File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.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
  • foreign: Foreign same-sex marriages recognized
  • transition: State in process of legalizing same-sex marriages
  • foreignstay: Ruling ordering recognition of foreign same-sex marriages stayed
  • marriagestay: Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal
  • marriageban: Constitution or statute bans same-sex marriage
  • nolaw: No specific law regarding same-sex marriage

Patterns for compound legal statuses exist: foreign-marriageban and foreignstay-marriageban are included.

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

  <g id="foreign-marriageban">
    <use xlink:href="#part1of2" class="foreign"/>
    <use xlink:href="#part2of2" class="marriageban"/>
  </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.

  <!-- Missouri -->
  <g clip-path="url(#clipPathMO)">
    <use xlink:href="#foreign-marriageban" transform="translate(538,297)"/>
  </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="#foreign-marriageban" 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.

Michigan?[edit]

Should we do anything with [1]? Swifty819 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • No, we didn't do anything with Utah when they were in the same boat. The state would only be required to recognize same-sex marriages previously performed. However, Michigan is worth noting on the world maps. Prcc27 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I was thinking that in 21 days we'd have to add MI to the "previously recognized" part of the same sex unions template, and that everything else is footnoteable. Do you agree? Swifty819 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Michigan is already listed under the "previously performed" and (currently) recognized sections with an asterisk to indicate that it's not yet in effect. But we don't need a footnote for this map. Prcc27 (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no map footnote for Arkansas either, for starters. If we were going to footnote Michigan, we'd have to footnote Arkansas as well. Kumorifox (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, but the married same-sex couples in Michigan would be in a better position than those in Arkansas since MI would actually be recognizing those marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
True, but the Arkansas marriages are still not invalidated. I'd say hold off on the footnotes for now. With a little luck, tomorrow will bring news of (rejection of) certiorari for the cases from the 6th. We can always decide thereafter. Kumorifox (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama Struck[edit]

Order here [2]; I don't see any reference to a stay. Mw843 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Does it apply to same-sex marriage recognition only? Does it only apply to the defendant? We should wait for reliable sources to provide more information before we change the map. Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

From the order:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant [Alamaba Attorney General] is enjoined from enforcing those laws.

No limitations on the order, and no stay. I think the map should be changed. Mw843 (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I'm going to revert it back. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The county clerks aren't ordered to issue same-sex marriage licenses though. Also, per WP:Reliable Sources we can't change the map without a reliable source saying that same-sex marriage is fully legal and it's WP:Original Research to assume that same-sex marriage is legal from interpreting a ruling. Bigdaddybrabantio please don't, you need consensus and a reliable source! Prcc27 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Here: "There was no stay placed on the ruling. In the absence of a successful stay request by the state, couples can begin applying for marriage licenses as soon as clerks offices open. HRC congratulates the plaintiffs and attorneys involved in the case on this historic victory." I think it's appropriate to consider it a marriage state for now at least. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bigdaddybrabantio: That's a little better... but that source isn't necessarily "reliable". There is inaccurate information on HRC's website: the "Relationship Recognition", "Marriage Prohibition" and "Interstate Recognition" maps are all inaccurate and haven't been updated. And btw, Alabama hasn't been added to the "authorizes same-sex marriage" states on their "Marriage Recognition" map yet [3]! Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a single source in the world that hasn't made a mistake at some point. Pointing out inaccuracies is baloney. We need to use our judgment based on a reading of multiple sources, not grab any one that says what we want said. Here's the assessment of Chris Geidner (always a careful source) at BuzzFeed, note the phrasing: "The combined effect of the broad scope of the ruling and the lack of a stay means that Granade’s intention appears to be that same-sex couples can marry in Alabama immediately." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

    • Alabama is still colored as banned on their marriage map. Geidner doesn't seem that sure of the extent of the ruling's scope though.. Prcc27 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
      • That was my point. (also that your pointing to inaccuracies is bogus) Patience and judgment are called for. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
        • If the scope of the ruling is unknown then why rush to change the map..? I was only refuting HRC as a reliable source. Prcc27 (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not suggested changing the map, have I? Have I? I'd like to see more intelligent discussion. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • But the map was changed so I'm suggesting we change it back; OR we could color Alabama light blue since things are still pending... Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The ruling is very, very clear, and news media are reporting it as such, even if HRC hasn't instantly updated its map (I haven't checked). It remains to be seen whether a stay will be granted, and it appears unlikely many (if any) licenses will be issued over the weekend, so this does have time to develop. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • According to the Associated Press, published in LGBTQ Nation:

"Hernandez said that means same-sex couples could begin applying for marriage licenses on Monday." Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


She took a very broad language when striking the ban. The ban was struck completely but I believe Alabama may take a similar approach like Kansas and some counties might issue licenses meanwhile others would not as there was no clerk being sued just the AG.--Allan120102 (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The language used in the state's application for a stay, [4], certainly makes it clear that they think the ruling is broad. Alabama is part of the 11th Circuit, which means look to Florida for a roadmap of what could happen next. Mw843 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Mw843: I don't see any indication of the ruling being broad in the state's application for a stay... but as long as there's a source backing up that same-sex marriage is fully legal- I'm okay with Alabama being dark blue and removing the footnote. But if Alabama starts being difficult like Kansas then we're going to have to do something. Prcc27 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I doubt the 11th circuit would stay the ruling but Scotus might do it as they are hearing the cases of Michigan etc, but we will see what they do.--Allan120102 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We've had other states blue for just a day or two until the ruling was stayed. We'll just have to wait and see, per CRYSTAL. It's debatable whether SSM is legal in KS, yet we color that state blue because that was the court ruling. AL should be the same. — kwami (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

When a state marriage ban has been struck in the past, we have immediately recoloured the map, pretty much every time. To change that now would be ever so slightly nonsensical. Even if some states are problematic, we can always come back to those. And even then, we have map precedence, and we never reached full consensus on those states, so we have to follow the precedence as is set now. If any of the remaining states not currently at SCOTUS level are to strike their bans without further stays, then their colour should be changed to dark blue. Further developments might call for a recolouring, but those will not be apparent at the time the ban is struck unless the order states such exceptions clearly, like a striking of recognition bans only. But unless the order itself states this, we should not assume off the bat that full legality is not on the cards, and there is no reason that we should not follow the current colouring scheme and methodology, even with the current confustates making things a hassle. Kumorifox (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Kwamikagami and Kumorifox: The difference between Kansas and Alabama is that in Kansas there were county clerks listed as defendants which meant same-sex marriage was at least legal at the local level. But we don't know the implications in Alabama, is this just a recognition only case? It's just as CRYSTAL to assume that same-sex marriage is fully legal in Alabama than to assume that it's only slightly legal. Light blue seems more fitting since things are still pending and the implications are still being worked out. With Kansas, we at least know that same-sex marriage is legal in at least two counties so a footnote explains that same-sex marriage licenses aren't available everywhere, but it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that counties in Alabama will issue same-sex marriages when none of them were ordered to do so and because the plaintiffs weren't even seeking the right to marry. Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Any sources for this being a recognition-only decision/order? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I will chime in here and point out that the closest thing I can see to that was on Equality on Trial, when it said that the plaintiffs had sued for recognition, however the judge decided to strike down the entire ban instead. Since then, I've not seen any source say this is a recognition case, but several call it a marriage case. The ruling did enjoin the AG from enforcing THE ENTIRE BAN though. That you can see black and white in the ruling. Swifty819 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) EDIT FOR SOURCE: [5] Also, most states are not like KS. County clerks are directly controlled by the AG in most cases.
The plaintiffs are already married and sought recognition of their out-of-state marriage for adoption purposes. Btw, when a judge rules that a law is unconstitutional that doesn't necessarily throw out the law entirely as this was a summary judgement case. We've seen individual rulings several times in the past: Illinois, Indiana, Florida, etc. The Probate Judges Association said "Judge Granade's ruling in this case only applies to the parties in the case and has no effect on anybody that is not a named party. The probate judges were not parties in this matter. The legal effect of this decision is to allow one person in one same sex marriage that was performed in another state to adopt their partner's child. There is nothing in the judge's order that requires probate judges in Alabama to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. As probate judges, our duty is to issue marriage licenses in accordance with Alabama law and that means we can not legally issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. The recent federal ruling does not change that." I'm going to revert the map back since the implications are still unknown, but I wouldn't be opposed to someone adding a footnote for Alabama. I think it would be best if we didn't rush to update the map, especially when it's done before reliable sources say it's legal! [6] Prcc27 (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay please don't pull this shit again. The ruling is crystal clear. The head of PJA is simply bigoted and attempting to ignore the ruling. Please change the map back to blue. Thank you.

  • You should watch your tone because that didn't seem WP:CIVIL at all! The head of PJA is a probate judge with authority and not following a ruling that they aren't bound by isn't "ignoring" it. Prcc27 (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Who posted the above comment about "pulling this shit"? That was frankly unnecessary, and even worse, the comment was unsigned! Swifty819 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Found it. To IP 104.159.163.24, even if you think a commenter is out of line or "pulling shit", even if you think that a person is being unnecessarily hardheaded, it's not necessary to react like that. Swifty819 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
And you should watch your tone. Smugly correcting a gay commenter for deigning to suggest that homophobia might exist is itself homophobic. Keeping Alabama red is patently absurd and smacks of massive resistance. As in Texas and Mississippi, a federal judge has invalidated the state law, but licenses aren't yet issuing. There, it is because of stays. Here, the state is in basically the same position as a big-picture matter. The difference is that licenses aren't yet issuing because of grumbling over who the order technically covers. Alabama is actually in a more pro-marriage equality position because the prospects for any stay seem low.Jstephenclark (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Although at the very least, they are attempting to enforce a provision that has been ruled unconstitutional (the ban on marriages). hopefully this judge will be like Florida and clear up the situation within days, and not the two month clusterscrew of Kansas. Dralwik|Have a Chat 09:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Plaintiffs have responded to AL AG's stay request [7], and have asked the judge to clarify her order, comparing the PJA to "George Wallace at the schoolhouse door staring defiantly upon this Court’s order reasoning that not all citizens of Alabama are entitled to the same rights and privileges afforded under the Constitution of the United States and that as Probate Judges 'it is [their] duty to issue marriage licenses in accordance with Alabama law and that means [they] can not legally issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.'" Mw843 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The filing also notes a 1970 case, United States v. Brittain, in which a court had to rule three years after Loving that an unconstitution ruling by a "court of competent jurisdiction" applies to Alabama Probate judges.Baltimatt (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added Footnote 4: "Alabama's ban was struck down on 23 January 2015. Arguments over the scope and enforceability of the order have not yet been resolved.", which should be removed/changed once the judge answers the stay request. Mw843 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

