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
  • 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"/>

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)"/>

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.

Actual Discussion[edit]


Just so folks are aware of potential additional changes to the map, we may get a ruling in the Michigan case (Deboer v. Snyder) sometime this week. WildGardener (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As well, April 15 Oregon's ban goes to trial. Since neither the governor nor the attorney general will either defend the ban or appeal a decision against the ban, Oregon is likely the next state to actually carry out marriages. Oregon Live article Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Virginia and Nevada are in the same boats (though Virginia's boat is the most advanced). Virginia will probably be next, once the appellate court says that county clerks do not have the standing to appeal. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I just say that I am overjoyed to be living in this period in time? This is a social revolution and we all get to watch it happen in front of our eyes! We also keep the world of Wikipedia (arguably the most famous online encyclopedia) informed on what is happening, minute by minute, as the US and the rest of the world begin to give out rights to the LGBT community! Sorry for my slightly off topic spiel, but I feel we are all very lucky. Aharris206 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Then let the state race to equal marriage begin! Re: Aharris, we're also maintaining one of the most visible checks that the average person has on same-sex marriage's progress. I've noticed quite a few sites (like newspapers, HuffPo, etc.) have same-sex marriage maps similar to ours with the three civil union states and Wisconsin a paler color; I like to think of that as a hint that reporters and editors are peeking at our map to make sure they have their tallies right. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Rights are also being taken away from the GLB (possibly T) people. For example: Uganda, India, Nigeria, Australia (same-sex marriage), and Russia. I am not happy to live in a time period where homosexuality is being criminalized. As for the United States, GLB discrimination is still legal in many states. Also, in many countries (at least 31) Men who have sex with men are deferred from donating blood either indefinitely or temporarily. They're only allowed to donate in at least 8 countries: Chile, Spain, Russia, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, and Uruguay. Though marriage is arguably a human right [1] IMO it doesn't appear to be a vital human right. People could live without marriage. Also, this topic belongs here --> [2] or a new one could be made since that one is in archive. But I do thing we are getting off topic going on about the progression (and digression) of GLB rights. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, ssm isn't just about GLB rights, it is possible to (and some people probably do) get married to the same-sex even if you aren't GLB. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that marriage isn't a vital right. But that's beside the point: it both reflects and furthers an incredible change in social attitudes, a change which will affect all aspects of people's lives. As for the decreases in rights, in most cases those are either blips (Australia, India, where nothing changed over all) or backlashes against the advance of LGBT rights. There are always going to be backlashes. Just look at the increase in racism in politics in the US since Obama became president. That doesn't mean that his presidency isn't a sign of a decrease in racism overall, and won't cause an even greater improvement among the generation growing up with him. — kwami (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, the discussion above is off-topic and should probably be deleted or archived. See and Tinmanic (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I am very sorry for what I started. If needed, I (or someone else) could delete the entire conversation starting with my previous comment all the way to this one.Aharris206 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't need to delete the conversation, just probably stick to strictly discussing the map from now on. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Same sex marriage is legal for now as the ban was struck down and a stay was not issue. --Allan120102 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The maps have been changed, although a stay is pending and likely will be in effect in the next few hours. I haven't seen whether any couples have been married. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Ruling was after 5PM and all clerks' offices are closed, so marriage certificates issued yet. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I'm keeping an eye out for any stay granted. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@Dralwik: Strongly suspect it will be, but who knows... I'mma put a post-stay version of Same-sex marriage in the United States‎ at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox2 if you want to copy-paste it as I see you are editing there too. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If we start adding footnotes for states that have stayed decisions but briefly performed ssm prior to the stay; it looks like Michigan will be apart of that footnote if the ruling is later stayed. Same-sex marriage licenses will be issued Saturday in at least 3 counties. [3] --Prcc27 (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The decision has been stayed pending appeal; "dozens" were married earlier in the day, though. [4] /blahedo (t) 21:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


Kentucky needs to be striped red and black instead of red and gray. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Question: Not that I want to make things more complicated, but is there a way to differentiate Kentucky from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, and Michigan, because the Kentucky decision that was put on hold just recognized of out-of-state marriages and did not strike down the entire statewide ban, as in the other states? Tinmanic (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC) u

