File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated File-class)
WikiProject icon This file is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 File  Quality: rating not applicable
 

Guide to editing this map[edit]

People have often asked how to edit this map, so I am making this guide. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Step 1: Get an Editor[edit]

Any XML editor will work. I use EditiX-Free-XML Editor2009. Opening the file with Notepad or WordPad works as well.

Step 2: Determine what you need to change[edit]

Generally, most of the changes you will need to make involve changing striping (or lack of striping). Most logical striping combinations already exist; creating new two- and three-stripe combinations is easy, though creating a new four-stripe pattern would require some familarity with SVG creation.

Step 3: Editing the map[edit]

The legal status of same-sex marriages and unions in each state is indicated by a fill pattern selected by one of the following codes.

  • marriage: Same-sex marriages
  • similar: Unions granting rights similar to marriage
  • limited: Unions granting limited or enumerated rights
  • foreign: Foreign same-sex marriages recognized
  • stay: Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal
  • statuteban: Banned by statute
  • constitutionban: Banned by constitution
  • constitutionbanmore: Constitution bans same-sex marriage and unions
  • nolaw: No specific law regarding same-sex marriage

(Note that the new map proposal at the bottom of this page adds a stay to show states with stayed rulings striking down same-sex marriage bans.)

Patterns for compound legal statuses exist: similar-constitutionban, similar-foreign-constitutionban, foreign-constitutionbanmore are included.

New multi-color combinations for compound statuses to put in the SVG defs section are easy to construct:

  <g id="similar-foreign-constitutionban">
    <use xlink:href="#part1of3" class="similar"/>
    <use xlink:href="#part2of3" class="foreign"/>
    <use xlink:href="#part3of3" class="constitutionban"/>
  </g>

The pattern may be invoked and its center positioned so that it fully overlaps the clipping path used to define the shape of a state or territory.

  <!-- Oregon -->
  <g clip-path="url(#clipPathOR)">
    <use xlink:href="#similar-foreign-constitutionban" transform="translate(95,120)"/>
  </g>

The transformation may include scaling or rotation to enhance the appearance of small, striped regions without fear of disturbing the region's outline:

  <use xlink:href="#similar-foreign-constitutionban" transform="translate(97.5,120) scale(0.8) rotate(-65)"/>

In regard to the translations: Except for Alaska and Hawaii, all the US states use the top-left of the image as the origin. Alaska, Hawaii and the insular territories have their origins located at the top-left of their insets. This makes them easy to move.

The color palette for the states and territories is defined entirely within the CSS near the top. Only the inset lines and the white circle outline for the enlarged, circular representation of Washington D.C. have hard-coded colors.

When editing the SVG file with Notepad, say, it is helpful to have the SVG file loaded into your web browser. You can usually load the image simply by dragging the SVG file's icon into the browser window. Whenever you save the changes you've made, press F5 in the browser to refresh the image.

Step 4: Check and submit the new version[edit]

When you are satisfied with the changes, check it carefully, use the W3 Validator and if all is well, upload the new version.

So that the SVG file can easily be edited even with crude text editors like Notepad, it is helpful to use CRLF for the line endings.

Virginia[edit]

Attorneys for two same-sex couples have until 18 August 5 p.m. EDT to respond to a county clerk's stay request. If the stay is rejected by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, same-sex marriage will be legal on 21 August at 8:00 a.m. EDT. Would anyone be up at 8:00 a.m. EDT/5:00 a.m. PDT to update the map..? [1] Prcc★27 (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's no big deal if someone isn't here to update it on the dot. I'm sure one way or another it'd be updated by someone within a few hours at most. Shereth 20:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Colorado stayed[edit]

The 10th Circuit has stayed Colorado: back to blue & gold striping. Mw843 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Question. Does the Supreme Court stay of Virginia apply to all cases, including Florida? If it doesn't apply to Florida, Florida should be the transition color (who's wording I would like to fix if possible). If I am wrong, please correct me. 71.225.218.253 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The Florida ruling was immediately stayed after issue. My bad. 71.225.218.253 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • On that note, keep in mind that lately cases have been stayed pending appeal of other cases i.e. Indiana (recognition) and Florida (stay lifted 90 days after resolution of similar same-sex marriage cases). Colorado might be in the same boat too. Prcc★27 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Indiana Recognition[edit]