How is Alabama's situation different from South Carolina's, with respect to the federal injunction that is now in effect in each state? In SC, the federal injunction applied to the state Attorney General and one county probate judge. In AL, the federal injunction applies to the State Attorney General. In SC, just as in AL, marriage licenses are issued by county probate judges, not county clerks. In SC, just as in AL, county probate judges are elected officials who are not agents of the state AG. In SC, just as in AL, plaintiffs were granted both declaratory relief and injunctive relief. If the SC injunction has state-wide effect, why don't we believe that the AL injunction also has state-wide effect? Is it that the AL order lacks a probate judge as a defendant? If so, how are we then making the leap to state-wide effect when only one SC county probate judge is directly bound by the injunction, while no other SC county probate judge is bound. Is it not through the state AG that the federal injunction has state-wide effect? If SC is shaded dark blue on the map (as I think it must be), then AL also should be shaded dark blue. We may soon have a Kansas-like situation in AL, but that should not affect the way that AL is presented on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enferoui (talkcontribs) 19:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Montgomery County Probate Judge Steven L. Reed has tweeted that he will be issuing licenses (see first response). I realize this is not a verified account. https://twitter.com/ItsJustMeMia/status/559199545641684992 Baltimatt (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless a stay is issued, Montgomery (AL) Probate Court says it will issue a marriage licence to any couple that wants one. So, the state law, and the section of the state constitution, which bans same-sex marriage have been struck down, which is effective state-wide, and at least one county will be issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. Based on this, I say Alabama meets the minimum requirements to be colored dark blue. Discussion? Mw843 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Baltimatt (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I also think Alabama should be blue unless the judge says otherwise. Swifty819 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage is de jure legal in at least some sub-jurisdictions in Kansas, Missouri, Florida, South Carolina, etc. but same-sex marriage would only be de facto legal in Alabamian counties that issue same-sex marriages. Alabama almost seems to qualify as dark blue, but dark blue has always been reserved for states with de jure legality. Prcc27 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
A US District Court judge striking down the ban is pretty much the definition of "de jure" ... "I don't violate federal court rulings." -Jefferson county Probate Judge Sherri Coleman. About a million Alabamans live in the two counties that will issue licences, barring a stay. Mw843 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ruling that a ban is unconstitutional ≠ legality. Same-sex marriage bans have been ruled unconstitutional only applying to one same-sex couple in the past but that doesn't mean same-sex marriage was legalized. Until the judge explains the scope of their ruling, clerks acting on their own initiative = de facto. Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
*Would someone explain why a self-described young adult with no apparent legal degree--i.e. Prcc27--is in any position to even have an opinion on the weight to be given a decision of a United States District Court ruling a state law unconstitutional? Jstephenclark (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You need to watch your tone and follow WP:CIVIL. Until the judge clarifies their ruling the implications aren't fully known. Prcc27 (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This is Kansas all over again some counties might other might not depending if the judge clarifies her ruling like the Florida judge. If she doesn't clarify her ruling which I doubt we will have the same problem we had in Kansas and if that happen I want to discuss a new color for those two states.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A new color is way overdue! Prcc27 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ruling that a ban is unconstitutional ≠ legality". According to Mike Huckabee, maybe, but that's about it. Mw843 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Then why wasn't same-sex marriage legalized in cases that only applied to one same-sex couple even though the ban was struck down (Ohio: death certificate for one couple, Indiana one couple recognized only, etc.) Prcc27 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference between an order that is limited, and an order that is not. Alabama's is not. The law and the relevant section of the constitution have been struck. Period. Full stop. They are void, and have no legal effect. And the orders you cited above, were, in fact, broad, but stayed for everyone but the plaintiffs. Alabama's order did not include a stay, and went into full effect immediately. Mw843 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Mw843 is exactly right. The plaintiffs in the Ohio and Indiana cases were already married out-of-state and only sought recognition of their out-of-state marriages. This ruling has declared Alabama's law banning in-state same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Keeping Alabama red is as absurd as deferring to a dilettante--i.e. Prcc27. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jstephenclark: The plaintiffs in Alabama were already married out-of-state and only sought recognition for adoption purposes. Please stop being rude to me. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Those plaintiffs only sought recognition and that's all the courts in those cases ruled on. This court went beyond the recognition issue and declared the state laws unconstitutional. Please stop practicing law without a license, Prcc27. No one commenting here agrees with you. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So what is happening now is that map precedent is not followed and we are displaying chaos. A federal judge struck the SC ban, at least one county ignored that ruling (albeit temporarily) but the state still went dark blue. KS was struck, the state (eventually) went dark blue. AL is struck now, so by precedent, it is to go dark blue. If people disagree, then let's hear it here, keeping in mind the precedent set by KS. What is done to KS should be followed by AL, as the current official position in both states is "ban struck by federal judge, no likely state-wide compliance by state officials". And even then, the AL order is not preliminary like the KS order was, and the AG (the figurehead of AL law) is specifically prevented from enforcing the ban. So in my opinion, if AL is to be anything other than dark blue, then so is KS, for the sake of consistency. Kumorifox (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. The map needs to be consistent. Either Kansas needs to be changed or Alabama needs to be changed. The current situation is unacceptable. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Alabama doesn't fall into Kansas's precedent because in Kansas same-sex marriage is de jure legal in two counties but in Alabama same-sex marriage is de jure legal in none of the counties. This map has generally been a de jure one. I would like to see KS, MO, & AL colored something other than solid dark blue (and SC could only be colored something else if there are sufficient reliable sources to back it up.) Should we give the partial legality proposal another go..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be curious to know what you think "de jure" and "de facto" mean, since you don't seem to understand what they mean. A decision of a United States District Court declaring a statute unconstitutional is not "de facto." Jstephenclark (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone go ahead and change Alabama to blue. I've seen nothing to convince me that Prcc has any qualifications to control this decision. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The implications of the ruling aren't clear since this was a summary judgement case and I don't believe it was a class action lawsuit (a lawsuit on behalf of an entire class i.e. all same-sex couples in Alabama). The AG is bound from enforcing the same-sex marriage ban, everyone else who complies isn't bound which qualifies as de facto. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Unlike you, I have a law degree, Prcc. Please tell me what you think "summary judgment" means and how that has anything to do with the question. A number of the other decisions also were not class-actions. Nor do you understand what "de jure" and "de facto" means. By your standard--to the extent I can even tell what it is--private, consensual, same-sex sodomy is still a crime in a dozen states because there's nothing equivalent on that issue in those states to what you seem to think "de jure" means. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
No, the implications of the ruling are perfectly clear: Alabama's legal and constitutional bars to same-sex marriage are null and void, and at least two Probate Judges agree, and will issue licences to same-sex couples when they open for business tomorrow. And when it comes to your use of legal terms, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean." Mw843 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As best I can tell, no one else agrees with Prcc, who has now simply become argumentative and is tossing up objections that don't even make sense. Time to change Alabama to blue. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't care if you have a law degree, and I don't need rude users i.e. Jstephenclark explaining to me what "de jure" and "de facto" mean. You are not the judge so trying to interpret their intent or the implications of the ruling violates WP:Original Research regardless of whether you're an expert in law or not! Prcc27 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, you are the one being rude by trying to dominate the decision of this question and throwing around terms that you don't even understand. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reading the judge's order declaring the state laws unconstitutional is not WP:Original Research. What you're doing is trying to rewrite the judge's order to make it say less than it actually says. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jstephenclark: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Many reliable sources have stopped short of saying that same-sex marriage is legal in Alabama. Prcc27 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It takes no interpretation: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is enjoined from enforcing those laws." You are trying to erase language from the orders. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You're treating the law like a formalistic computer program. It doesn't work that way. You're dismissing the import of an order of United States District Court declaring state laws invalid. As I said, by your standards, you'd have to claim that consensual sodomy is still a crime in a dozen states even though the Supreme Court ruled on the question a decade ago. Legal guidance is binding without certifying a class and having every official in a state put under an order. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the marriage cases have been decided by summary judgment. The Probate Judges Association opinion in merely advisory, not legally binding. Alabama probate judges needed to be reminded in United States v. Brittain (1970) that an unconstitutional ruling from a "court of competent jurisdiction" applies to them. For these reasons, plus word that some judges will issue same-sex marriage licences tomorrow, I say Alabama should revert to blue. Baltimatt (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Baltimatt is right. Alabama should revert to blue. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I prefer a partial legality color, and btw Alabama is different from the other states because none of the counties were ordered to issue same-sex marriages! Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 3 votes for blue, 1 vote for some unspecified alternative. Two clerks have already announced that they are following the court order and issuing licenses tomorrow. Dark blue is appropriate. Prcc can add a pedantic footnote for Alabama. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, Allan120102 appears to support a partial legality color. BTW, this is not a democracy per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Furthermore, you need to provide a source that says same-sex marriage is legal before coloring Alabama dark blue. I don't care if you have 100 votes- you can't change Alabama unless a reliable source is provided per WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Prcc27 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is also not your personal dictatorship. The court order of the U.S. District Court is *the* definitive source. Your problem is that you want to interpret it to mean something other than what it says. The color should be changed until you convince anyone to agree with you. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Neither you or I can interpret the order ourselves, that violates WP:Original Research. I did also admit that until the judge clarifies their ruling, the implications aren't fully known. Like I said, some people on this talk do seem open to a partial legality color. Prcc27 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not interpreting the order. "ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional." You are refusing to acknowledge it, you are throwing up one makeweight argument after another, and you are refusing to deal with the inconsistencies of those arguments with the coloring of multiple other states. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge what the order says does not mean anyone else is "interpreting" the order. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, many counties will not follow the ruling because they weren't parties in the ruling. If the judge clears up the scope of their ruling and does what the judge in Florida did then we can color Alabama solid dark blue. Until then, we just have to wait for things to be cleared up instead of trying to decide whether we want to interpret this ruling as having broad implications or limited implications. I think a partial legality color of some sort for Alabama, Kansas, Missouri would be a good idea, especially since it's too early to even know to what extent same-sex marriage is legal in Alabama. Prcc27 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Your condescension is quite rude. "We" understand what the current status of the law is in Alabama because the United States District Court has told us that the law is unconstitutional. Until that decision is reversed on appeal, the law is unconstitutional. The fact that some of the local bureaucrats are choosing to violate the Constitution does not make the Alabama laws constitutional. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That settles that: 14 day stay issued [8]. Mw843 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • No, light blue. The stay is temporary. Kumorifox (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. (Thank you for the switch back to dark blue first, Jstephenclark.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The judge said that they will clarify the ruling prior to the stay expiring. I think we should wait for that clarification about whether this has broad implications before coloring the state light blue. However, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to light blue since things are "pending" so unless anyone else feels that Alabama shouldn't be light blue I think light blue with a footnote would be fine, not confusing, and consistent for the most part. Prcc27 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In cases like these, I find simplest is best. In this case, that's light blue with a note of expiry. Also, in regards to the fights above, I do not like it. This forum should be cordial. I know I'm just a member, but...just because one person disagrees with something doesn't mean there is no consensus. Secondly, if this is a de jure map, not a de facto, I believe we have to do precisely what the law says, which, in this case is an unconstitutional ban with a 14 day stay. I feel that the whole fight of "some clerk may not issue a license because they were not explicitly named" belongs on a de facto map. I generally do not like speaking up on this site. I dislike fighting even less, so now I'm on a soapbox, which I will now step off of. Swifty819 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I re-added the parts of the footnote that said the scope of the ruling isn't entirely known so I'm content with light blue now. I also fixed the expiration date of the ruling. Prcc27 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely with Swifty819. I am sorry, Swify, if I made you uncomfortable with my own assertiveness. As I saw it, this discussion was being dominated by one person, who does not understand either the legal terminology he is using or the import of an unqualified judicial declaration as to the invalidity of a state law. And you're quite right, Switfy, that "consensus" does not mean "unanimity." The dissenter here, in fact, previously took it upon himself to revert the map over the objections of a number of commenters. Jstephenclark (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what you're blathering about. Jstephenclark (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jstephenclark: @Prcc27: I'm not sure if the comment removal was intentional, as I've accidentally had that happen on a double comment, but either way, it shouldn't be removed. And to be clear, I believe that by the meaning of "de jure", AL should be dark blue when the stay expires unless the judge issues an order restricting it to one couple or recognition. I think we should ask 3 questions.

1) Did the judge declare the ban/recognition ban unconstitutional? 2) Did the judge specify that the order only applies to one couple? 3) Is there a stay?

If the answer to 1 is yes but 2 is no, then dark or medium blue. If 2 is yes, then red with a footnote. If 3 is yes, then gold/light blue. Simple. Swifty819 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It could have been done on accident, but I just wanted to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Also, I was waiting for them to reply to explain why/how they undid my edit. We'll just have to wait for the judge to clarify their ruling before we know whether Alabama should be dark blue or not! Prcc27 (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In this case, yes, but I meant that in future cases, we should just ask those questions. Swifty819 (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, future cases are simple. We use the facts available at the time of the map change. That is what happens with current events, and the Wikipedia template on current events reflects that by stating the pages may change rapidly as new information becomes available. With Alabama, the judge struck the ban without a stay. Then the PJAA statement came that would have limited implementation (like Kansas) and now we have the temporary stay. If this sequence happens again, we should follow the same procedure as was set in precedent: dark blue after striking, retain dark blue re Kansas unless we have a partial implementation colour, then the respective stay colour. I just hope it won't have to come to that in future. Kumorifox (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree that Dark red is appropriate for a state in which a federal district court judge has issued an order declaring the state ban unconstitutional without qualification, as in Alabama. Whether they're called county clerks, probate judges, or what have you, the bureaucrats charged with issuing marriage licenses cannot override the ruling of a federal district court judge. In the case of Alabama, the PBJJ did not and could not have challenged the judge's ruling. They did all they could do, which was quibble over whether it technically subjected them to being hit with contempt of court if they ignored it. It wouldn't. But they did not and cannot change Alabama law, which the federal district judge clearly ruled no longer bans gay marriage. That's the law: DE JURE. The fact that local bureaucrats may be engaging in massive resistance and haven't yet been formally put under a court order does not change the law. That is DE FACTO failure to adhere to the law, and it will eventually be dealt with formally. Jstephenclark (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jstephenclark: This is my understanding of the law. But in defense of Prcc27, I can see where they are coming from. @Prcc27: please correct me if I am wrong, but is your thinking anything along the lines of "State passed a law banning same-sex marriage, so that is the current DE JURE. Then a judge declared the law unconstitutional and declared the law unconstitutional, enjoining some number of people from enforcing it. However, those not specifically named are free to enforce the original law, which has not changed." If this is the case, then the court system would be extremely slow, and I believe we would be finding that in order for marriage to come to every state, someone from every county in every state would need to sue to propagate the law. This is far too inefficient. Swifty819 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is my thinking. But I also believe that a class action lawsuit is on behalf of an entire class (i.e. same-sex couples) whereas an injunction is on behalf of the plaintiffs while enjoining the defendants from enforcing the ban (sometimes only in limited cases). I'm not sure if a class action lawsuit only enjoins the defendants or enjoins everyone from enforcing the ban though. Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      • @Prcc27: I am glad to know your thoughts. That way we are not barking up the wrong tree for no reason. My understanding of law and the way a (federal) judge works, they are not telling specific people "You cannot enforce this law", they are telling the law itself "You are unconstitutional and therefore you cannot exist". When a judge says a law is unconstitutional, that has the effect of making the law null and void. It doesn't exist, so there's no "original law" to enforce. EDIT: Note in cases where the injunction has only applied to a single couple, a judge has said "This law is PROBABLY unconstitutional, but this matter is so dire, I don't have time to find out". Then, they issue an order enjoining officials from enforcing the law, but NOT declaring it unconstitutional, like the judge in Ohio did when that one guy in the gay couple was close to death. Swifty819 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The judge's new order today dispenses with the pedantic objections. The order: "This injunction binds the defendant and all his officers, agents, servants and employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them, who would seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama which prohibit same-sex marriage." Now, stop beating the dead horse. Jstephenclark (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Jstephenclark: It was not a "new order" it was a separate order that had broader implications. "The first ruling addressed the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state, while this new ruling addressed a couple who attempted to marry in Alabama. Though in both cases, Granade ruled that the ban was unconstitutional, the fact that this case addressed the issuing of licenses in Alabama changed the scope of her injunction... The new injunction eliminates any confusion" (not the old one) [9]. So please, tell me how I'm beating a dead horse! This source seems to imply that the first ruling's scope wasn't as broad as the second ruling's. Also, I'd appreciate it if you would stop making snide comments. Prcc27 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The second order just makes explicit what the first order did not. The AG doesn't handle adoptions personally, yet he was well aware of the reach of the first order extended to his subordinates and all enforcement of the state's marriage ban. His request for a stay makes that clear. It's hardly likely that it was the case that changed the language of her ruling -- note I say the language not the scope, since I believe the scope is the same -- and more likely the recent request that she clarify her order. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Either way, the second ruling makes it harder for the clerks to claim that they don't have to issue same-sex marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on SCOTUS scope[edit]

