law gets signed or a new court order issues (or a veto overriden as with VT long ago, etc...). Given that the new law in WA may be put on hold due to a possible referendum, a discussion has come about changing this consensus. As of present the consensus has not changed (and thus your input is valued). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As an information for commenters, the comment above is misstating the issue already. This is not about the Washington referendum, but about how the map says SSM is legal when it's illegal to perform marriages at the moment and that it's crystall-balling to include possible future stances (a footnote does not make it okay). Hekerui (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely wrong and Hekerui knows it. If it were note for the initial discussion about the WA law being stayed, this discussion would never initiated. Hekerui in fact somewhere on this page says it was the comments made by an IP caused them to revisit their opinions on the issue. Yes, this discussion is broader than WA alone, but to say that it has no relation to the debate about WA is nonsense as the WA debate got people (e.g., Hekerui) to reconsider their notions on the issue. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite the fact that Washington is now blue on the actual image's page, it is not updated on the thumbnail in same-sex marriage in the United States. I have tried purging the page and image but it doesn't work. Anyone know how to fix this? Cadiomals (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about this on this very page. I think we should not have WA blue because no SSM can be legally performed there for now and many months out, and some users agree, while other users want the colors to reflect the possibility that marriages can be performed at a later date. Hekerui (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and it seems to break WP:CRYSTAL. What is true right now is that no SSM can occur in Washington. The map right now assumes that the law will come into effect. Changing it back does not assume that the law won't come into effect, it merely reflects the current situation. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Highly incorrect, reverting the map breaks WP:Crystal. The current consensus supports updating when the law is signed or court order is issued. Under that consensus, reverting the map would be a de facto ASSUMPTION that the referendum will indeed get the necessary signatures. If you can eek out a consensus to remove the footnote 1 and to from henceforth only update upon effective dates then your argument would be valid. That has not happened yet, so reverting the edit would a clear-cut WP:Crystal violation. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change you know nothing is final and set in stone I supprot reverting back to striped until the law comes into effect, on the template you do not see Washintgton added under SSM with a footnote attached suggesting "Oh by the way...". Currently you have at least three editors in favor of reverting the blue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So you can put it either placing Washington as Blue implies that the law will hold just has not come into effect yet (Because currently it is lumped in with SSM allowed on the map) or you dont place it as blue and assume the law will not hold, either way its a lose-lose case which is why I suggested option C above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Knowledgekid is correct. Consensus can change, and the map would be more accurate if it were updated when the law actually takes effect, rather than the point at which it is signed (which means nothing in the long term). Del_♉sion23 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change but it has not. I did a rough count on the !votes on this page earlier today. I saw 12 (which includes myself, three IPs. Rreagan, Fry19189, Leonxlin, CTJF83, Liberal92, Infernoapple, Brightgalrs, and MarkGT) support the current rules, 7 (Hekerui, one IP, Ron1987, epicAdam, Found5Dollar, Delusion23, and Knowledgekid87) for changing, and three !votes I could not clearly count in either column (Faulah, Textorus, and Davodd). At present, you guys are not close to having consensus to revert. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for discussion (per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Most people you listed with "votes" for keeping the past practice state that with a bill signed the logical conclusion is that the law will take effect (with statements like "when it is signed it is law of the land", which is obviously not true, and no argument at all, in Brightgalrs' case). This is gazing into the future and clashes with the fact that at no SSM can be legally performed in WA now and at least for months. This remains indisputed. Hekerui (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the argument right now is between "It's not taken effect yet" and "We've always updated it when the law was signed". It would be correct if it were updated when the law comes into effect. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, keeping Washington as dark blue assumes that the bill will pass and implies that SSM is legal in Washington right now when it is not. Keeping the stripes is right now correct when it comes to the facts even though some people might assume that the map would favor that the bill would not be passed, I say stick to the facts and update to dark blue when the law coems into effect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The simple matter of fact is that the well-established practice this map has taken up is that it updates upon signing as opposed to upon effective date and to keep the footnote to make this clear. This entirely a style issue. In order to change said style you need people to support your side, which you simply do not have (yet). A blue WA with a footnote "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." is not factually incorrect in any way shape or form. There is a recent law and it has not gone into effect yet; the map in the current form conveys that. If the people stay the law with a successful referendum that is a different story. (If we could overlay footnote numbers onto specific states that would make the situation better, but I don't know how to code that). The simple fact is no one has really ever complained about this in the past. When NY passed SSM or RI/HE/DE/IL passed medium-blue laws in 2011 no one (or almost no one) complained when we updated upon signing even though those laws all took a while to take effect (plenty of the seven of you who want to change consensus have been active on this map through that time period). Now that we have one state that has a high (but less than 100%) chance of getting a law-stayed people have started a ruckus about it. This whole debate has basically been stirred by people wanting to crystal ball all of a sudden when they never did before. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since Washington legalized same-sex marriage this week, I have repeatedly heard news reports state something like "seven states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage". So those news sources count Washington as one of the states to have legalized same-sex marriage. I just heard Shepard Smith do it about 10 minutes ago reporting on New Jersey's attempt to legalize it on the Fox Report. Here are a few print sources I found: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. If news sources are reporting that Washington is one of the seven states to have legalized same-sex marriage, I see no reason why our map should only show 6 states. It would actually be more confusing to readers when they read news stories stating that 7 states have legalized it if our map only shows 6. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is Dark Blue but yet says "Has not gone into effect yet" Rreagan if the map had said "Laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States"... "Same-sex marriage legalized" then yes that would be correct but it does not. In Washington Same-sex Marriage is legalized but has not gone into effect yet so can you marry if you are gay/lesbian in Washington right now, the answer is no the statue and laws already in place are there until the law comes into effect something the map no longer shows. The "Laws regarding same-sex partnership in the United States" for Washingtion still stand until final things go into place. Also please no editor POLLING here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Knowledgekid, nothing on the map is factually incorrect as is. Read my previous post. The footnote specifically states that the map refers to some laws on the books that are not in effect. All three colors of blue say "1May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." Also your statement "Currently you have at least three editors in favor of reverting the blue" is the first instance of polling on this page Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're point is. This map is about the various state "laws regarding same-sex partnership in the United States". The map itself even says that. It is not a map about "states where same-sex partnerships are currently performed". In Washington right now there is a law on the books making same sex marriage legal. It has not yet fully gone into effect yet so they are not being performed there yet, but that is covered by the footnote. As of this moment, Washington has officially legalized same-sex marriage, and that should be reflected in the map. If, at some point in the future, they unlegalized it, then the map should be changed at that time. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Not gone into effect means it's not the law of the state. We argue precisely for a map that does not use contortions like footnote disclaimers but reflects reality. Hekerui (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hekerui, can you be clear on this matter for a second. It is extremely apparent why all of a sudden you have changed your view on this matter. Through 2011 alone you were here for all five rights expansions that I can recall, and you NEVER once objected to the footnote or to updating upon signing. To me, likely RReagan, and probably others, it seems to be that you want to violate WP:Crystal and assume that the law will be suspended, but you cannot under the current rules and thus for that alone you wish to tear down the old rules and set up new ones (this applies to others on your side of the argument as well). If I am wrong and you have always had these opinions, then I encourage you to make an RfC; I know it has only been ~1 week, but unless a large number of new discussion participants come from no where, this debate is going to pointless; most people made their mark and left. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But you are also going against WP:CRYSTAL by placing Washingtion in Dark blue and ignoring the laws still in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Knowledgekid, you do not know what you're talking about. The convention of this map is that we update upon signing. Please get this through your head, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS TRYING TO CRYSTAL BALL. You do not understand the policy at all. Until you get the consensus changed (which you have failed to do), per the norm of the map, we must have WA dark blue. Not having a dark blue WA given the existing consensus is crystal-balling. If you guys can generate a consensus to update the map only upon effective dates and to remove the footnote, then yes it would be crystal balling (but the consensus has not (yet) turned your way). That said, everyone here keeps making the same arguments over and over. We all would be wise to back away until new people come into the debate Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop it with personal attacks ("get this through your head"?!). "until you get the consensus changed (which you have failed to do)" - who made you the decider? We already established that counting "votes" does not replace arguments. And I agree with Knowledgekid87, are you going to attack me, too? Hekerui (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not about votes, but you kind of still need people to AGREE in order to get a consensus. There is NO agreement on this issue and as a result there is no new consensus; a few people barging in making a few arguments does not consensus make Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I realized that it's crystal-balling to make a map that claims to include possible future events via footnotes. I'm glad the IP brought up the topic and I thought about it again and realized it's better to stick to the facts of the present. Looking at the discussion on this page I think it's obvious that the past practice is flawed and needs improvement. Hekerui (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is largely an issue of semantics, but on Wikipedia we should follow what reliable sources do. Most of the sources I've looked at say that Washington legalized same-sex marriage on Monday when the governor signed the bill, and that's when we updated the map. Many of the sources then go on to say the law won't become fully effective until later, which is essentially what our footnote 1 takes care of. The issue here doesn't seem to be that the law has yet to take effect. What people seem to be objecting to is that in Washington it's possible for a referendum to block the law before it takes effect. To me that's a non-issue, as laws can always potentially be changed, and is a case of WP:Crystal. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 3