Does Indiana recognize same-sex marriages..? Bowling v. Pence was stayed until the 7th Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. [2]. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
And the Seventh Circuit has issued no order after ruling today and can be expected to stay its ruling. SSM is no more legal in IN and WI than in OK. There's just the teensiest chance that a Governor won't appeal. Hardly likely.
I note also that "in the process of being legal" isn't English. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Bmclaughlin9: So should Indiana and Wisconsin be colored as stayed or as transition..? Also, we could change the wording; what do you think the wording should say..? In Bowling v. Pence it said they had to "rule on the merits" not issue an order. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
In today's two cases, nothing has touched the district court stays. They remain in place. If anything changes it will be very clear. Judge Young won't do anything different in Bowling. Baskin is his case too. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
For easy ref, here's Boling, where the last sentence tells us to wait until Baskin becomes clear:
This Order is stayed until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence. Should the Seventh Circuit stay its decision in the related cases, this order shall remain stayed.
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
But isn't this situation like Virginia where the stay was no longer in effect, but the mandate still had to be issued..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, which comes from reading various articles about this, the seventh issued no stay YET. I say this because as far as I know in my limited knowledge, once a circuit rules, that's a new ruling that has to be stayed all over again even if the district issued a stay. And nothing I've found says "The Seventh Circuit issued a stay." Swifty819 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
So wouldn't that mean recognition is de jure legal (I don't think it is de facto legal since I haven't heard of any ssc receiving recognition)..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think that until an actual long-term stay is placed, we need to have them in the transition color. Also, @Prcc27:: I have undone your bold color scheme change pending any discussions on the matter. I am not quite sure why Indiana is striped with medium grey OoS stripes (though I have not read up on this case yet) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