(Breaking off this section, my apologies for placing it in the Alabama part. Kumorifox (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC))

I have a question re the SCOTUS scope. If the DeBoer et al cases are found in favour of the plaintiffs, would that affect all remaining bans immediately? Or would we have to wait for the respective cases to play out, like what happened in the 4th, 9th and 10th Circuits where the state's did not lift despite precedence? Also, would a positive SCOTUS ruling affect the territories as well? Kumorifox (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • If SCOTUS flatly holds that the Constitution prohibits states from excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the ruling itself will apply only to the four states in the 6th Circuit. What will probably technically happen is that the original district court orders take effect in those four states more or less immediately, although there could be some small amount of administrative time for the SCOTUS ruling to be formally transmitted to the district courts. Or if SCOTUS believes that the district courts need to revise their orders in some way, it can remand the cases back down the chain and have the district courts make any necessary revisions to the orders. We're still talking about only the four states covered by the appeal.
    But the ruling itself would be a nationally binding precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court and the final and ultimate answer to the constitutional question. From that moment on, whatever SCOTUS said in its opinion IS the law, de jure. Every court in the land and every state in the land would be bound by it as the authoritative statement of what the law is. Now, that doesn't mean that any particular county bureaucrat could be immediately held in contempt of court for not issuing licenses. To get them technically on the hook for contempt would require use of the other lawsuits that are pending or new lawsuits to get orders in those cases. But that would be extraordinary. Once the Court rules, the states should comply voluntarily. Every official of every state has a legal obligation to comply with the Constitution, as authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court. Running from county to county and getting court orders is never necessary because officials realize that they're just fighting a losing battle once the Supreme Court has ruled, and they have a legal obligation to voluntarily follow the Constitution. For comparison, SCOTUS clearly ruled in 2003 that criminal sodomy statutes were unconstitutional as applied to private, consensual, non-commercial oral and anal sex. The states have voluntarily complied and are not prosecuting people. But there are about a dozen states where no one has ever actually obtained a court order, so a local prosecutor couldn't actually be held in contempt of court without additional proceedings, but we don't say consensual sodomy is still a crime in those states. It isn't. The expectation of commenters like Prcc that the law doesn't change until every last public official is put under a court order and subjected to contempt of court is just absolutely inconsistent with how the law actually works. He has "de jure" and "de facto" exactly backwards. When a court with jurisdiction tells us what the law is, the question is answered "de jure." If some officials refuse to honor it, they're flouting their duty to voluntarily comply with the Constitution and are following some "de facto" principle that is not law. Jstephenclark (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that is very helpful to know. I wasn't certain whether the binding power of SCOTUS is a direct effect. So after SCOTUS, we'd still have to wait for the remaining court cases in the remaining ban states to be settled, though the end result will have to fall in line with the SCOTUS decision, correct? Sorry for taking up so much time on this. Kumorifox (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Sorry, it depends on what you mean by binding power and direct effect. A SCOTUS ruling will not put every state and local official in the country under a court order to issue licenses, recognize marriages, and extend spousal benefits. That means if any official refuses, he can't be held in contempt of court and sent to jail yet. To take care of resistors like that, yes, you'd have use the other cases that are now pending or file a new lawsuit. Then, once a court order issued, the official could be held in contempt if he continues to refuse to comply. BUT that is only necessary IF certain state or local officials refuse to implement the SCOTUS decision voluntarily. That is NOT how these things normally work because refusal to implement the SCOTUS decision will amount to a violation of the Constitution, as definitively and finally interpreted. There will be no more room for arguing about whether the state ban is still valid. The moment SCOTUS rules, the Constitution will definitively prohibit states from withholding marriage from gay couples. Because state and local officials have a paramount duty to abide by the U.S. Constitution--in fact, that duty is in their oaths, and it's in the Constitution itself--almost all will just immediately fall into line, probably on the advice of attorneys general and other legal advisers. Somehow this myth has arisen that the Constitution doesn't count and that state and local officials just routinely ignore it unless hit with a court order. Not true at all. You only need a court order when they refuse to follow the Constitution. So if they voluntarily comply, as almost all will, the other pending cases become irrelevant. They can just be dismissed as moot. In fact, the courts will probably be obliged in many instances to dismiss them as moot because federal courts generally aren't permitted to adjudicate cases that have become moot. It's only if some state or local official tries to hold out that a live dispute would exist and a court order would be necessary to force them into compliance. This has been my point all along. If somebody like Prcc is waiting for courts to impose orders on every state and local official everywhere in the country, that is never going to happen because that's not how the system works. That is the remedy only when state or local officials refuse to follow the Constitution. Frankly, I'd be surprised if there are any holdouts once SCOTUS rules, because the state and local officials would be knowingly and intentionally violating the Constitution and don't want to be held liable for it. In other words, victory in other places is not going to come from a court order of any court at all; it's going to come from state and local officials conceding defeat and voluntarily complying. That's how the system works. Jstephenclark (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted this elsewhere but it might be worth adding here re: time it can take to get even a SCOTUS decision complied with downstream ...

Some perspective as history repeats itself in some measure: Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia April 10, 1967. A probate judge in Calhoun County, Alabama, refused a marriage license to an interracial couple (one of them an Army Sgt.) on November 10, 1970. The Nixon administration (AG Ed Meese!) sued the judge and won in U.S. Dist Ct. Northern AL, United States v. Brittain, December 8, 1970. That court ordered "the Attorney General of the State of Alabama to advise the Judges of Probate of the several counties of Alabama of the invalidity" of the state's anti-miscegenation statute. That's the case the plaintiffs cited at length today. (January 25) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Great observation! Notice a couple of things. First, as controversial as interracial marriage was, that case illustrates how the holdouts were extremely isolated and were dealt with in a matter of weeks. Second, keep in mind that there were something like 16 states that still banned interracial marriage when Loving was decided. Most everyone just voluntarily complied without court orders. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
So does that mean in the event of a pro-marriage equality ruling by SCOTUS that we would color all the other states medium red for precedent since we use the precedent color for circuit court rulings? Otherwise, if we're going to view precedents as "de jure" legal we should color every state with a circuit court precedent for marriage equality dark blue. We used to treat circuit court rulings as applying for the entire circuit but then we decided that precedent ≠ legality. Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You could note that other states are under SCOTUS precedent but not under court order, but that result will likely endure permanently. The same is true today with sodomy laws. A number of states still have those laws, are under the Lawrence precedent, don't enforce them, but are not bound by any court order. The map really does lose most of its significance if SCOTUS rules for the gay couples. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Precedent is not legality in a circuit court precisely BECAUSE it's possible that a higher court (namely SCOTUS) could reverse this precedent...just like the 6C precedent of "bans are constitutional" can be reversed. However, once SCOTUS sends out precedent, it immediately goes into effect nationwide. The de jure implications of that are immediate. To oppose the precedent is unconstitutional, period. And that is so strong, that states immediately comply and do things "BECAUSE SCOTUS". (Think like what WV did when they said they have to follow 4C precedent and therefore won't enforce the ban) @Jstephenclark:, am I even close to the correct answer? Swifty819 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly, @Swifty819:! When SCOTUS definitively interprets the Constitution (assuming it actually resolves the question), its interpretation of the Constitution is authoritative and final. It becomes *the* meaning of the Constitution and an integral part of the supreme law of the land, trumping any other source of law or interpretation of the Constitution in our system. At that point, it makes no sense for states to keep resisting because the issue is no longer an open question, short of the possibility of a future SCOTUS overruling itself. A state or local official can resist but will just end up having a lower court impose a court order and mandate compliance on pain of being jailed or fined for contempt of court for further resistance. But at the circuit level, the interpretation of the Constitution isn't conclusive because there is still the possibility of an appeal to SCOTUS either in that same case or in a later case. Other states in that circuit can try to resist because there remains some argument about the ultimate meaning of the Constitution until SCOTUS speaks, but a federal district court and that circuit court will rule against those states, as happened in the 4th and 9th circuits. But they still have the opportunity to appeal to SCOTUS. Even if another state in that circuit has already appealed to SCOTUS and had its appeal denied, other states in the circuit can still ask SCOTUS to hear their appeal. So if all you have is a circuit court decision, its interpretation of the Constitution is only the law in that circuit and only until contradicted by SCOTUS. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm... usually we think of SCOTUS as having the "last word" but is it possible that some states will immediately comply with the precedent (i.e. what West Virginia did) while others decide to be difficult? If those states are difficult is same-sex marriage still technically legal due to SCOTUS precedent..? And how would we color the map? The Sixth Circuit would most likely be light blue between the time the ruling is issued and the time it actually goes into effect, but would the other ban states be light blue as well or would they be medium red for precedent? Prcc27 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly, if SCOTUS rules for that the gay couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry, there's not much point in continuing the map. Everyone or virtually everyone will comply, more or less immediately, because at that point it's "game over." When they don't comply, you have a constitutional crisis--like a few segregationist governors claiming they wouldn't comply with Brown v. Board of Education. They found themselves surrounded by federalized national guard troops and U.S. military paratroopers. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jstephenclark: It isn't game over until same-sex marriage is legal nationwide. I think we should continue the map in the event of a pro-ssm ruling to distinguish between states that have same-sex marriage and states that will have same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Another interesting question is what if the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiffs and says there is no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. All the rulings in the appeals courts ruling state laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional would be in question. Those state constitutional bans are still there, just waiting to come back to life if they can ever be legally enforced again. If state officials refuse to grant marriage licenses or recognition to same-sex couples, they could no longer successfully challenge that in court after an adverse Supreme Court ruling. Many of the states we now have colored dark blue might start to revert back to red. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That is an excellent observation. Someone on a legal blog has probably addressed it, but I can't give you a firm take on it because it would be such an oddity in the history of SCOTUS. I do not believe that a SCOTUS decision against the plaintiffs in the 6th circuit would automatically release all those states from existing court orders. Most of those judgments have become final. Reopening a case that has become final is not very easy. I assume there would eventually be a way for those states to get out from under those court orders, but I'm not sure exactly how that would go down. SCOTUS would look SO bad if it created that chaos that I'd be surprised if it ruled against the plaintiffs now after letting things go so far in so many states. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
After Lawrence v. Texas did the other sodomy ban states need specific rulings to overturn their bans? If I recall correctly they did not and they just began complying with the ruling. SCOTUS is unique in once they rule there is no possibility of appeal and their word is absolutely binding throughout the US and territories, no wriggle room (unless SCOTUS reverses itself later) My plan upon a pro-equal marriage ruling is to just turn the US fully blue on the world maps, although we could maybe freeze this map to show the last holdouts. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dralwik: Actually, I think the world marriage map should be colored yellow since the ruling doesn't go into effect right away. BTW, the defendants can still ask for a rehearing before the ruling goes into effect. As for this map... I would rather see the remaining states colored light blue than freezing the map since it would still be useful to distinguish between states with same-sex marriage and states that will eventually have same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You want the remaining states colored blue to indicate "in process" because of your fixation on demanding a court order in every single state? Oh, for crying out loud. What is this agenda of massive resistance? Jstephenclark (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jstephenclark: No, I meant turn the sixth circuit and other states with ssm bans light blue up until the SCOTUS ruling goes into effect. The current consensus is that a state doesn't turn dark blue until the same-sex marriage law goes into effect. Prcc27 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If you look at Supreme Court orders, once the Supreme Court hands down an opinion, the very next conference they hand out reversals of other related petitions based on what they just decided. That to me implies a SCOTUS decision goes right into effect. Another wrinkle is if we color the other states stayed yellow, when would we make them blue? Once they obey the ruling? We won't be getting specific post-SCOTUS rulings. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • CORRECT. The states acquiesced in Lawrence. There remain today a number of states where the sodomy laws are still on the books but are unenforced even though no court order was ever issued in those states. That's what I would expect to happen in the event gay couples prevail decisively at SCOTUS on marriage equality this year. What few local holdouts might exist can be handled with targeted lawsuits and court orders in a matter of weeks. If SCOTUS rules definitively for gay couples, I don't see much need to continue the map. Personally, I like the idea of preserving it as a record of the who the holdout states were going into the SCOTUS decision. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's really nothing mysterious. When a local official has to decide what his legal obligations are, he consults the law. If there is a state law that tells him to do X but SCOTUS has ruled those kinds of laws unconstitutional, the local official follows the SCOTUS decision, not the state statute. The state law that tells him to do X is not "law." It's null and void as though it doesn't exist. In our system, the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS) trumps everything else. The official is not somehow required to follow the state statute until a court orders him otherwise. He has a legal duty to follow the Constitution first and foremost. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So if SCOTUS rings the wedding bells, we may as well replace the map with a date of legalization map? Swifty819 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No, because immediately after a pro-ssm SCOTUS ruling we would still have two types of states: States with same-sex marriage (dark blue) and states that legalized same-sex marriage (light blue). Then, after same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, I would prefer we just distinguish between states that legalized it before SCOTUS and states that legalized it after SCOTUS. No other distinctions are important IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The distinction in your first sentence makes no sense. Jstephenclark (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jstephenclark: If the SCOTUS ruling doesn't go into effect right away, that means same-sex marriage would be legalized nationwide but not necessarily legal in the states that don't already have same-sex marriage. We have a color for states with a same-sex marriage law that is in effect (dark blue) and a color for states with a same-sex marriage law that is about to go into effect (light blue). Do you understand the difference between (currently) legal and legalized (not yet legal, but will be in the future)..? Prcc27 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I see where he is coming from. After a positive SCOTUS ruling, there will still be states that will require some time to implement the ruling. Those states would be light blue until complete implementation, thereby giving the maximum information to people who view the map on whether or not they can marry in their state without some bureaucratic delays. The idea is sound, but I don't think it will matter as every state is capable of changing the procedures immediately (just look at some of the New England states that were ordered to allow marriage immediately). Also @Prcc27:, the before/after SCOTUS decision should not be required on this map in case of a positive ruling. This map in and of itself would be defunct, as it would be dark blue all over. Instead, we could use the date of legalisation map to show the history of marriage legality, just like the striking of sodomy bans map does. Just showing the before/after SCOTUS would give a very simplified and narrow view of the struggle for marriage equality, I believe. But we can debate that more thoroughly once SCOTUS has ruled, it's early days yet. Kumorifox (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Kumorifox: That depends on when the ruling goes into effect.. If the ruling doesn't go into effect right away, each state would either be dark blue or light blue. Once same-sex marriage is legal nationwide then we could freeze the map and changing the wording of the two colors to distinction between before/after SCOTUS decision. Prcc27 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think a better distinction to make would be states that still have same-sex marriage bans on the books that are unenforceable due to the Supreme Court's ruling, and those that don't. It is theoretically possible that some future Supreme Court could overturn a ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. Until states get around to amending their constitutions to remove the gay marriage bans, they will remain there, waiting to rise from the dead if given the chance. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Rreagan007: Immediately following a pro-ssm ruling the distinction between same-sex marriage already being legal vs. same-sex marriage legalized is more important than a distinction on the basis that some future Supreme Court ruling might overturn same-sex marriage since this map deals with the current status of same-sex marriage. However, once same-sex marriage becomes legal nationwide then the distinction between states with and without bans on the books could be made on this map. But just like that distinction isn't made on the U.S. sodomy laws page, it shouldn't be made here IMO. Most people are going to want to know which states the SCOTUS ruling impacted, not which states are likely to have their bans enforceable again in the unlikely event that SCOTUS reverses their decision. Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd actually like to have a "date of legalisation" map as well, just like we have a "date of sodomy decriminalisation" map. Even though that took place over ~30 years, rather than the 11 years we're hoping for with marriage. On the sodomy map, we also don't distinguish just between pre- and post-Lawrence states, so why should we with marriages? Kumorifox (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There's already a "date of legalization" map so it would just be a matter of adding it to the article or possibly replacing this map with that map. Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct BUT don't be surprised if there are outliers. Some will insist they don't fall under the precise decision and others will just be ignorant. A Louisiana sheriff was still enforcing an anti-sodomy statute in 2011-13. here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama footnote revisited[edit]