I still dont see where the issue of the current laws still being in place that dont appear on the map being resolved, right now it shows that Washington just has a potential Same-sex marriage in dark blue and not the Statute that bans same-sex marriage, or Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights that are still in place, that isnt WP:CRYSTAL those are the facts something that a map for "Laws regarding same-sex partnership in the United States" should show. I do not care about how some people said once upon a time this is this and this is how it should be forever, that is the same arguement you keep using over and over again greyanomaly. As a compromise, I propose that Washington should be striped three ways one to show the Statute still in place, one to show the limited/enumerated rights that are in place and one that shows the possible same-sex marriage law that might go into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is very reasonable. The statute banning SSM in Washington is still in place. If striped states doesn't confuse readers. why not have Washington striped? Is it not also CRYSTAL to assume that the statutes will definately be lifted? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This argument is getting circular. We have one group of people that includes myself that thinks we should update upon signing and maintain the past consensus and we have a smaller group of people that thinks we should generate a new consensus where we wait. As it stands both sides keep making the same claims. Let's wait for more people to show up instead of wasting our times saying the same thing over and over again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You did not read what I had proposed above, why not stripe Washington three colors? It is correct as anything can happen and includes the laws that are in place and the one that has yet to come into effect. This does not violate WP:CRYSTAL and the dark blue does not need to be fully removed for WP:POV sake. But I agree lets wait for other editors to show their view points. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that, I was at the lab and was in a rush. It has been advised in the past that it is impossible to triple-stripe given the map coding. At some point I think there was discussion that we do not stripe states with two shades of blue ever since it is redundant or something like. It should be somewhere in the archives. The best compromise I can see is if can overlay text on states, so it becomes very clear what states each footnote belongs to. When I get a chance I will ask Lokal_Profil for help on that Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