They'd be in transition, since even though there is no stay, any appeals court ruling has to wait 21 days before the mandate is issued (or 7 days after a request for rehearing or stay is denied). This would be most analogous to a law allowing gay marriage passing that says "This law takes affect 21 days after passage." Swifty819 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (Five edits later and I finally get this to look right while actually logged in)
Also, why is Indiana striped anything? Even if the seventh circuit ruled they had to recognize marriages (which they implicitly did because there's no way you can permit marriages but not recognize them without being paradoxical), this would not take affect until 21 days either. Swifty819 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It was a district court that ruled on recognition.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it was, but that ruling was stayed, and the judge hasn't lifted it yet. Based on that I'd color IN solid light blue. Swifty819 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Why would the judge have to lift the stay..? The decision was stayed until the Seventh Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. If the Seventh Circuit would have stayed their decisions in the similar cases then Bowling v. Pence would have remained stayed. Even if a stay is eventually issued, I'm not sure that would mean Bowling v. Pence would be stayed because of the wording they used: "remain" (how could something remain stayed if the stay is no longer in effect)? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
So why is Indiana recognition striped? The state does not seem to be recognizing any marriages yet, which to me implies solid light blue. (Wouldn't Bowling being dependent on the Seventh Circuit require that the actual mandate be issued before it took effect?) Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Dralwik Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and made Indiana solid light blue based on the initial comments per wp:bold. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if Indiana isn't giving recognition to same-sex couples (de facto) it is still legal there (de jure). We updated Kentucky when same-sex marriage recognition was de jure legal even though same-sex couples didn't receive recognition from the state. The name of the template is "State laws regarding same-sex marriage and similar unions in the United States." If the state wants to break the law, that's on them; but this template deals with laws. Also, the recognition ruling says "This Order is stayed until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence." It doesn't say the mandate has to be issued; Bowling v. Pence was stayed pending rulings in similar cases. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
We updated Kentucky when same-sex marriage recognition was de jure legal even though same-sex couples didn't receive recognition from the state. - but then we created the transition color and changed procedure, so all your de jure de facto stuff is irrelevant. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No it's not. When recognition was de jure legal in Kentucky for 1 day it was not in transition. Kentucky's ruling wasn't stayed until the next day (which would have made Kentucky go from the recognition color to the transition color). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, can we please stop with the reverting..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Currently Indiana is solid light blue. As long as no one changes that no more reverts are necessary. Prcc27, you are the only one who thinks striping is needed, no one else holds that view and at least three people (including me) dispute that view. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No one in Indiana is recognizing marriages at the moment. If I found evidence that one was recognized, I would support the striping. Further, even if Judge Young's stay lifted automatically, I believe a case isn't concluded until a mandate is issued. The difference between here and KY is that KY was decided in a district court. In district court, an order and a mandate can be issued at the same time. In an appeals court, the judges are generally required to wait 21 days after the order to issue the mandate. So the comparison to KY does not apply. Swifty819 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_41. Indiana and Wisconsin can still appeal for cert, so no mandate has issued. Swifty819 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The comparison does apply because the recognition case was decided by a district court not a circuit court. And, the stay is no longer in effect. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The judge said the stay would be lifted at the CONCLUSION of Baskin v. Bogan. Because there has been no mandate issued in Baskin, the case has not yet concluded. Swifty819 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Did the judge actually say "conclusion" or are you misquoting them..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, now I'm thoroughly confused. I clearly misremembered because the judge's order reads "This Order is stayed until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence." However, at the same time, Indiana is saying that because there is no mandate in the 7th circuit case yet, the ruling is not in effect and they therefore refuse to perform or recognize the marriages, so I don't know what to do. Swifty819 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Part of my confusion is, until the mandate is issued, the order could be stayed at any time. And if we agree with your interpretation of the ruling (which could well be correct), then that means that Indiana might recognize marriages for 5 days, and then not do it anymore. Because "Should the Seventh Circuit stay its decision in the related cases, this order shall remain stayed.", I'm a little iffy on saying "OK, Indiana recognizes" until we KNOW the ruling won't be stayed. Swifty819 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Swifty819: If recognition is legal in Indiana, we can't just not update the map because we don't know whether or not a stay will come in the future. That violates WP:CRYSTAL. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27: Yeah I thought of that after I posted that comment. Swifty819 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Thegreyanomaly: Would you care to chime in? Swifty819 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Can anyone produce a source saying that SSMs are actually being recognized as of yesterday in Indiana. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been looking for one ever since I got into this debate, and as of yet, I can't find one. In fact some Indiana officials actually consider the ruling to be stayed even though Posner made no mention of it Swifty819 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A quote from http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/Rules/handbook.pdf follows: "It is important to note that the successful party on appeal cannot enforce its judgment in the district court until the issuance of the mandate has formally reinvested jurisdiction in that district court." Does this mean that the plaintiffs in the recognition case (the one in the district court) cannot yet say "Look, the appeals court ruled in Baskin, so the stay on recognition should be lifted." because Baskin is still in the 7th circuit? This is what I've been wondering the whole time. Swifty819 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Swifty819: Hmm.. The district court may not have jurisdiction in the Baskin case, but since a district court could choose to temporarily stay their ruling or even choose not to stay it at all, the district court still has jurisdiction in the Bowling case if/until the Seventh Circuit steps in- in that particular case.
In Indiana, recognition seems to be de jure legal but there isn't de facto recognition. Kentucky legalized recognition (de jure) without recognizing any same-sex marriages and then the next day it was temporarily stayed. Kentucky was still colored as recognition even though it was only de jure legal. If Kentucky would have been in the same situation today, it would have been recognition for one day and transition until the stay was extended. Since this map deals with laws a state should be colored once recognition is de jure legal. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That was the previous consensus, but since we now update to transition color before a law is in effect, I think the OoS recognition is covered by the transition color. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky's law was in effect!!! An unstayed ruling by a district court, regardless of whether or not it is enforced, is a law that is in effect. If Kentucky were in the same situation today, it would not be colored as transition until the next day when the judge decided to temporarily stay their ruling. What's being argued is whether or not Indiana's law is in effect, regardless of whether or not it is being enforced.Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • If you can produce a reliable source that says specifically that the recognition ruling in effect (i.e., we need more than Wikipedians' readings of the original primary/secondary sources), and then we can consider making Indiana striped. As of now, no one has a primary or secondary source saying that the recognition ruling is in effect. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see why there would be a source that says so if the governor is going to pretend that Baskin is stayed anyways. Oh well, Indiana's current situation isn't gonna last long anyways.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Look, no one else is reading the case the same way as you. If you want striping on Indiana, you need to give us a reliable source that backs your reading. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Cert petitions filed in Bogan v Baskin and Walker v Wolf. Per FRAP 41, the mandate cannot issue until certiorari is resolved. Colored them stayed. Davidmac2003 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Wrong. "(A) A party may move to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. The motion must be served on all parties and must show that the certiorari petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay." No party has asked the Seventh Circuit to stay the ruling yet, they have simply filed for cert. Swifty819 (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As for Indiana recognition... the Supreme Court made it clear that Virginia would be stayed until a mandate was issued whereas the judge in the Bowling case didn't make it clear that a mandate had to be issued for recognition to go into effect. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Change Color Scheme[edit]