So based on this article, can we remove that vague portion of the Alabama footnote referencing future clarification now? Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I support that. The new ruling, while preliminary and temporarily stayed, is just as binding on future cases and has clarified that the ban is completely unenforceable by any state officials. Kumorifox (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. Prcc27 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The judge has issued the requested clarification [10], and quotes the order from the Florida case: "The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses." The Alabama Probate Judges Association needs a better lawyer. Mw843 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • From my understanding, the person in charge of the association is a probate judge themselves. Prcc27 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The judges are elected officials, not necessarily members of the bar. The Association has an attorney. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Electing judges is never a good idea IMO. Anyways, the association is accepting the ruling but idk if that even matters.. [11] Prcc27 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
OF COURSE IT MATTERS. Otherwise Alabama=Kansas. (There could still be a few resisters but the hot air has gone out of that balloon now.) This all demonstrates the brilliance of the SCOTUS strategy. By proceeding rather slowly, it allows many different states and groups to have their "day in court". A decision from SCOTUS 18 months ago would have met with scattered resistance that would have looked substantial and fed on itself. Instead those states and groups are getting picked off one at a time, and resistance is very very modest, like the chapel flap in Idaho or a few judges resigning in NC. Kansas is the only serious exception to date, no? In Alabama, we also see the brilliance of Judge Granade. She had two decisions ready to go. She releases one on a Friday night, knowing full well she'll be asked for clarification and for a stay. She shows respect to the AG with the 14-day stay. She gets the Probate Judges on record (and nutty Moore), and only then she produces the 2nd decision and clarifies that first order. And uses Florida as the model! The judges yield because at least they got to raise their little protest. The AG is respectful because she is allowing him to show he is doing all he can to support the popular view in his state. She's played a great game of chess and was three steps ahead of everyone else from the start. (Only too bad that now it's out of her hands.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The Supreme Court learned from the mistakes of the Roe v. Wade debacle. Here we are 40 years later, and people are still fighting that decision. Thank goodness they decided to use a different strategy here. Gay marriage had just as much potential to become a polarizing social issue for decades after a decision if it had come too early before everyone felt like they had their say on the matter before the Supreme Court's ruling. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama update[edit]

The 11th Circuit has denied a request for a stay pending appeal. Order here: [12]. Alabama's last chance before the stays expire next Monday is a "Hail Mary" to the Supremes. Mw843 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Michigan complication[edit]

Michigan will recognize about 300 marriages performed in the window between the original ruling and the stay ... story here [13]. At the moment I'd lean towards a footnote, but I'm not committed to it. Mw843 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Those same-sex marriages were grandfathered in. Furthermore, if we were going to add a footnote we should have done so immediately after the ruling was issued. Prcc27 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
They were not grandfathered in; the state refused recognition as soon as the stay on the original order was issued. Those that were married in the window went back to court after the 6th Circuit ruling, and got a ruling in their favour about three weeks ago; the state announced today that they will not appeal the decision. Mw843 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I know, but now they are going to be grandfathered in because of the ruling that was just issued. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree with your opposition on the grounds that "we should have done so immediately after the ruling was issued", as that doesn't seem like an actual reason to not do so now. Dustin (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What I'm referring to is the discussion before this. We decided not to do anything about Michigan. The fact that Michigan isn't going to appeal doesn't change the fact that Michigan doesn't merit a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support footnote. At the time, I was more willing to do nothing because we had no idea if the decision would be stayed. That's why my original statement was a what if question. Now that they have not appealed, I believe the 323 folks (or was it couples) deserve recognition on here. Swifty819 (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • EDIT: @Kumorifox:, I believe you were in a "let's see what happens sort of mood, so I wanted to ping you. Swifty819 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Appeal or not, anytime there is a temporary stay we add a footnote; so that's why I said we should have done this earlier when the temporary stay was actually issued rather than wait for the state to not appeal. Furthermore, recognition of 323 same-sex marriages is limited recognition and we generally avoid noting limited recognition (i.e. recognition of previous marriages, divorce recognition only, joint tax recognition only, death certificate recognition only, etc.) to avoid having excess footnotes. Prcc27 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Swifty819: Michigan is in a better position now that the ruling on the window marriages is definitive (though maybe not final, I'm not sure) and their main state case has been granted certiorari, rather than be in legal limbo with a counter-ruling from the Circuit. However, I think this issue is better suited to the SSM template than the map. The way things stand currently, we're looking at piling footnote upon footnote on the map, which defeats its purpose, as the map with accompanying legend alone should be self-explanatory. If there was a proviso for indicating individual cases on the map itself, like the world map or the old "rings" map, then I would agree to indicating them with an explanatory note. But with this particular map, I'm opposing a footnote on Michigan. Kumorifox (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we don't need a footnote for stay marriages. That kind of information should be readily available in articles, but it is not needed here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Alabama should be change to another color as now none of the 67 counties are issuing same sex marriage licenses and a federal judge can overrule a state court decision from the highest court of the state. So I believe it should be stripe medium blue and medium gray.--Allan120102 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Alabama - 9 Feb[edit]

@Nickd97: has boldly changed Alabama to Dark Blue.

  • Given that at this point Kansas is Dark Blue, I don't expect that any other change is appropriate.
  • Given Roy Moore's instructions to the Probate Judges and the fact that there are counties with Same Sex couples getting Licenses, counties where they aren't getting licenses and apparently counties where they aren't issuing licenses today

    Bibb County Probate Judge Jerry Pow said he is not issuing marriage licenses to any couples this morning. When asked why, he said: "I don't know whether I want to defy the Chief justice of the state Supreme Court or a federal judge."

    do we need a footnote?Naraht (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think a footnote is appropriate, at least for now. Kumorifox (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like someone else to write the footnote. I believe that I would have difficulty writing one that doesn't include an Non-NPOV statement on Alabama CJ Moore.Naraht (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I copied the first part of the Kansas footnote and changed the links. It now states that only select jurisdictions in Alabama are offering licenses. For the time being, I believe that that is good enough; the reasons can be found in the articles for Alabama or the US. Kumorifox (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I'll volunteer a starting point:

"The situation in Alabama is confused, at least partly because of the actions of the Alabama Chief Justice: some counties are issuing licences to same-sex couples, some are not, and some counties have suspended the issuing of marriage licences all together."

Mw843 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The situation in Alabama is, in fact, not confusing. There is a Federal COURT ORDER for marriage equality in Alabama and Roy Moore, a notorious bigot, is pretending he has the authority to stop marriages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4C00:361:54B7:458B:1A4D:13EB (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Partial cases color?[edit]

We now have 3 states where the situation is not clear:

  • Kansas, where the state government is not recognizing the validity of SSM.
  • Missouri, where the state government recognizes but does not perform SSM, and some counties issue licenses.
  • Alabama, where a handful of probate judges are refusing to issue licenses (some going as far as a complete ban on licenses).

If the 5th circuit rules in favor of striking down the bans, I would expect at least some resistance from some of the states, so that would include up to 3 more states to the partial cases (unless the ruling is stayed). How many more footnotes are we gonna include?

Nebraska is the last state to be going forward with hearings, as is the 8th circuit (but that is so far away that I don't expect any changes from it). North Dakota's proceedings are suspended and Georgia's are likely to be suspended too. I don't think there will be a "recognize but not perform" case from Nebraska, Arkansas, or South Dakota when (if) the 8th rules in favor of striking down the bans.