We gave arguments in favor of changing, while you can come up with "past consensus" aka "we did it this way in the fast and so should not change" and users you notified agreed with you, just to be clear. Hekerui (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC);

You should really look into what you are saying before you make implicit accusations of WP:CANVASSING. I notified every registered user I saw on the talk page and the most recent archive. most people ignored the message, but from those who did not PLENTY of those people are on your side (e.g., I told Knowledgekid, Found5dollar, and epicadam; these three people agree with you). The facts per WP:CONSENSUS is that what we have been doing is the implicit consensus, a new consensus needs to be reached to remove the old consensus; since absolutely no level of agreement has been reached it is amply clear that has not happened; this is the reality of the matter. As for arguments, Rreagans argument about reliable sources is particularly valid (I am not going to regurgitate it, read it above); the reliable sources such as those they described all refer to WA as having legalized SSM. You argue that having WA blue right now is confusing to readers, but based on Rreagan's argument not having it blue is confusing; (and neither side has actual data to see what really confuses readers other than continual reports that they don't like striping). Your side saying what we are doing is crystal-balling is also rather inaccurate. As much as it could potentially be an assumption that the passed and signed (or veto-overrode) law will go into effect, it is a larger assumption to assume something else could undo it. Any law that ever gets passed could very much be repealed before it goes into effect, that is the reality of politics; that said, automatically assuming it will be is most definitely a greater level of crystal-balling. I will reiterate, let's wait for more people to show up before we make the same arguments over and over again Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have sent Lokal_Profil a talk page message on the Commons to ask if it is possible to overlay footnotes onto the states Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what about this as a solution. Change footnote 1 to say "1 Includes recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet in Washington and Maryland.". And we just keep updating the footnote adding states in as they change laws and dropping states off as those laws come into full effect. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We've got the get people to translate every language though, which will be tricky. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