I agree Kentucky's ruling is different from the others.It should have different stripes imo.Allan120102 (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Aharris206 (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I hear where you're coming from, but I also think we have enough colors as it is. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I lean towards keeping Kentucky as is. The beige color is listed as "Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban..." which covers both a complete overturn (like Texas) or a partial overturn (like Kentucky). I don't think the ruling is unique enough to warrant yet another footnote, either. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is the problem one is partial another is complete not the same is like saying half is equal to total.Imo it should be different as there are some states that lawsuits are asking to be totally overturned and others just to recognize ssm certificates from other states.Allan120102 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Kentucky is fine-as-is. The partial difference can be handled with a footnote. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you know I'm all for footnotes. Also, is it worth noting that the Kentucky ruling went into effect before it was stayed (even though it wasn't enforced)? --Prcc27 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No it is not, if it wasn't enforced it it is too much detail. And here people aren't entering marriages, just getting them recognized; getting them recognized for a few days is not as significant as getting married before a stay. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)



Could we re-add the footnote that states that marriages were briefly performed in Utah..? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Since it was removed without a good enough explanation I will re-add if for now. If there are any objections, feel free to revert me and we can discuss it. Thank you, Prcc27 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


Is the word "civil" really necessary in the legend? If so, shouldn't all references to ssm in the legend include the word "civil" as well? --Prcc27 (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Rearranging colors in legend[edit]

It bothers me that the beige line in the legend is nestled in between the two grey colors. Can we move the the beige stripe to either above or below the greys as opposed to in between them? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It actually makes more sense to group it with the reds. The blues are about "things this state allows", the greys are sort of about "what other areas do", and the reds are about "things this state prohibits"---the beige (mustard?) is negating one of those prohibitions. I'd put it at the bottom of the list. /blahedo (t) 21:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I've bumped the beige below the grays, above the reds. (Rearranging the legends isn't difficult, it's just editing the text of the page on Commons.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I know, I just figure it was better to bring it up here first in case there was some rationale I was missing out on. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Requirement for changes...[edit]

Aren't the courts required to do something at least every week to cause us to change the map? I mean it's been at least 4 days since something happened. I'm worried we won't have to change the map in the next 3 days.Naraht (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The legal system is slow and complex if we don't have to change the map then so be it, I am not sure what the worry is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was more obviously tongue in cheek, sorry...Naraht (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Its okay, just look at how long it took California and Prop 8 though, this is likely going to reach the US supreme court before it is decided case by case in which case it could be years. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible upcoming changes in 2014 (continued)[edit]

United States Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage possible. [5] --Prcc27 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol, maybe they'll try, but it's gonna go as far as those Obamacare repeals. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CRYSTAL!!!!!!!!!! Seriously though, it ain't gonna happen. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: I think Prcc27 is just alerting is to the changing situation (which seems to be common practice on this and related pages), not suggesting that we actually change the map now.  :) EvergreenFir (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If this happens, I think the map would still be needed to distinguish between those states with constitutions with just SSM marriage banned and those states where SSM and all similar types of unions are also banned in the constitutions.Naraht (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I was joking. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, the map would still need to distinguish te two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Arkansas could have their ban struck down in 2 weeks. I don't know how likely it is that it will be appealed since it looks like a state supreme court case [6] --Prcc27 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Access to Federal Recognition[edit]

One thing not mentioned in the map is access to federal recognition. While the federal government recognizes marriage equality, the marriage must still be performed in a state that recognizes that marriage. For residents of states such as Alabama, Florida or Mississippi, this is a real barrior to federal recognition as the nearest recognition state can be eight hundred or more miles away, maybe Maryland or New Mexico at the moment. Not sure how to word the map but it is defintely a false impression to think that gay people have federal recognition in, say, Alabama when in fact many do not have access to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Indiana Footnote[edit]

Indiana needs a footnote (since Tennessee has one). --Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky and Ohio's Stayed Rulings[edit]

For those of you who aren't aware (I'm pretty sure everyone is though) Kentucky's stayed ruling affects the recognition of out of state marriages only. As we know, Ohio will be in the same boat in just 3 short days. I feel that if we put them with the generic gold color in the striping, it will confuse people into thinking the states could soon have full marriage equality. This section here is to discuss the possibility of adding another color to the, or changing things up a bit. Underneath, I will put my proposal. Aharris206 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

But Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage is being challenged as well. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