Should we consider bringing back the medium blue to specify the partial cases? There are so many footnotes we can attach before it becomes an eyesore. Instead, we can color these states medium blue and include a footnote that links to the Partial Cases table for further details. As more states receive a ruling before the SCOTUS, should it be a complicated a la Kansas or Alabama, it's a matter of coloring in with no need for a footnote. Einsteinboricua (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly support. It might be superfluous come June, but for the time being, I believe such a colour is warranted with the latest developments. Kumorifox (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Strongly opposed - SSM is not "partially legal" in Alabama. SSM is 100% legal in Alabama. That some judges/administrators are choosing to disobey the law does not change the law. We did not alter the map for cases where "rogue" administrators offered SSM licenses in contravention to a standing ban, we should not alter the map for cases where "rogue" administrators are denying SSM licenses in contravention to a pro-SSM ruling. Kansas and Missouri are dissimilar situations and creating an "It's Complicated" color is not helpful. Shereth 18:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Shereth: The new colour would not dispute the legality. It would just show the situation on the ground. We have 3 states where the law and its practice are in conflict in regards to SSM. Such cases are shown on the world map, so why not here? Kumorifox (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Shereth: We have a table within the article that lists 3 states in this category. I just though the map could complement the table by offering a more visual description. SSM is 100% legal in 2 states (MO being the runt of the litter). If I go by the logic that SSM is 100% legal in AL and KS, then why are there footnotes to denote a situation? The medium blue color would indicate "Yes, SSM is legal, BUT...", and as each state is different, you'd need to go to the table to see the reasoning. As to why the map wasn't updated with rogue situations, it was because you had only two states with different situations and it was thought no other state would result in yet another unique position. Alas, it has happened. Rather than having a footnote for each state, group them all under a color and link the table. Einsteinboricua (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe a color is needed for "SSM legal but". Since the situations in the states where this hypothetical color would be applied are different, each would require a footnote indicating what the "but" is. That's already the purpose that the footnotes serve, to indicate "this is an exception to the rule". Footnotes are sufficient. Adding a color for "but" situations is a bad precedent because, what kind of "but" qualifies? Do we shade Alabama a different color when 50% of the counties are going against the law? 10%? One county? One judge? What if a news story pops up tomorrow saying that some county clerk in Utah refused to issue a license to a couple? Does Utah change to this alternate color because there was a "but"? No, that's silly. Use the dark blue color to accurately indicate that SSM is legal, and use footnotes to clarify if there is some kind of unusual situation going on. Shereth 19:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, even though I disagree. To run with your example, UT has had no reported refusals so far (at least not that I am aware of), whereas KS and AL have had difficulties from the very beginning. Once a state has full compliance, it should go dark blue and remain that way. If a single clerk or judge later tries to much things up, then I agree reverting the colour would be silly. But if a state remains contrary from the very beginning, and there will be considerable time involved before all the clerks or judges comply with a federal ruling, I would try to make that as clear as possible. MO is the clear exception here, as there is no state refusal to run with the laws; the injunctions are either highly local in scope or stayed. Kumorifox (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I still see problems with this setup. Would this mean we have to wait until there is 100% compliance with the law before a state goes dark blue? If not, how do we come up with a logical "transition point"? In either case, how do we determine that "minimum compliance" level has been met? Do we require a source to say that compliance has been reached, or do we assume a lack of evidence to the contrary is sufficient? What if a state goes blue for a couple days before a source is dug up stating that some wayward county is balking? There are, in my opinion, too many variables here. Too many ifs, ands and buts. The existing solution is logical, simple, and not subject to arbitrary cutoffs. The only question you have to ask is: Can people get SSM marriage licenses in [state]? If so, time for dark blue. Other solutions introduce an unnecessary level of complexity. Shereth 21:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Shereth: Now that is logic that I appreciate. To be honest, I hadn't thought that far ahead. And you are correct, from a practical point of view, we would need some sort of cut-off point and good sources for implementing this, and it is likely that not many more states would need it, as the majority of the remaining states are either holding off on the cases while SCOTUS is deciding, or else are at the CoA stage. So yes, come to think about it, the colour would likely remain with just 3 states for now. While I would like a clearer indication on the map for KS and MO, mainly for people just glancing at the map so they know something is off about these states, it would be impractical unless we have a cut-off. I'd be tempted to say a county basis, but with over 100 counties in KS alone it would be impractical to track them all. And I can only imagine what would happen if TX were to be difficult. I still support the notion, but only if people can think of making it practical (and I cannot really think of a way right now). Kumorifox (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Opposed per Shereth. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Support More same-sex couples are recognized as married in Michigan than in Kansas and same-sex marriage isn't even legal in Michigan! And looking at a state and seeing it fully dark blue insinuates that same-sex marriage is legal in the entire state and that you can easily obtain a same-sex marriage license. This is a statewide map, so when the law becomes inconsistent in a state, it is inappropriate to pretend that a color that used to be reserved for statewide cases only (NM, MO) is appropriate. If same-sex marriage is both legal and banned than why does "same-sex marriage legal" automatically trump "same-sex marriage banned"? Ignoring the ban part of the states' same-sex marriage laws goes against WP:NPOV. Prcc27 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Opposed for the reasons listed by Shereth. Let's say we do make this color. Then at what point do we go to dark blue? With that said, if we can come up with a reasonable condition for when we switch from the new color to dark blue, then I may support. Swifty819 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I would assume that they'd go to dark blue when:
  • Alabama's probate judges stop refusing to issue licenses (or a majority of them start issuing them)
  • Kansas's government recognizes the validity of the marriages
  • Missouri's counties all start issuing. Missouri would be an exception as the federal ruling is stayed. This would be the ideal candidate for a different color since SSM is de facto legal, not de jure. I know it's already been discussed so I'm not gonna keep flogging a dead horse. Einsteinboricua (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Super-Strongly Oppose for reasons specified above. The footnotes are more than adequate to handle these issues. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Super-Ultra-Double Ply-with Sugar on it Support Having footnotes doesn't negate the fact that the map is misleading. The article has an entirely separate TABLE for KS, MO, AL, so why are they the same color here? It's nonsense. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What if instead of using a different color to mark these states as having SSM legal "but", we just put a number in the state to represent the footnote graphically.. or outline the state or something along those lines. The state would still be dark blue, but there would be a clear graphical distinction to alert the reader/viewer to check for footnotes.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is an example of outlined states. Keep in mind the color of the outline is easily changeable.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dudemanfellabra:Now this I would support. However, the outline should be of another color (maybe white?). Also, can we see a map with the numbered states? Einsteinboricua (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is a version with numbers. I would support something like this. Shereth 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
That would make the map an awful lot clearer! No ambiguity about what states are clearly not quite fit for their assigned colour, and an immediate direction to the footnotes. I support this motion for footnoted states for as long as there are footnotes assigned to such states. Kumorifox (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Support the numbered version. This guarantees everyone looks at the right footnote, provided we keep them updated. Finally! Swifty819 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I Support this numbered version. Einsteinboricua (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am okay with the numbered version but I think it's kind of weird to have the footnote numbers on the map and almost redundant since the numbers are already in the legend. I still think we should use medium blue for partial states. People are saying the criteria for when a state should be colored for partial legality is too complicated but it's actually quite simple: Does the state have a footnote because same-sex marriage isn't fully legal? For AL, MO, KS the answer is "yes". Prcc27 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: Maybe we could make the footnotes color coded. Missouri's footnote would be gold (possibly medium blue as well), while Alabama and Kansas' would be red (KS would be medium red due to circuit court precedent). Prcc27 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The idea is nice, but I'd be worried that it would cause problems for colour-blind people. If we go with numbers, I'd say keep them white. Otherwise we might as well bring back the stripes. Kumorifox (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, the only way they'd cause problems for colorblind people is if we were using purple or green. I support striping but think that color coded footnotes would be better than nothing. Prcc27 (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
No color coded footnotes. For one thing I would contend red for Kansas and, in particular, Alabama would be misleading, as the bans have been overturned - some officials refusing to issue licenses does not mean the ban is still in effect. Secondly, I don't think that most people would intuitively understand that the color of the footnote is supposed to correspond to some other status, and is an inefficient means of communicating information. Lastly, white on blue is a much easier color combination to read; have you ever tried to read red text on a blue background? Ouch. Shereth 14:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Shereth: Red is not misleading for Kansas.. the ban on recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages was never struck down (Section 23-2508). Prcc27 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Support The bottom line is that the bottom lines, i.e. the footnotes, don't change the fact that the map is misleading. It makes it appear that several more states have marriage equality than really do. If a state is "but, but, but" then marriage equality has not been achieved there, period. The struggle continues, yet looking at the map, it suggests otherwise. Please, someone shut the door on this already. Make those states medium blue or whatever, or add the numbers. I think the numbers are perfect: two birds with one stone. Do it! They can be changed to solid blue when/if there are no qualifiers to the state having "legal" same-sex marriage. Njsustain (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"defiance of Federal law"?[edit]

Is the "defiance of Federal law" wording accurate? On one hand some counties aren't following the federal ruling, but on the other hand they aren't being held in contempt of court. Plus, a federal ruling ≠ federal law because it doesn't apply to the entire country. Prcc27 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Law" in the sense of legal authority, not a particular law, and defiant is then accurate in that the decisions of "the law", as in "the feds", is being ignored, and in fact, obtusely and intentionally defied. Njsustain (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Like Njustain says, a federal ruling is law even if it is not a law. If it rankles you that much go ahead and change law to ruling but it's pretty pointless nitpicking. Shereth 14:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"Federal court ruling" would be more precise. In one sense, there is no "federal law" mandating same-sex marriage. There are Constitutional interpretations, which do have the force of law. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It may be more precise, but it is not more correct. "Law" refers to the legal effects of the law including legal court decisions, not just "a law", as Shereth points out. Njsustain (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand that distinction, but all Wikipedia readers might not. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant now. The judge in Mobile has been ordered to follow the Federal court ruling. (http://www.bilerico.com/2015/02/breaking_judge_orders_alabama_official_to_issue_ma.php) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:101:80F:91EF:1476:D688:5014 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • That's one judge in one county. Also, whoever's removing the footnote without discussion needs to stop; especially since they're breaking the format! Prcc27 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Why would Alabama be considered defiant but not Kansas? Also, when did we decide we weren't going to have a footnote for Alabama anymore (it was removed again)? Prcc27 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that also. I guess someone figured we passed a "threshold" of counties issuing licenses. If you can get married in any county (I don't know the law there, but if), then a few renegade judges (only about 15 out of the 67 now) won't hinder anyone from getting married. They just need to drive to a nearby county. If this is the case, I would support dropping the footnote. Njsustain (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I remember a renegade county in SC that we didn't bother to note. Probably AL will be in a similar situation by the end of next week. MO is similar to AL, but with a longer drive if you live far from the major cities. KS, on the other hand, is truly defiant, as even when you get legally married they refuse to recognize it. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
On the other talk page someone noted that just because a few AL counties are not giving ANY marriage licenses that doesn't mean that there are only 49 states where opposite sex marriage is legal. Should there be an article "opposite sex marriage in the US" and a map with all 50 states dark blue, but with a footnote that in some counties in AL you can't get married? Of course not. The footnote needs to be gone permanently. KS on the other hand still needs to be changed to a different color. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • But there isn't an opposite sex marriage ban on the books in AL. Just because a county doesn't license an opposite sex couple doesn't mean it's illegal for them to get married. This map doesn't care about rogue counties (or at least shouldn't) so I think a good question to ask ourselves is "Can these counties legally discriminate against same-sex couples?" If the ruling is binding on every county the answer is no. However, if not all counties are required to comply with it then things get a little tricky. Prcc27 (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you've answered your own question. True, just because a county doesn't license an opposite sex couple doesn't mean it's illegal for them to get married. But just because a county doesn't license same sex couples doesn't mean it's illegal for them to get married either. It IS legal for same-sex couples to get married in AL. Whether the counties can discriminate or not isn't for us to decide, it's up to the courts. They've decided. It's done. Time to move on. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not necessarily "done"... These counties are going to continue to refuse to license same-sex marriages while citing the state's same-sex marriage ban until a judge tells them they can't do that. I was under the impression that the ruling required all counties to issue same-sex marriages, but then why aren't the counties being held in contempt of court for refusing to issue them? Prcc27 (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Because of "the letter of the law." Judge Grenade made that clear in her dismissal of the contempt of court filing for the Mobile probate judge, stating he was not a defendant. Ergo, until lawsuits are filed for each of the refusing judges, or until they start to comply voluntarily, Alabama marriage equality will be a messy business on the legal side of things. By my understanding, if, after a county is specifically ordered to grant marriage licenses, the probate judge still refuses to grant a license, only then can a contempt of court claim be filed with any chance of succeeding. Until then, it's waiting for lawsuits to be filed. Kumorifox (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

But this is a map of the states in which one can legally get married. Just because a few counties don't issue licenses doesn't mean you can't get married in AL. You just have to do so in another country. It's not the same situation as in MO or KS at all. This map is by state, not by country. Njsustain (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
If that were the case we wouldn't have noted that in some counties of KS same-sex marriage isn't available. It's inconsistent to have a footnote about Kansas's non-compliant counties but not Alabama's. Prcc27 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The KS case is not analogous as the state government doesn't recognize SSM at all. "Getting married" in KS is not the same as getting married in AL, regardless of where you get the license. I think a better analogy is the SC situation. There was one county which would not issue licenses, yet no footnote was desired. Based on the small fraction of counties not issuing alone, I think this is much more like the prior SC situation than KS. Njsustain (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'll have to second Njsustain here. The counties in Alabama who are refusing to issue SSM licenses is a pretty small fraction of the total and I don't think the footnote is necessary anymore. I would not stridently object to it, but, it just feels unnecessary to me. Shereth 21:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Got to agree with Njsustain and Shereth. KS requires a footnote because the state government does not recognise the marriages performed there, making dark blue not correct but the best we have. AL at least recognises the marriages performed in the state. And if we note AL, then we should note every state where there is a rogue county; I don't think there are any, but I have not seen evidence that there are none, so I'm keeping the possibility open here. Kumorifox (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the 3 users above. On a slightly unrelated note, someone ought to keep an eye on Texas. Swifty819 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas may be getting confusing[edit]

In a case involving an estate, a Travis County Probate judge ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. On 19 February, a District Court judge ordered Travis County to issue a license to a same-sex couple, and Texas now has its first legal same-sex marriage. Mw843 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the ruling is limited to the one couple, so not footnote worthy yet. The real mess is if we get any counties piggy-backing off the ruling like we did in Missouri. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. We never gave Iowa a footnote after a single couple was married prior to a stay either, so I say leave Texas alone for the moment. Even the probate judge of the relevant county said they will not currently license other same-sex marriages, just the one they were ordered to. Kumorifox (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"Only legal in St Louis"[edit]

Deleted, as that would mean that if you get married in KC, the state won't recognize it. Unless we have a ref, that's dubious. Also, it sounds like marriages in KC are illegal, which they're not, AFAIK.

BTW, decision likely in NE next week. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • But same-sex marriage is only legal in St. Louis. According to the state, the ruling only applied to St. Louis. Is there a ref that says same-sex marriages performed in the two counties are recognized? Because the state is only required to recognize legal same-sex marriages. Furthermore, the wording for Missouri's footnote has already been discussed and we even had a "[discuss]" template for Missouri, but that was eventually removed after the discussion died out. Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
If I get married in KS and that is rec'd in MO, then my marriage is legal in MO even outside St. Louis. So the idea that SSM is only legal in St Louis is clearly false. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand, licenses in MO can currently legally be obtained in St. Louis City only, and nowhere else in the state, as per judicial injunction; Two counties allow licenses to be obtained, but are technically rogue as the ban is still in effect in those counties. I don't think it makes it illegal to be married in MO, just not legally able to get a marriage license. The phrasing "Only legal in St. Louis City" is too narrow for the confustate of Missouri, as the state does recognise all other legally performed marriages and hence does not make them illegal. If the phrasing were more specific, such as "Licenses legally available in St. Louis City only, but recognised throughout the state" it would be more accurate to what is happening, I believe. Kumorifox (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.
BTW, I posed the question on the US talk page, whether marriages based on licenses issued by the two rogue counties are recognized by the state (or by the fed, for that matter), but no answer yet. Can't find a ref, as if no-one covering the issue thought anything needed clarifying. — kwami (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kumorifox: The Missouri footnote already says "All legal same-sex marriages are recognized by the state government." Prcc27 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: I know that. But since people are troubled about the St. Louis wording, I proposed an alternative, which I hoped would resolve the dispute. Kumorifox (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, Prcc27, that's exactly the problem: Only marriages in St Louis are legal, so the state does not recognize marriages from KC. I have yet to see a source that that is true. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken, the burden of proof is on you since there aren't any reliable sources that say those marriages are recognized. Prcc27 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not what the word "mistaken" means. "Mistaken" means there's an error.
The burden of proof is on whichever claim we make. If we say the marriages are recognized, we need a source. If we say the marriages are not recognized, we need a source. I know you have a history of difficulty with the concept, but your beliefs need to be sourced too. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The website for Marriage Equality USA states that licenses issued to same-sex couples in Jackson, St. Louis, and St. Louis City are valid in all of Missouri, [14]. The website showmemarriage.com, which is more specifically for Missouri itself, states that, as of December 8 2014, the two counties are still issuing and the licenses are legal, [15]. I'm not certain of the reliability of the sites, though the MEUSA site seems to know what it is talking about. I cannot find anything recent on major news sites, unfortunately. Kumorifox (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Both these sources have information that is incorrect.
Showmemarriage: "St. Louis City, St. Louis County, and Jackson County are issuing marriage licenses based on a decision by Judge Rex Burlison stating that the Missouri marriage ban is unconstitutional." Jackson County actually issued same-sex marriages in response to the federal court ruling, not the state court ruling. However, this source does note that the Department of Health and Senior Services said "women in same-sex marriages lawfully entered into in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is lawful, who give birth in Missouri, may choose to have their spouse listed as the baby’s other parent on the birth certificate.​" And the State of Missouri has claimed that the state court ruling only applies to St. Louis which would mean same-sex marriages performed in the other Missourian jurisdictions aren't legal.
Marriage Equality USA: "Technically, same-sex couples may not marry in MO"; if this were the case then Missouri should be striped medium blue-gold since same-sex marriage wouldn't even be legal in St. Louis. "Same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions are recognized in MO"; Once again, same-sex marriage isn't legal in Jackson and St. Louis County, but according to this source- same-sex marriage isn't legal anywhere in Missouri. "The licenses are good for 30 days and the marriages do not have to be performed in Jackson County or St. Louis County"; If a marriage ceremony isn't performed within 30 days of issuance of the license- it expires. However, this doesn't mean the state recognizes those same-sex marriages, nor does it mean same-sex marriage is legal in those two counties. Prcc27 (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Then what source says the marriages from Jackson and St. Louis counties are not recognised by the state of Missouri? Because I haven't found anything that says they are not, and you haven't provided a source from what I can tell. Kumorifox (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Since no-one seems to know what is legal, why not avoid statements that make it look like we know? We currently have:

Same-sex marriages are licensed in three jurisdictions in Missouri but explicitly legal in only St. Louis City. All legal same-sex marriages are recognized by the state government. The state's same-sex marriage ban was overturned but the decision is stayed indefinitely.