But if all you're changing each time is a state name, that should be pretty simple. It's pretty easy to get the name of a state in another language just by clicking on the Wikipedia article for the state in the other language. And honestly, the other languages aren't very important. A couple of them don't even have the footnotes translated now. This map is primarily of interest to English speakers. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Maryland

I just saw this notice left on the SSM talkpage:

"Maryland's House just passed an SSM bill, and its Senate and Governor look set to join in the fun, but Maryland has a people's veto similar to Washington's. In Maryland's case, the deadline for signatures (and the earliest possible date for the law to take effect) is June 1. If one-third of the 55,737 signatures (based on the turnout figure at Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010) are in by June 1, the deadline will be extended to June 30. If the signatures are collected, the law won't "become a law or take effect until thirty days after its approval" in the referendum. Thus, assuming a petition is successful, the earliest the law would come into effect would be December 6, 2012." Just something to keep a watch on - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know, though last year it got stuck in the lower house, that could happen again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Misread original comment, ignore Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Last year it got stucked in the House and passed in the Senate. Today it passed the House (and it obviously is going to pass the Senate, because it already did last year) --DrkFrdric (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the trend of SSM getting legalized in spurts will continue then (with WA starting said spurt). Unless the consensus on when to update the map changes prior to the Governor signing it, I will update the map on the signing date. Should a new consensus on when we update the map be established then I won't update until the time comes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, arguments are disregarded in favor of votes, as seen above. Hekerui (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, first Washington, now Maryland, almost New Jersey, and maybe Illinois. --186.66.51.131 (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would add Rhode Island, California and Maine to that List. Maine's Secretary of State just confirmed the validity of the signatures for a referendum allowing Gay Marriage- The first of Its kind in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.190.18 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How are we going to differentiate DC from Maryland if they're the same color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.196 (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What has been the standard rule if State X passes the law on Date Y allow Gay Marriage, but no gay marriages can occur until Date Z? Change the map on Date Y or Date Z? Maryland could possibly go the same way as Maine, Governor signs it within the week, opponents have a certain amount of time to get it put on the ballot as a referendum. If either the signatures aren't gotten in time or if the pro gay rights side wins in November it goes into effect in January 2013. (It actually gets more complicated that that due to an amendment added on lawsuits about signatures, but let's just use that level of complexity for now.Naraht (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that the map is changed once the law is signed. That is the law on the books, even if laws take time before they go into place. We cannot speculate if enough signatures will be gathered or if a referendum will fail or succeed - the map reflects the law signed by the governor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.196 (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"That is the law on the books" - false, the old law is on the books until the new one takes effect. Hekerui (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hekerui, you are dead wrong when it comes to the definition of the idiom "on the books." Merriam-Webster defines said phrase to mean "on the records" [27]. A signed law is now part of the legal record, even if it is not in effect. Also arguing about verbal semantics is not going to get you anywhere in this discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is not legal in Washington and it's not legal in Maryland - it would be semantics to pretend it was using Merriam-Webster. Hekerui (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that the map is changed once the law is signed. I agree with statement "That is the law on the books". User:Hekerui is wrong with his opinion. So next week also Maryland hat to be darkblue after gouverneur Malley signed law. 89.166.244.32 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't we make California dark blue? Courts have said it must be legal and you argue that it is no deterrent that no marriages can be performed at the moment. Inconsistency at its best. Hekerui (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another case of Hekerui not knowing what he is talking about. Because the courts are not done with the matter yet in California. The rulings made have been indefinitely stayed until the appeal process is terminated. There is no date on the books when that ruling is set to take effect, because each successive appeal delays it.