I think the transition color should be dark gray because states in this color are "legally ambiguous" according to the reference desk. I agree with them because these states are going from discrimination to marriage rights and in the meantime they are transitioning from a "negative" or neutral color to a "positive" color. Furthermore, the recognition color is light blue on the North American map, and the world homosexuality map. Also, recognition states currently give rights to same-sex couples whereas transition states do not. So basically my proposal is to switch the transition color to dark gray and the recognition color to light blue. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's actually more of a green color on the World homosexuality map. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is not legally ambiguous, it is legally solid; it is just not yet in effect. Recognizing but not performing is neither affirmation or rejection, so a grey color is proper. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Discrimination is still enforced until it goes into effect, so having transition states colored dark gray makes sense. Recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere affirms the validity of same-marriage and gives same-sex couples the same rights as different-sex couples. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Not really, a state is not taking a position on SSM, it is just recognizing them as they would any other marriage. Many states do not permit cousin marriage, yet they will recognize cousin marriages from other states; those states are not affirming cousin marriage, they are just accepting them anyways. The analogy holds for SSM. Light blue makes more sense for a transition color as in those cases the law is affirmative (even if not yet in effect). Anyways, I am not responding in this section anymore until others chime in. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think cousin marriage is recognized in every state though.. Also, a same-sex couple receives more rights in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages than a state that legalized same-sex marriage (until it actually goes into effect, which would turn the state solid dark blue). Because SSCs (and even couples that are cousins) receive benefits and are treated as married, the law is in fact affirmative. Recognition states recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, but in-state same-sex marriages are considered invalid. Even though the law that legalizes same-sex marriages is affirmative, the law that is still being enforced (or in some cases the de facto discrimination) is "negative". As a result, I think that transition states should be represented with a color that shows that the current law is "negative" and the law that hasn't entered into effect yet is affirmative. I do agree that this discussion won't really get anywhere unless other people join in. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, CM is not recognized in every state, and the same goes with SSM. The analogy holds. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The analogy proves nothing. Married cousin still receive benefits and are treated as married by the state. Same with same-sex marriage. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You are not making an iota of sense. A state that does not allow SSM but recognizes it anyways is identical to a state that does not recognize CM but recognizes anyways. They are directly analogous. They are recognizing OoS marriages, but they are not letting people perform said marriages; summing those two sets of facts, it is a fundamentally neutral position. A state that is about to enable SSM does not have the same neutrality. No one else is agreeing with you. It is pointless for you to try to respond here until more people actual chime in.. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • They are indeed directly analogous; which is exactly why it's not worth bringing up. If I view same-sex marriage recognition as an affirmative law, why would my opinion be any different when it comes to cousin marriages..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons set forth by Thegreyanomaly. States with a court ruling or law are going to PERFORM gay marriages, it just might be a few weeks or months before they do. On the other hand, a state that only has recognition might be months or years before they perform. In other words, I believe a state that has something not yet in effect is closer to dark blue (marriage) than a state that recognizes marriage but doesn't perform. Swifty819 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Broward County[edit]

Broward County legalized same-sex marriage. When same-sex marriages start being recognized and/or performed I suggest we add a footnote..! [3] Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No per WP:CRYSTAL, opening the door is not the same thing as legalizing something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Knowledgekid87: Umm... I said when it goes into effect we should add a footnote. Also, the decision can't be appealed and same-sex marriage was legalized in that county. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not WP:CRYSTAL, Pam Bondi failed to appeal the decision by the Florida district court. S51438 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The Broward County case is moot; the state wasn't notified properly. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Precedent Color[edit]