How about:

Missouri recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. In addition, same-sex marriage licenses are issued by three jurisdictions within Missouri. The state's same-sex marriage ban has been overturned, but the decision is stayed indefinitely.

kwami (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I would support this change in the footnote. It's more elegant and seems less reliant on a particular interpretation of the situation. Shereth 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this wording. Given the lack of definite answer on what Missouri recognizes or what the state considers legal, it is certainly not our place to judge. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the wording. Kumorifox (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A same-sex marriage in St. Louis is more likely to be recognized and less likely to be invalidated and I think it's worth noting since they're the only one's under court order to issue same-sex marriages. If anything, I would remove referencing the other two jurisdictions since they are rogue. But at the very least, the wording should say "St. Louis is the only jurisdiction under court order to issue same-sex marriages" if people don't like the word "legal". Prcc27 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
"More likely" doesn't really cut it here. What's your evidence for this? Kumorifox (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The fact that only St. Louis is under court. Why would the state claim that the ruling only applies to St. Louis and then decide to recognize the same-sex marriages from the rogue counties? The Recorders' Association of Missouri said that it only applies to St. Louis so are the same-sex marriages from the rogue counties even being recorded..? [16] Prcc27 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the link, but the information in it has aged. By now, Jackson County HAS issued to same-sex couples, and the story makes no mention of whether Jackson and St. Louis County licenses are recognised by the state of Missouri. Kumorifox (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The point is that the state court ruling only applies to St. Louis. The state court ruling is what legalized same-sex marriage in Missouri so the state's opinion on the scope of the ruling is extremely relevant. Jackson County is issuing in response to the federal court ruling and since that ruling is stayed, that ruling definitely doesn't legalize same-sex marriage. Sources aren't going to flat out say that same-sex marriages in Jackson County and St. Louis County are recognized unless the state actually announces that they will recognize those marriages or if it is clear that couples licensed in those counties are being recognized. However, there are sources that say same-sex marriages performed where its legal shall be recognized and according to the state of Missouri, same-sex marriage is only legal in St. Louis. Prcc27 (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
..*ahem* This is why there is an article about the subject. The footnote is not the place to discuss all the particulars of the situation; the article is. The footnote just needs to get the basic point across and direct the reader (via link?) to the article if they want more information. Support the newer wording.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This map deals with where same-sex marriage is legal so the rogue counties shouldn't even be footnoted (and we didn't footnote rogue counties in the past either). Prcc27 (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be kind of disingenuous to ignore the actions of the two largest counties in the state (accounting for over 25% of the population). You aren't swaying anyone to your line of reason and you're the only voice of dissent. It's time to go ahead and change the footnote. Shereth 14:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • We've ignored rogue counties in the past so I don't see how now is any different. I really don't care whether or not I'm swaying anyone, I'm still going to remind everyone that we kept rogue counties out of the footnotes in the past and for good reason. Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Alabama resisted marriage equality for years, and the Supreme Justice is still against it, but it is happening anyway. Same with these footnotes: just because "it's always been that way" does not mean it will or should continue to always be that way. Kumorifox (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kumorifox: Okay, but are we going to add a footnote for other rogue counties as well if they start issuing same-sex marriages? I never received an answer on that. And the recognition wording isn't entirely accurate, I think the old recognition wording was better. Prcc27 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think we should decide that if it ever comes up. Personally, since this is a map of the states, I think we should only include them if they have state-wide implications, as they do for MO. E.g., if California were restricted to San Francisco, as it was in the beginning, we would still color it red. That would be consistent with our treatment of the refuse case in AL, and of SC when it had a rogue county that refused rec. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Prcc27: Don't try and change the subject, mate. The wording was not what I was talking about, that is a different issue. And if there are going to be rogue counties in states, then I suggest we number them if practical, like "X jurisdictions (not) licensing in Y" depending on whether they issue or not. So for MO, I'd have put "3 jurisdictions licensing," while for other states, I'd use the applicable variation (such as parishes for LA). Easy. Kumorifox (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Kumorifox: This whole section is dealing with the Missouri footnote so I don't see how that's changing the subject. And the rogue counties are exactly what we were talking about. Prcc27 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Prcc27: In this little part of the discussion, we were discussing the issue of the rogue counties, not the wording of the footnote. That's all I meant by that. Kumorifox (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. — kwami (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Missouri recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states." So does this mean same-sex marriages from St. Louis aren't recognized..? Also, "other states" would mean that same-sex marriages that weren't performed in a U.S. state would not be recognized- which isn't the case. Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh come on. It is implicitly understood that states which license SSM recognize those licenses; that's why we have a footnote for Kansas saying that they don't. We aren't writing a legally binding document here, we don't need to cover every nuance of every combination of everything. I suggest taking a short break from this topic (or at least this page), get yourself a nice warm cup of tea, find something else to edit as passionately, and learn to be OK with the fact that sometimes you are in the minority and edits that you support don't happen. It does no one any good to rail on about such minutiae. Shereth 14:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Shereth: "It is implicitly understood that states which license SSM recognize those licenses." If dark blue states are expected to recognize same-sex marriages then why have a footnote on recognition for Missouri at all? Since Kansas is the only dark blue state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages- shouldn't we leave out Missouri's recognition references altogether..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That would be fine by me. Shereth 14:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Prcc, I think the "in addition" indicates that we've moved on to a new topic. I assume that all of those marriages are recognized, or we'd be getting news reports of people who got married in e.g. Kansas City whose marriages were not recognized by the state, like the reports we've gotten for Kansas. But since we can't be sure, we leave it a bit vague. Your point about other countries, however, is a good one. I'd be happy with "outside Missouri" rather than "in other states". — kwami (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Having walked away from this fruitless discussion some time ago, it's a delight to return and find the notes in better shape than they've been in a long time. My thanks to those who persevered! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Missouri recognition footnote[edit]

Missouri is colored as dark blue and every same-sex marriage state except Kansas recognizes same-sex marriages. Since dark blue already implies that same-sex marriage is recognized, the recognition portion of Missouri's footnote should be removed. Prcc27 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nebraska struck[edit]

Nebraska goes light blue - the order striking the ban goes into effect on 9 March 2015, at 8am. [17] Mw843 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A request: please do not remove items from the Legend without prior discussion, comment colors out if currently unused. Mw843 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Alabama Supreme Court Orders End to Gay Marriage Licensing[edit]

The Alabama Supreme Court has ordered all counties to stop issuing gay marriage licenses. S51438 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Question is do they have the authority, considering the federal ruling earlier? Looks like we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. Ghal416 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Both state courts and federal courts have the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Now we have two different interpretations, so as a practical matter, if the county clerks stop issuing licenses in compliance with the state supreme court ruling, we should turn Alabama back to red. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually think Alabama is going to remain dark blue. First of all, this ruling doesn't stop the state from recognizing same-sex marriages. Furthermore, I believe there are some counties under direct order by the federal court to issue same-sex marriages and the state court can't nullify that. I think Alabama might merit a footnote though. Prcc27 (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually skimmed the ruling. Apparently, state probate judges issue marriage licenses in Alabama. The state supreme court probably has more authority to order state court officials to not do something than a federal district has to order them to do something. But we'll have to see how this plays out. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that this would be a case that doesn't fit into the categories of the map. Whether licenses are being issued is not the topic of this map. The map is illustrating the legality of SSM. I don't think the legality of SSM in Alabama will be clear until SCOTUS rules on Alabama or the entire nation. As such, I don't think you could say that it is legal or illegal, neither red nor blue. -- SamuelWantman 04:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
This is probably correct. Only the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to override the Alabama Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. A federal district court (or even federal appeals court) certainly does not have that authority. I think our best alternative in this situation is to see what actually happens on the ground. If all (or most) of the probate judges stop issuing marriage licenses, I think Alabama should go back to red, or at the very least it should be striped. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. But the state court ruling doesn't seem to affect same-sex marriage recognition. So maybe Alabama should be colored solid medium blue with a footnote explaining the contradictory rulings between the federal district court and the state supreme court..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'll have to go back and take another look at the decision, but if the state supreme court ruling didn't mention recognition, then medium blue with a footnote would probably work. But I think we should give it at least a day or two before we change the map one way or the other to see how things actually shake out on the ground. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the ruling even in effect yet..? I believe the probate judges have five days to respond to the state court's ruling.. Prcc27 (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it looks like they have 5 days to respond with a reason why they should not be bound to the court's decision. We'll just have to keep an eye on this and see how things go over the next few days. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Maybe we need an "It's complicated" color a la Facebook relationship status? That would apply not only to Alabama but also Kansas and Missouri.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I was gonna suggest that. A color and then link to the "Partial cases table". Gets rid of the footnotes and shows that each state has an individual scenario. What happens if NE also has an AL-scenario? Are we gonna have 4 footnotes all denoting an "It's legal, but..." scenario? What if the 5th rules and 3 more states have the same situation? 7 footnotes on a map? Einsteinboricua (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That's probably the best solution at this point. Let's just whip out the medium blue color as an "its sort of legal, but its complicated" color. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

How about we just leave it as dark blue because anyone with a basic legal understanding knows that AL's Supreme Court ruling has major flaws, as evidenced by the dissent. Just because the state is full of cry babies doesn't change the fact that the marriage ban was struck down and a stay DENIED by SCOTUS and probate judges told that they are in contempt of court if they do not obey the ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:101:80F:448B:E645:9275:6C43 (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