This proposal does not add any colors, but instead changes them. Light grey means there is no ban or recognition, correct? This proposal changes the gold in the states with stays on the entire ban struck down (UT, OK, VA, TX, MI) with grey. Why? Because the stayed ruling focuses on the ban its self, it doesn't institute marriage equality, it just means the ban is no longer in place. In this scenario, those five states will be striped dark red, and grey. In the case of Kentucky and in 3 days Ohio, we can keep the gold with a new definition: Judicial ruling in favor of same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized, stayed pending appeal. Aharris206 (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
And what happens to the territories that are colored light gray..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The territories will stay as they are. Light grey means there is no ban or recognition, which is what striking down the ban would essentially do. However, it has been stayed pending appeal, hence the striping with dark red. Aharris206 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Give me a moment, I tried to post a visual, but it is huge. Let me get a link insted. Aharris206 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Here we go!
Aharris206 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. We do not need to do this, leave the map as is. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Essentially, what the rulings are doing are striking down the bans themselves. That would put the state in a temporary moment where it would be is the same category as the territories. Kind of like how New Mexico was a not too long ago. We would keep them striped though, since the ruling is stayed pending appeal. Basically, the outcome of the appeal and possibly the Supreme Court's involvement would be either:
  1. The state keeps the ban keeping it the original color.
  2. The ban is struck down making it light grey.
Of course, activists will immediately start asking for marriage licenses, but the principle is currently that the state will be with no ban or recognition should the appeals choose that route. Aharris206 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a difference from grey, though: In every case a court has struck down a ban, the effect of the ruling was that marriage was legal – that is, the state became blue, not grey. — kwami (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the yellow stripe is appropriate though because it lets readers know that a ban has been struck down but it's stayed pending appeal. It's not so clear that that is the case with the light gray stripe. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The map is confusing enough with the excess footnotes I think either cut something else that is not used as much (Limited enumerated rights maybe) or don't include the proposal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Test Image[edit]

In this test image, it looks like the striping was deliberately done to force Texas and Oklahoma (for example) to have the striping be opposite to make the state border *obvious*. I think that makes things class too much. I'd restore it the way it was so that stripes will continue through the border, the way that it does now.Naraht (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Aharris206 (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2[edit]

If we are going to keep the gold for the other states, there should be another color to separate them from KY and OH. If not, we would end up with another footnote in the huge list of footnotes. I know it is making the map complicated, but the many laws in this country surrounding this issue are complicated. Each state has it's own ways of figuring things out. we need some way to show it's different in those two states, so I have a few variations of proposal 2.Aharris206 (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2a[edit]

Come up with a color for the stayed rulings in KY and OH. I know this may look cluttered, but there are many colors we could choose from. If we decide to take this route, we could descuss the colors later, but 2a proposes another color stripe for KY and OH.Aharris206 (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can convince me that having a new color is better than having a footnote I will Support this proposal. I think it should also be noted that some have complained about too many footnotes and this new color change would decrease the length of footnote #3. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
What about triple striping the gray on OH and KY, and the marriage blue on the other five? Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - the map is fine as it is. Triple striping will make for a major eyesore. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright. My own personal take is that the status quo is best of these proposals; the map is busy enough as is. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but the blue says ssm is allowed and the gray says ssm is recognized. It might be confusing because that's not the case for these states yet. I'm just worried that if it was triple striped it wouldn't be clear.. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. I think KY and OH should be differentiated from the other stayed states. It's not our fault if the map is too busy. That's just the nature of the diverse state of marriage law in the U.S. right now. Tinmanic (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If we differentiate between Wisconsin and states with civil unions that provide more rights, then we should differentiate between the states with bans struck down partially and the states with the entire ban struck down. Otherwise, Wisconsin's blue color should just be a footnote. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2b[edit]

This one looks at things in a brand new manner, it's something we haven't done before. But we could theoretically stripe KY and OH in the other direction (from top right to bottom left.) This sparks other possibilities like other ways to incorporate the second color without the normal striping. We could also go with vertical or horizontal. The main drawback to this would be that it would be difficult to describe, and we would need a footnote to describe it. However, we already have a footnote for KY and OH, so changing the direction of the striping or something similar may not be too far fetched. Aharris206 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

These excessive proposal have got to go... Both of these two proposals will only serve to confuse readers more and more. The status quo is sufficient. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I will remove the section in 24 hours Aharris206 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I disagree with @Thegreyanomaly:, Proposal 2a is a valid proposal. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As valid as it is, it is a gross waste of time. Getting consensus to add colors is difficult, and existing discussions indicate that people are fine with leaving KY and OH striped gold. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone just suggested triple striping.. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There are way too f***ing many footnotes![edit]

State laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States*
  Same-sex marriage allowed1
  Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex domestic partners2
  Limited/enumerated privileges granted by state
  Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized
  No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriage or unions in territory law
  Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal3
  Statute bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution and statute ban same-sex marriage
  Constitution and statute ban same-sex marriage and some or all other same-sex unions

*Same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government for residents of all states based on location of ceremony.
1 The bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Illinois goes into effect on June 1, 2014, but same-sex marriages have already begun in Cook County and select other counties following a court ruling. Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions also allow same-sex marriage.
2 Not recognized by federal government. Some states that allow same-sex marriage also allow other same-sex unions.
3 Same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah and Michigan prior to their respective judicial rulings being stayed. The stayed rulings in Kentucky and Ohio would overturn the states' bans on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages.

These footnotes are insane! Footnotes need to be removed. The footnote text is longer than the actual text! All footnotes should be discussed here before ever being added (and those that aren't should be reverted!).

  • 3 Same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah and Michigan prior to their respective judicial rulings being stayed. Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage was partially struck down; the judge found that refusing to recognize same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
  • 4 A U.S. district court issued an injunction requiring Indiana to recognize the same-sex marriage of one same-sex couple. It will last for 28 days from its initial ruling date April 10, 2014.
  • 5 A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction that Tennessee recognize the same-sex marriages of the plaintiffs in Tanco v. Haslam.
  • 6 A U.S. district court announced it will require Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The ruling will be issued on April 14, 2014.

The sentence "Same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah and Michigan prior to their respective judicial rulings being stayed." is too much detail for the footnote. 4, 5, and 6 are about map changes that have not occurred. 4 and 5 only apply to a specific number of couples, not to the public and thus do not belong. I am being bold and axing them. There are too many footnotes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted this undiscussed edit by @Prcc27: [7], and removed the Tennessee footnote that only affects the plaintiffs and no one else. Please exhibit restraint adding footnotes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: I took it to the talk before I made the edit. [8] So if you disagree with an edit, maybe you should engage in the discussion rather than revert me. The only reason it hasn't been "discussed" is because you haven't spoke up. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I was out of town with shitty wifi, if I was in town, I would have shot it down then and there. You made the edit at 01:45, 11 April 2014 and first brought it up 00:29, 11 April 2014. You have first-hand knowledge how contentious adding footnotes are from this discussion. You really need to give a discussion on footnotes more than an hour and 16 minutes before acting. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the footnote shouldn't be there, but if the Tennessee footnote is there (which it was) then the Indiana footnote should have been there too. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional changes[edit]

Those changes made, I still suggest:

  • We axe the line "Same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah and Michigan prior to their respective judicial rulings being stayed." - too much detail for a map legend, people will read it in the articles they see the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose Those states are in a different situation than the other ones. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Incorrect, there situations are identical. They did once perform SSM for a short period of time, but now they are identical to the other dark red/gold states. Iowa was in the exact same situation albeit the number of marriages was 1. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We axe "A U.S. district court announced it will require Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The ruling will be issued on April 14, 2014." until the actually ruling is issued Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose We footnoted Kentucky when it was in the same situation. Plus, the ruling's going to be made tomorrow anyways. In the future, I would Support Not adding rulings until they are issued. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Well relative to the time, I posted it is the future. We are not shackled to bad precedences. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohio ruling April 14[edit]

HuffPo is reporting that the judge hearing the Ohio case will issue a ruling against the state's ban on foreign recognition on the 14th. (The current ruling under appeal is about death certificates; this would be all marriages done out of state.) His announcement is to give the state time to craft an immediate appeal, so come the 14th Ohio will be in a Kentucky situation. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add a footnote stating the judges intention to rule (like we did before the federal judge in kentucky made their official ruling)? --Prcc27 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably. I've lost track of what we footnote, so if you want to add the note, feel free. Once the order is issued, I'll update File:World marriage-equality laws.svg to the beige color, since it almost certainly will be an immediate stay on appeal. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I think Ohio already qualifies as "court announced intention to recognize" since the judge announced intention to recognize.. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There are two possible outcomes from the ruling that will be issued tomorrow.
a) The ruling will be stayed and therefore must be colored yellow.
b) The ruling won't be stayed and therefore must be colored dark gray. (Since the judge is giving time for an appeal, this probably won't be the case).

--Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the yellow stripe and fixed the footnote; a temporary stay has not been issued yet. --Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Meaning that the stay could be lifted as early as tomorrow or the stay could be extended awaiting appeal. --Prcc27 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an especially confusing ruling. I put the yellow stripes on since it is in a current (immediate) stay; we'll see tomorrow what happens. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Making the map less busy: Is it time to remove civil unions?[edit]

With only four states having civil unions now but not marriage, and all four states requiring multiple striping, removing the civil union recognition from the map would be an efficient way to make the map less busy without losing much information. This would also remove footnote 2, and changing the map's title would be simply replacing "partnership" with "marriage." This would free up the lighter blue for out of state recognition as well. In place of having civil unions on this map, we could let File:Same-sex unions by US counties and cities.svg be the default "other unions" map, and let this map be striped only for the stayed ruling states and Oregon's out of state recognition. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the current map without the civil union colors, and here is the map with the light blue for out of state recognition. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - Discussions about removing CU/DPs have occurred relatively recently and have failed. Remember, this map is on "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States". Taking about civil union information is taking out a lot of very important information. Also let's stop with all these proposals and leave the map as it is... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the amount of states with civil unions is relevant. Just like when Utah was the only stayed state; it still should have had a stay color. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

We could merge the definitions of the Wisconsin color and the rest with "Broad Domestic Partnership/Civil Union" like it says here: [9]. That way viewers know there is some type of civil union without breaking it down as to whether or not it has the full benefits of marriage. It also opens up another color for us. aharris206 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I can support that. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose removing civil unions, support Thegreyanomaly's aharris206's Wisconsin idea. CTF83! 10:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - As long as civil unions continue to exist, they should be represented. I've seen several criticisms that the map is "too busy." I very much disagree; the map is busy because it reflects the chaotic state of marriage law in the U.S. right now, as it should. Tinmanic (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@CTF83!: The greyanomaly didn't say anything about Wisconsin... --Prcc27 (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think CTF meant aharris' idea on Wisconsin. It's clear booting the civil unions is WP:SNOWed out, but I'm curious to see if we could get Wisconsin consolidated with the civil union trio. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay. I think we should group Wisconsin with the other states and footnote it. Just like we do with Kentucky and Ohio; just to be consistent. If we do come up with a different stay color for Kentucky and Ohio then I wouldn't support it. But as of know, I support combining Wisconsin and the other civil union states. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So far it doesn't look like anyone's opposed to the Wisconsin idea... (except maybe thegreyanomaly who thinks that we shouldn't be making any proposals anymore.) --Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That's rather uncharitable towards thegreyanomaly, don't you think? He hasn't weighed in on Wisconsin yet. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks like you guys straightened out my mistype, thanks. CTF83! 23:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@CTF83!: No problem! @Dralwik: Yeah I know, they don't like all these proposals but uh.. isn't that the point of a talk page? Anyways, we should probably wait at least 24 hours from when it was initially proposed before we do anything to Wisconsin. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, patience is probably best. Wisconsin's ban might not be much longer anyways, as its case is taking the Iowa and New Jersey treks to the state Supreme Court: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I oppose merging light blue and medium blue, just as I did the last time this came up. There are too significant differences here. @Prcc27:, you do not understand my opposition. You (and others) have taken proposal suggesting to an extreme, look at this talk page and the last archive, they are loaded with tons and tons of rejected, merit-less and/or policy-violating proposals aiming to modify the coloring scheme. Every idea that hits one's mind does not need to be proposed/acted upon. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: But why do we have one color for KY/OH and MI/UT/OK but two colors for WI and OR/NV/CO? It's inconsistent! --Prcc27 (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Prcc27:, that is not a significant difference. The lawsuits are all stayed, it makes no difference to a same-sex couple in KY/OH versus the others; they are barred from SSM either way. It does make a difference to said couple to be in in WI vs. OR/NV/CO as they are actually treated differently. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Thegreyanomaly: In that case, why even have the stayed color at all..? (Since no same-sex couples are affected). --Prcc27 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Prcc27:, sigh... Because there is a significant legal difference between the stay and nothing. There is not a significant difference (that the current footnote cannot handle) between KY/OH and the others. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)