Unlike the federal court system, the state government is done with the matter in WA and will soon be done with it in MD. A bill being signed into law has some finality, a federal court ruling only has finality after the SCOTUS rules on it or rejects it for certiorari. Said laws have not yet been stayed and have a set and finalized date when their effect begins; we cannot WP:Crystal Ball that they will be stayed as you wish to do. When those likely successful referenda make their respective ballots, those states will get reverted. Your cynicism and your sarcasm are not helpful to this talk page and will not help you get people to agree with you on the matter of when we update the map. Until agreement can be reached on a new consensus, the old consensus will rule per WP:Consensus. When the MD law is signed, the map will be updated. Upon the likely event of the law being sent to the ballot, it will reverted until the certified results of the November election come out. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your personal attacks get tiring. It makes no sense to change the map back and forth when the practical change is nonexistent - from no marriages to no marriages back to no marriages. "until agreement can be reached" would require someone to give on basis of argument - you merely argue with the past practice and you will insist a change cannot be made and people who argue the same way will revert everything. It is embarassing that there's no agreement on giving readers the factual undisputable current situation, no SSM in WA, on the map. Hekerui (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We've made arguments, WP:RS. Reliable sources say that WA is a state that has legalized SSM, so we reflect that on the map. Also, you're the one trying to change the status quo, so the onus is on you to get people to agree with you. The practical changes are one thing, but legal changes are another. A bill being signed into law but not being in effect until a specified date is legally different from a law being stayed for an election. The former, unless further action is taken (and assuming further action=Crystal Ball), will go into effect for sure on the date listed; the latter, however, does not mean the law will go into effect for sure. 159.178.254.32 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC) (On a campus computer, forgot to log on... shouldn't be on WP anyways right now... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC))

Two-map solution

I know it's been mentioned in passing but I wonder why more attention has not been given to the potential two-map solution? I know that there's a desire to try and communicate as much as humanly possible in one single graphic but, let's face it, this has got to be one of the ugliest and most confusing maps in use on all of Wikipedia. I count a total of 8 different colors being used in 13 different combinations. The striping is graphically ambiguous in Hawaii and almost useless in Delaware if you aren't viewing the map at high resolution.

There's been a lot of chatter about the situation in Washington being complicated by what appear to be mutually exclusive laws on the books and potential challenges down the road. Washington itself isn't the problem but is merely an example of the problem : that this map is attempting to communicate multidimensional data. Restrictive laws, laws granting rights, differentiating between types of laws (constitutional vs. statutory) and even foreign recognition.

Again, why not two maps? It's been pointed out that two maps do exist, one showing the "blue" information and one showing the "red" information. Each of the maps alone are considerably cleaner, don't rely on a dozen different color combinations, and certainly don't suffer from the prospect of tripe-striping a state. I'm curious what sorts of objections there might be to such a solution. Shereth 17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing a specific course of action here? As you point out, 2 other maps already exist. Are you trying to say we should just delete this map entirely? I don't think that's a good idea at all. This unified map obviously has some challenges to it, which you have pointed out. But I still think it's useful in a number of differente articles on the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment is better directed at specific articles rather than here, where it's more just a general comment of dissatisfaction with the current state. It's just an observation that as the SSM situation itself becomes more complex and nuanced over time, the state of any map that tries to take into consideration every variable and every combination of laws is going to necessarily become worse. I don't know; as an uninvolved observer I can say that this map is among the most confusing I have run across and it only ever seems to be getting worse, not better. Shereth 17:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the concern is about Hawaii and Delaware. On first glance they seem to have exactly the same striping as Illinois. Is this not correct? And I'm not sure what tripe-striping is. Naraht (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue with Hawaii and Deleware is that they are such small states that the striping just doesn't have enough area to really work well. There really isn't a good solution for that, other than those states changing their laws so we only need one color for them. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but at least for now, they work well enough. With three colors, OTOH, Oy!Naraht (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - Having two maps would show all the laws in place and the ones yet to take effect and has room to add colors so the footnotes will not be an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2 other maps already exist, so what exactly is it that you are supporting? The deletion of this unified map entirely? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I get what Shereth is saying; his suggestion is just on the wrong talk page. No, this map would not be deleted, but perhaps be removed from a place of prominence on an article such as Same-sex marriage in the United States. The request should be made there. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

However, I would suggest that this map's name be changed from "Samesex marriage in USA.svg" to "Samesex marriage laws in USA.svg" to reflect that it only shows legal codification, and not whether marriages can actually be performed. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You have a valid point about the name, but I think marriage needs to replaced with something else on the name since this map covers more than marriage (i.e., it shows marriage-like unions and lesser unions (CUs and DPs)). "Samesex relationship laws in USA.svg" work for any of you? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Samesex marriage in USA map

I clarified the footnotes for this template. "may include recent laws or court decisions" is vague - one can be specific and cover the two regions in question as of today, CA and WA, and the template does that now. Hekerui (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I also specified the English and German file description. As long as we mention in the footnote that the map is not the actual situation (leaving out for now that makes a bad map that needs explanation), and are specific, the map is not quite as misleading as before. Hekerui (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)