They could be potentially held in contempt of court either way. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. And the Supreme Court denied a stay, but did not rule on the merits. I think the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the merits in favor of same-sex marriage, but we can't just assume that. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Dark blue would be misleading but far less than coloring red. But the reasoning is not at play here. The fact is that even if the SCOAl had said "No because aliens don't wear hats", it's still a decision.Einsteinboricua (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We run the risk of running afoul of policy if we start trying to guess how this decision is going to play out, or try to interpret the situation. My position would be to wait and see how it plays out; if county clerks stop issuing licenses in response to the ruling, it can go back to red. If they ignore the ruling and continue to license, it should stay dark blue. I remain opposed to co-opting the medium blue for an "its complicated" color, or creating any other color to serve that purpose; if we feel like the number of footnotes is becoming burdensome (which I do not feel it has at this point) then we can put a generic footnote on the dark blue color stating "The availability of SSM marriage and the recognition thereof varies in some states, please consult the table for details". Shereth 18:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Going to red here goes against what is really happening. This would be akin to a stay: a ruling has been made and stays by federal authorities have been denied. Red would imply that the ban has been upheld (or not ruled on) so red would be misleading. Same sex marriage is legal, per the district judge's ruling. The SCOAl just decided to tell judges to stop issuing licenses. It has not ruled on whether it is valid or not. MI and AR were separate cases, as each decision was stayed by a superior court on the same level (AR: state judge -> SCOAr; MI: federal judge -> 6th circuit). So while the SCOAl ordered probate judges to stop issuing licenses (in effect bringing back a ban), what about the marriages already registered? What if some judges defy the SCOAl and continue issuing licenses? The state itself has not taken a position so a couple married by one rogue judge is, for all intents and purposes, considered valid. Hence why there's a complicated situation. I would argue more for gold than red, but this is the 3rd state we have that presents a complicated scenario. Coloring red is misleading, coloring blue is also misleading.Einsteinboricua (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
How would you feel about using the light gray color? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mobile County has stopped all marriage licenses for now, so at least one probate judge (one under specific federal injunction, no less) is waiting on complete clarification. I think AL has become the most complicated of the states with this development, as in neither KS nor MO have any counties with specific orders defied them. Kumorifox (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, almost all Alabama counties have either stopped issuing licenses or are not issuing to same-sex couples (only Jackson, Bullock, and Crenshaw counties are still enforcing the federal court order,) so we know that most counties have opted to comply with the state supreme court's order. Skbl17 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any sources reporting a single country in Alabama that is still issuing same-sex marriage licenses. It looks like the Alabama Supreme Court has more actual authority over county probate judges than the federal district court does. In light of this reality, I definitely think we need to change the map. Whether we change it to gray, or medium blue, or back to red it should be changed to something else. Dark blue just isn't appropriate anymore. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Grey is probably the best for now. Light grey is no longer used, right? If so, I say colour Alabama light grey to show the situation. Kumorifox (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Light gray is probably the best option for now. The legend should read something like "Conflicting judicial rulings as to the legality of same-sex marriage." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
https://verdict.justia.com/2015/02/13/just-lawless-alabama-state-court-judges-refusing-issue-sex-marriage-licenses Here is an article that offers food for thought on this subject of judicial power. Agree with the mentioned color change of light grey to reflect this issue. Ghal416 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Essentially there are 2 separate court systems (state court and federal courts) within the same jurisdiction (Alabama). Neither court system is directly bound by decisions of the other, with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has authority over all courts in the U.S. And both state courts and federal courts have legal authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution independently of each other if the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed the issue directly. The legality of same-sex marriage in Alabama is now definitely a legal gray area, so coloring Alabama gray makes a lot of sense. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we make the grey widely applicable enough to apply to Missouri and Kansas as well?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The situations are so different, that I don't think it's a good idea to use the same color for that. But I would be open to using a different color for Missouri and Kansas, like the medium blue. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The medium blue that was used for civil unions? Ghal416 (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Unlike Alabama where same-sex marriages have essentially stopped, same-sex marriages are currently being performed in Missouri and Kansas, so I think a color in the blue side of the spectrum would be appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm...I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such a change, though I feel the current system with the notifications included in the legend of the map alongside the dark blue designation is sufficient. When it comes to a designation of light grey for Alabama's current situation though, I'm on board. Ghal416 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In neither MO nor KS are there conflicting rulings, only conflicting interpretations (KS) or different level rulings and implementations (MO). Grey for these two would not really fit the bill. And unless we redefine the medium blue (currently reserved for recognition but no performance), there is no colour that fits MO or KS. And many people have been vehemently opposed to that redefinition for a while now. Kumorifox (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing Alabama to gray is the priority right now, as the current map does not reflect reality in Alabama as it currently exists. We can discuss the possibility of changing Missouri and Kansas in a later discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed Ghal416 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Under other circumstances Alabama would be gray, but the state court ruling doesn't seem to nullify same-sex marriage recognition. So I oppose using gray since the wording for it is "Same-sex marriage not prohibited or recognized" which is incorrect since AFAIK same-sex marriage is recognized. This means Alabama would actually be solid medium blue since that's currently what we use for states that recognize same-sex marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
We aren't talking about using the dark gray that is currently being used on the territories. We'd be using light gray (which isn't currently being used by the map) and having the wording for the light gray color being something like "Conflicting judicial rulings as to the legality of same-sex marriage." And Alabama doesn't really recognize same-sex marriage at this point either. The state MIGHT recognize marriages previously performed, but I see nothing to indicate that the state currently recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Then striped light gray/medium blue. The federal court ruling legalized same-sex marriage recognition and all the state court ruling did was order probate judges not to issue same-sex marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. We can stipe it then. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Except that the federal court ruling by itself is problematic in the face of the state supreme court undercutting it. A federal district court only has as much power as is connected to the case in front of it, namely the plaintiffs involved. I would direct those curious once again to the link I shared earlier regarding this situation. This truly is a conflict of court rulings, therefore fitting of a solid color more than striped ones. Ghal416 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't a footnote be added for Alabama? I don't think we should wait until implementing a new color before we add a footnote to explain Alabama's complicated situation. Prcc27 (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't see why not. Ghal416 (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Alabama should be change to another color as now none of the 67 counties are issuing same sex marriage licenses and a federal judge can overrule a state court decision from the highest court of the state. So I believe it should be stripe medium blue and medium gray.--Allan120102 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean light gray. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I support changing Alabama to light grey and denote that it has conflicting rulings.Einsteinboricua (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Support changing the color of Alabama to light grey as per Rreagan's request, along with the description "Conflicting judicial rulings as to the legality of same-sex marriage" in the legend also per Rreagan's request. Ghal416 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Having read this entire thread, I think the best solution is a new color labeled, "it's complicated..." -- SamuelWantman 08:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Sam: If we do an "it's complicated" color we'd have to color Kansas and Missouri that way too. Prcc27 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. There's crap that cannot be simply put on the map, and people will have to look for actual text to describe the situation.Mw843 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Me too. KS & MO merit a color other than dark blue too. And coloring these states to reflect that same-sex marriage legality is complicated is more accurate than pretending same-sex marriage is legal/not banned. Prcc27 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with marking these states (AL, KS, MO) as distinct, but not with grey. Grey is iconically neutral, which is why we chose it for states without laws one way or the other, and these situations are not neutral. Maybe some shade of purple, suggesting a fusion of legal and illegal? — kwami (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
A new color, and a footnote along the lines of:
See Alabama, Kansas, and Missouri for more detailed information. Mw843 (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@kwami: It was probably proposed using colors already used in some manner for Alabama, but I see no problem with the change to such, along with the aforementioned description I made earlier. Support the move, whatever color you guys agree on. I personally don't see a problem with Missouri and Kansas as they are. Ghal416 (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, since this discussion is getting too long to read, I'll go ahead and make the change in a few minutes. If you guys don't like it, go ahead and revert me. If we're basically okay with it, we can maybe start a new thread to iron out any details. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, new color isn't showing up. Don't know why. — kwami (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Which color? If it can't be changed, revert. Ghal416 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There was a line needed later on to define what the "complicated" colour does when used. I changed it, it's showing now. Kumorifox (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The color seems sufficient to me. The only issue I have is with the description "situation complicated". Complicated in what sense? Court case/s? Governor/state officials refusing acknowledgement? I feel the description needs to be simple and yet descriptive about the complication involved that unifies these three states. Ghal416 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My attempt: "Same-sex marriage legality in question" with notifications in legend detailing those points for each state. Ghal416 (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
For the time being, I added "see articles for relevant states" though I think the wording can still be improved. The idea behind the colour was to indicate more complicated matters and refer people to the text for full clarification. Kumorifox (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Any issue with the wording I used? I feel what I state reflects what you say. I agree that it should be that people are referred to the notification text in the legend of the map for clarification as you state. Also, a note has to be added for Alabama. Ghal416 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Question: Is purple going to be a problem for colorblind people? If so, we might want to consider using a different color... Prcc27 (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ghal416: Not an issue as such, though MO does not have the legality of SSM in question, just two different rulings with one stayed and one not. By keeping the wording a bit more general and referring to the articles in question, we can strike down many possible occurrences.
@Prcc27: I was worried about that as well, but I'm not so good with HTML colours and stuck with the colour already used (I made a typo of f instead of c, I discovered after posting the new map). The purple does clash with the dark red, but I'm not sure what else to use right now. I'd rather avoid green as it is generally a colour of approval. Any suggestions from people? I am not colour blind, so I can't really make suggestions that would definitely work. Kumorifox (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I used this in the legend: "Same-sex marriage legality complicated", with the superscripts for the notifications/articles in the text you mentioned. Also added a note/article for Alabama. Sufficient? Ghal416 (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad that the collective will of the WP self-imposed bureaucracy has finally created a new category for the complicated cases. The issue now is that it is very hard to see. How about a brighter purple, or green maybe? This dark purple is very, very hard to distinguish from the dark blue on some monitors. Njsustain (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought purple was a decent choice, since it is sort of in between red and blue. We could try a lighter shade of purple. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I must be color blind. That color looks more like brown than purple. Anyway, I thought about this just now: what if we bring pink back as the "complicated" color but stripe the states with dark blue? Reasoning:
  • Alabama has stopped issuing licenses. Same sex marriage is still recognized by authorities however, so for all intents and purposes, it's still dark blue.
  • Kansas still issues licenses but not recognized by government. Still merits dark blue: SSM is legal.
  • Missouri recognizes out of state SSM and 3 of its jurisdictions issue licenses (which the state recognizes). Ergo, the blue applies.
Pink would be to denote the "it's complicated scenario". We maintain the same colors we've used in the past and it's still easy to make out those complicated cases. Of course, coloring a state completely pink will be misleading since the reddish hue would suggest that SSM is somehow NOT legal. Can anyone devise a map of how that would look? Einsteinboricua (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
In the past, people have said they hate striping on the map. I'm not totally opposed to it myself, but I think there will be resistance to it. I think dark blue could still be applied to Kansas and Missouri, but I don't think it still applies to Alabama where there are currently no same-sex marriages being licensed or performed. At most, you could make it medium blue for recognized but not performed. I actually prefer the idea of using the new "its complicated" color. The "its complicated" color could be changed to something else if people think it is hard to see. Being colorblind myself, I don't find the purple particularly hard to distinguish, but I am very willing to change colors if other people are having difficulty seeing it. But I think dark blue should really be reserved for states that have fully legal performance and recognition of same-sex marriage state-wide. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with striping. The point of the "new" color is to get people to read the footnote. I think people are being WAAAAY to focused on the "meaning" of the color. The colors have no intrinsic meaning... only what the key tells you it is. Having colors that are hard to distinguish from each other defeats the entire point of a color coded map. I don't have the ability to change the map myself, so could someone please just make it something that stands out from the others: magenta, white, hot pink, bright yellow, avacado... It can be fine tuned later. Njsustain (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed on the color scheme. Considering colorblind people, it should be an easier discerned color. Magenta perhaps? Ghal416 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If purple isn't to peoples' liking, then I suggest we just repurpose one of the "retired" colors that we have used on this map in the past, since we know they work pretty well. I suggest either the light gray or the pink/light red we used to use. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The only issue I would have with a red-aligned color would be that it is closer to the color used for bans. The states in this case are closer to some level of relief from bans (obviously at different levels). I wouldn't mind the light grey or magenta/fuschia route. Just something away from a more red-aligned color. Ghal416 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
How's that? That's a standard lighter .svg purple. Grey is problematic because it suggests the laws are neutral. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, seems fine, though the map legend on the pages still reflects the previous darker purple hue. Is there another place to edit the change for the legend? Ghal416 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The "new" purple looks good to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Rreagan... the new shade is very distinguishable from the other colors. Njsustain (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm very pleased with how this discussion has gone, and with the addition of the new color. Well done. -- SamuelWantman 06:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Nebraska permanent stay[edit]

Nebraska is now gold.Mw843 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Can this file be renamed "Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg"?[edit]

See commons:File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#Can this file be renamed "Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg"?. Do not move that discussion. It concerns a process which is bound by the rules of Wikimedia Commons, so unlike the discussions going on here (on the English Wikipedia file talk page), it should take place on Commons. Thanks if you can help. I am not sure this will fit with any of the usual file-moving criteria on Commons, so I thought I would bring the issue up. Dustin (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Sure, I don't have a problem with you renaming the file... Prcc27 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any technical reasons for which the file should not be removed? Almost all of the files are named "Somethingsomethingsomething in the United States.extension" at the current time with the exception of this one. I am perfectly capable of carrying out such a move, but I question whether undertaking such a move would cause damage or anything of that sort. I don't know whether or not any of these files actually are used in templates, but I have seen similar file moves to what this one would constitute under Criterion number 6. Dustin (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.:Criterion 6 seems to warrant this file to be renamed, so I have no problem with it being moved for standardisation purposes. Kumorifox (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico drops defense of SSM ban[edit]

There's just one catch to it: it's a Missouri style case here. It will recognize marriages performed elsewhere but will not perform them on the island. The official decision is expected to be filed with the 1st Circuit later today.

The source I have is in Spanish (local news, and I can attest to what it says since I'm from PR and am a native Spanish speaker myself): New position from the government regarding SSM

Edit: found a link in English PR Drops Defense of SSM Ban

This is akin to West Virginia. Once I find that the decision has been submitted, should Puerto Rico be changed to medium-blue? Einsteinboricua (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Along with what PR files in court today, there will be statements. Nothing wrong with waiting a few minutes for a fuller picture.
Also, to correct what appears above, it started as a recognition case but additional plaintiffs joined later, seeking marriage licenses in PR. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

From the reports I'm seeing from the news conference, PR will file a brief calling for Article 68 to be struck down, but for the moment, the law stands, so no change to the map. Mw843 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Brief asks the First Circuit to reverse the District Court. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Utah[edit]

Utah county clerks can now opt out on marrying couples provided they have someone else in their office do it who is willing. Is this worthy of a footnote or color change? [18]. 98.253.175.243 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. A Same sex couple still can walk into any Utah county clerk's office and walk out married.Naraht (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Not really necessary, IMO. It might be worth mentioning on the Same-sex marriage in Utah page, but not really for the overall map. Kumorifox (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing purple color to a grey/yellow shade?[edit]

I kind of disappeared from Wikipedia for the last couple months (been busy). Returning to this map, I've noticed a purple color has been added. I am perfectly fine with the color addition, but my understanding is that purple is a color to be avoided due to colorblindness issues, and it particularly hurts my eyes (even though I am not colorblind). I was wondering, is anyone up for swapping it for a grey or a yellow or maybe even a black? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I think gray would work. Prcc27 (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
We kind of settled on the purple out of necessity at the time and a rejection of green, though I have no objections over changing it as it is quite similar to the blue. We tried to avoid grey as it is associated with neutrality, and the new colour was introduced to show ambiguity rather than neutrality, and I would like to avoid black on this map. Yellow may be an option, however. Kumorifox (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It depends on the shade of purple and what other colors on the map are used as to whether or not it is a problem for colorblind people. I happen to be colorblind, and on this map, the potential issue for us colorblind people is whether or not they can distinguish the purple from the blue. I have no problem distinguishing it on this map, but if others are having problems I am open to using gray instead of the purple. However, I would prefer to see a test map first using the gray in place of the purple before committing to changing the color. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thegreyanomalytestupload.svg
  • Here is my suggestion, we use the old CCCCCC grey to replace purple. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • From a colorblind/accessibility standpoint, that gray looks fine to me. I'll leave any aesthetic concerns for others to decide. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I prefer the purple to the grey. Grey makes it look like the map has holes or information is missing or something. I don't think it has been demonstrated that purple is a problem; the only colorblind person to comment here said it's fine with him/her. Until someone actually labels it a problem, I'd say leave it alone. If/when someone does identify it as a problem, maybe (s)he will have a good suggestion for an alternate color?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I doubt my opinion will be popular, but you will not find an answer that satisfies both of these needs. The purple is not easy on the eyes and may not meet the criteria for fully colorblind-friendliness, but the gray/white color certainly carries with it a connotation of neutrality or lack of data. So you're going to have to pick which group of people to satisfy, those looking to make this more accessible or make it more logical. Unless, of course, we are open to the radical notion of throwing the old color palette out the window and starting from scratch : something like a dark red (#d73027) for "banned", an orange color (#fc8d59) for "judicial ruling stayed", a gold/yellow color (#ffffbf) for "complicated", a medium blue (#91bfdb) for "legalization pending", dark blue (#4575b4) for "legal", and then white or light gray for "no law either way". You could even reserve a light blue (#e0f3f8) for "recognition only", though I don't think it's going to be needed anymore. I don't expect that to get much traction as we tend to be a little protective of our existing color scheme, but I will at least throw it out there since it's much more colorblind (and just visually, in my opinion) friendly, avoids the logical inconsistency of white/gray for complicated, and one way or another some "newer" color (be it purple or white or gray) is going to have to be used. Shereth 21:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
We could have a partial legality color and use medium blue since same-sex marriage is partially legal in every purple state (Alabama: federal court legality/same-sex marriage recognition, Kansas: licensing, Missouri: legal in St. Louis/recognition). Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to focus on the choice of color without such characterizations. Whether anything useful can be said about the legality of SSM in Alabama is another question entirely. We can use light blue or any other color. It will mean what out legend says it means. But if people think light blue means part way to blue, then that's a great argument against light blue. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am fine with blue, yellow, grey, or even black (we briefly used black striping on CA way back when they were not performing SSM but they were recognizing post-H8 SSM as marriage-without-the-name). I just don't like the purple, it hurts my eyes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the light gold we used for Ohio before? With SCOTUS pending, I have a feeling that one will not be used in the future. Kumorifox (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, then the colors are all meaningless anyway, since this map will cease to be useful. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana?[edit]