I believe that any state which falls under a circuit court precedent and has a ban in effect should be colored pink. My reasoning for this is that even if the precedent is stayed, that information can be found by a gold state in the same circuit. Furthermore, either the stay on the precedent is lifted, and those states would remain pink, or they would be overturned by SCOTUS and we'd have to turn a bunch of states anyway. I say pink (the old statute ban color), because that way, the further a way a state is from one end (complete marriage) or another (complete ban), the lighter it ought to be. What do you all think? If needed, we could do something for stayed precedent. Swifty819 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn. Swifty819 (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: A circuit precedent does nothing to a ssm ban, the ban is left intact. Furthermore, Kansas's ban isn't even being (fully) challenged, so the precedent is essentially useless to Kansas if/until the ban is challenged. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but the precedent does matter. Although you are correct in saying that by itself, the precedent doesn't do anything, it does essentially mean that when it is challenged, it has to fall. I figured that perhaps people might want to know that even though the ban is still in place, there is precedent against it, which DOES make a difference as far as the challenge goes, since as you know, it means a district judge in Kansas (or Wyoming, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia) won't be able to uphold the ban. The wording I would use is something like "Same-sex marriage banned, but subject to court precedent." Swifty819 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not chiming in (I have too much work to deal with another re-color proposal), but you really should not be starting this discussion, we just had it in July/August and it did not take hold. If you are going to continue this discussion anyways, you ought to ping everyone involved in that prior discussion (as well as any other active users on this page). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, my apologies. I wasn't around this page much when that was done, so I didn't realize. I withdraw this. Swifty819 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS Consideration[edit]

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider same-sex marriage cases from 5 states on September 29. [4] If they deny cert for all 5 states, same-sex marriage will be legal immediately in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Florida would be colored light blue for transition [5] (in fact, if SCOTUS decides to hear the cases for Indiana and Wisconsin but not the other states, Florida would still be colored for transition). Okay, so is it possible for the Supreme Court to take up one or a few of the cases and preserve the stays and delay ruling in the other states or would the Supreme Court be required to deny cert..? So if the Supreme Court issues a nationwide ruling in support of same-sex marriage, every state would be colored light blue for transition until the mandate is issued? If the Supreme Court issues a ruling against same-sex marriage, then the state(s) would remain stayed (gold) until the mandate is issued right..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is what the map would look like if the Supreme Court denied cert for all of the cases [6]. Here is what the map would look like if the Supreme Court issued a nationwide ruling in support of same-sex marriage [7]. I'm still confused on how the map would look if the court issued a ruling against same-sex marriage... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
So why is Florida transition blue upon a denial of cert? Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dralwik: Did you read Florida's ruling..? "The stay will remain in effect until stays have been lifted in Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen, and for an additional 90 days to allow the defendants to seek a longer stay from this court or a stay from the Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court." Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this is because in this hypothetical, the opinion has come down, but the mandate hadn't been issued. Swifty819 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Swifty819: Actually no, in this hypothetical SCOTUS denies cert in similar cases and same-sex marriage is legal in Florida 90 days later (so in the meantime, Florida would be in transition). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I consolidated the same-sex union color so it covers CUs/DPs and SSM legalization [8]. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is going to be a while till any of this is more than supposition. The SCOTUS can give cert as early or late in the session as it wants, so there really isn't much we can do on this matter. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed the process is going to take awhile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, well- I just thought I should bring it up just like what we've been doing in the past. I also wanted to make sure we were clear on Florida so it wouldn't be like Indiana all over again! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually if SCOTUS decide to not hear the cases from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin same sex marriage would be legal in all the states that are part of the circuit so all the states in the 4th, 7th and 10th would have marriage equality as there is binding precedent by the appeal courts.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a precedent, but it wouldn't necessarily be legal throughout the circuit... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Question: Would a ruling striking down a same-sex marriage ban be binding throughout the entire nation or would it simply be a precedent..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be binding throughout the nation, as all SCOTUS decisions are. The only way it might not be binding nationwide is if it were somehow a narrow ruling (something like the vacated 9th Circuit Perry ruling, which applied only to states in the 9th Circuit that had previously had marriage equality but then got rid of it, i.e. only California). Tinmanic (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)