I was wondering if Louisiana's situation is considered complicated. Does the federal court ruling against same sex marriage overrule the state District Court ruling in favor of it? Was it overturned by a state Appellate Court or Supreme Court? I'm a little out of the loop and got confused. Can someone explain what's going on there? 98.253.175.243 (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The district court ruling (Costanza) encompassed three parishes only, and that order was stayed and appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Until the SCoLA comes with a ruling on this case, LA has a state-wide ban on SSM, which was reinforced by the federal court ruling in Robicheaux. The outcome of the Robicheaux appeal in the 5th and Obergefell in SCOTUS will most likely be the deciders for LA; until then, it remains a ban state. Kumorifox (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Guam[edit]

This excerpt from a news story [19] may mean a map update is needed:

"He and his husband, Corman Smau, were married last March in Vancouver, Washington. Their marriage is legally recognized on island, as per Guam law, which recognizes other marriages that are legal in other parts of the world."

Mw843 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, as a lesbian couple in Guam was turned away by officials when they went to get a marriage license. Looks like Guam needs to be coloured recognition blue instead of neutral grey then. Kumorifox (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Solid color, or striped blue and grey? Mw843 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Solid. Grey is used when there are no laws for or against, whereas recognition but no performance (solid medium blue) is apparently the way in Guam. Kumorifox (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure the first source cited here allows us to say that Guam recognizes SSMs from other jurisdictions. The report cites no source but seems to be parroting the beliefs re a Guam law of an advocate/attorney. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
See § 3107 of http://www.guamcourts.org/compileroflaws/GCA/19gca/19gc003.PDF Mw843 (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks legit for Guam to solid recognition blue. Kumorifox (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on that in terms of recognition. I'm still trying to figure out *where* in the Guamanian law that the clerk is refering to is. 10 GCA is apparently Health and safety (which is *barely conceivably* where they would put this, if it was done in regards to AIDS) but section 3204 has to do with mayors help in Vital Statistics. OTOH, Section 3204 in *19* GCA which is where the Marriage laws referenced by user Mw843 has do with who may Solemnize a marriage (which BTW includes the "Director of Revenue and Taxation" (really?) So any help?Naraht (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In 10GCA Chapter 3, section 3207, the "definitions", it is stated that "Marriage means the legal union of persons of opposite sex." So the quote by the clerk was wrong, but Guam law does effectively prohibit SSM. See page 7 for the clause. Kumorifox (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The section starts out "Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following definitions shall apply to this article" and the article includes Vital Statistics and thus Marriage Certificates. (and "context clearly requires otherwise" is a fun place to start for a lawyer. :) ). So I think the combination in Guamanian law moves us to recognition blue.Naraht (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps red and light blue stripes should be used. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
No need for red, as the medium blue implies recognition only, and no performance. Kumorifox (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Support Guam being solid medium blue. Prcc27 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant[edit]

I know this isn't relevant to this page, and I apologize, but I would like an editor to go down to the "Recognition of Same-Sex union in North America" page and edit the "Homosexuality laws in Central America and the Caribbean Islands" Map to make Nicaragua red. This is a new edit, and a mostly ignored page, but I still want it to have up to date information on it. I am sorry for detracting from the very relevant discussions involved with this map, but an editor needs to correct this, and no one will see this on the relevant page. [1] CRM28 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Kumorifox (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much Kumorifox! CRM28 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Guam update[edit]

The AG of Guam has directed the public health department to immediately begin issuing licences to same-sex couples [20]. Mw843 (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not what it says, it says "gay marriage applications", further the governor has the final say on the issue but yeah it is worth noting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Who or what are you quoting about "gay marriage applications"? OIC you're quoting the headline! Read on. The AG says:
  • "The Department is advised to treat all same gender marriage applicants with dignity and equality under the Constitution of our nation, and the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,"
  • "While the (Public Health) Department was acting in accordance with GUam law, the Ninth Circuit's recent decision has rendered Guam's marriage statute legally unenforceable until such time that the Supreme Court of the United States alters the holding of the Ninth Circuit of Appeals," she stated in the memo.
Beyond that it is not clear that the gov has the final say, which you state as a fact. Rather, the head of Public Health said he wants to hear from the government cause he's a defendant. There's nothing for us to do at the moment for this entry, but could we have a little more reality when discussing what's happening? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Guam is not complying with the AG's order, and is keeping SSM unavailable. Dark blue is thus not a proper colour for Guam. Should it be coloured medium red to show defiance of circuit precedence (9th CCoA), or purple to show it is complicated? My vote right now is medium red. Kumorifox (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reminder Guam is not bound by the ninth circuit decision. Only federal courts in Guam are. No defiance. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I say medium red. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Two comments. First, I would suggest holding off making changes until the new business day starts on Guam. Second, even if licenses are being denied, out-of-territory same-sex marriages would continue to be recognized. Mw843 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Medium red striped light blue then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd still like to see proof that out of states are recognized. Who in authority interprets the statutes that way? What couple in Guam has exercised their rights as a married couple? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
We should make it medium red then at least as that is a status we know of and is supported by WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Another source that states out-of-territory SSM is not recognised in Guam (though the validity of the source is debatable): [21] This would push for a medium red on a de facto map. Kumorifox (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I support medium red since it appears that the territory does in fact have a same-sex marriage ban (I find it weird that we're just finding this out). However, I might be willing to support purple since the AG legalized same-sex marriage contrary to the ban still being on the books and enforced. Prcc27 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You're reading a lot into what's happened. The AG didn't legalize SSM. Better to say she's tried and so far failed. It's not at all clear if she can make that happen. She gave an order that's being ignored. She's made it clear she can't defend the ban in court, but that could take a while to play out. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
On a related issue, do we really think users know what those five boxes at the lower right represent? At a glance I recognize Puerto Rico, but that's about it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

But yeah they really should be labeled, the Northern Mariana Islands need to be fixed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I made Guam dark red to show the de facto ban in the territory, and since someone said Guam is not bound by 9th Circuit precedent, medium red is not the correct colour. Knowledgekid87, I am not sure what is wrong with the Northern Mariana Islands, could you elaborate on that please? Also, I don't know how to label a .svg file, so I'm leaving that alone. Kumorifox (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Again: Guam's federal courts are bound by the Ninth circuit. Guam per se is not. Get the difference? So the Governor and others really don't have to follow Latta at this point even though if they were respectful they would. No one has ordered them to. At some future point, if necessary, the District Court of Guam will order them to stop enforcing the ban. (That's why it's important to have a live case in every state without SSM, so that even following a SCOTUS ruling, there will be a federal court to order anyone who's pretending they haven't heard what SCOTUS did can be ordered to stop enforcing a ban.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Guam's AG ordering same-sex marriage seems akin to West Virginia's AG ordering same-sex marriage. The only difference between the two situations is that for Guam the circuit court precedent isn't binding on their district court and WV actually complied. But an executive order is separate from a district court ruling since West Virginia had same-sex marriage before the district court ruling was even issued. The wording for medium red is "Same-sex marriage banned contrary to federal circuit precedent". Even though the precedent isn't binding on the district court, it is still binding in the Ninth Circuit (which is where the case can be appealed to after it reaches the district court). I'm not sure if Guam should be medium red. But since executive actions are treated as law, Guam would be purple since the executive action conflicts with the statutory law. Prcc27 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
What are you referring to when you say "their district court"? The only court I know anyone has been talking about is the District Court of Guam. By what logic in the Ninth Circuit's decision in Latta not binding on the District Court of Guam, which is a federal court within the Ninth Circuit? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, if the Ninth Circuit's decision is a precedent that the District Court of Guam is expected to follow then Guam definitely shouldn't be dark red. Guam should either be medium red or purple. Prcc27 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The situation itself is confusing to me. Guam does not have a "state court" as such, as it is a territory and not a state. How does it name its non-federal courts? I thought some of the state courts were also called district courts in some of the states, not sure about the territories (and I'm not even sure where the distinction lies in the states, let alone the territories, how can one tell?). Was the current case in Guam filed in a federal court? If so, then that case falls under 9th Circuit jurisdiction and Guam needs to be medium red; if not, then dark red is the right colour. Kumorifox (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The lawsuit filed last week was filed in federal court. No question. Here's Chris Geidner: "The letter from the attorney general comes two days after a couple who were denied a marriage license, Loretta Pangelinan and Kathleen Aguero, sued in federal court." Source
I don't understand how the filing of that case changes anything on this map, since the federal court in Guam has not said a word, has applied no precedent, made no ruling.
I also think the text attached to medium red represents such a poor understanding of the notion of precedent that I'd rather we didn't use medium red ever. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll readily admit that I haven't the faintest notion about legal jargon or levels of legal hierarchy. All I understood from the medium red was that, once a CCoA ruled against a ban (like the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th did), subsequent state-side court cases would relatively speaking be easier to win as the state courts are bound by the federal appellate court's ruling setting precedent. Is that not correct then? Kumorifox (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Once a CCofA rules, all other courts in the circuit are bound to follow the ruling's analysis, making similar lawsuits certain to win (not easier) unless some state can show their ban is somehow different from the state ban the CCofA struck down. Medium red should say something like "ban where a circuit court has ruled SSM ban unconstitutional". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The [22] is BOUND by the Ninth, so Guam should be light red, per Latta. Swifty819 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Guam changed to medium red, and legend text updated for same. If the text is still not clear enough, feel free to change it. Kumorifox (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't much like this language, because ruling implies that the Circuit directly ruled on Guam's ban and Guam ignored it. I think it would be better to say precedent, because that particular ban was never ruled on, but when it is, it's going to have to be a certain way barring SCOTUS intervening in a way that none of us wants. What do you all think? Swifty819 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct about what the current language implies, but old precedent language wasn't right. I'll give it a try. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This is better, but it's not just any federal circuit court. In particular, it's the one that the state/territory is in. Semantics, I know, but I'm imagining a reader that knows nothing about our system thinking that all states should be blue or bright red on account of one federal circuit court ruling. Swifty819 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC) I retract my previous statement. Swifty819 (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Northern Marianas[edit]

The Northern Mariana Islands are bound by the 9th, but they do not have an outright ban on SSM. Should they be red or grey for the time being? Kumorifox (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Grey. That's what it's always stood for. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
In the Commonwealth Code, Chapter 8 Section 1201 reads "The male at the time of contracting the marriage be at least 18 years of age and the female at least 16 years of age..." and section 1332 reads "In actions for dissolution of marriage, neither the domicile nor residence of the husband shall be deemed to be the domicile or residence of the wife." Section 1331(i) has "Willful neglect by the husband to provide suitable support for his wife when able to do so" as grounds for a divorce. While the main definition of marriage includes only a vague "in accordance with recognized customs" line, related sections carry an implied ban similar to Guam. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Not gray. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Light red. Obvious ban to me. Swifty819 (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Guam has a definition line stating that marriage can only be contracted between people of opposite sex, which is way clearer than the implied ban in the Northern Mariana Islands (though the implications in the Marianas is quite clear to me). Once again, interpretation of the law, not my strongest point. I'd be happy to go with medium red on them, as long as the article on LGBT rights in the Marianas reflects this as well.
Makes it worth looking at American Samoa as well, I think. They are not subject to a CCoA, but their laws might imply a SSM ban along the lines of the Marianas that we previously never spotted. Kumorifox (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've modified LGBT rights in the Northern Mariana Islands to reflect the material cited above. LGBT rights in American Samoa has had similar material for several months.
I'd note that in the absence of an explicit ban, courts have held that a ban on same-sex marriage is the default and only a few rogue county clerks have thought otherwise. The legal argument that "the statute doesn't say male-female so any two people can marry" has never gotten traction in court. Courts look at the intent of the legislators as the Massachusetts SJC did in the decision that brought SSM to Massachusetts: "the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree given New Mexico...Naraht (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The NM Supreme Court in Griego v. Oliver said that reading the statutes as a whole it was clear that NM prohibited SSM, despite the fact that sex wasn't mentioned in the marriage statute. It struck down the state's ban on SSM based on the NM constitution. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bmclaughlin9:Should American Samoa be coloured red as well in that case? It is similar to the Marianas, with no explicit ban, but references to "husband and wife", requirement for the ages of the male and female etc. Equal laws should mean equal colours, I'd say. Kumorifox (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd say so. Same logic. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I changed American Samoa to dark red, as there is no federal court in AS and it is not subject to a CCoA precedent, according to its Wikipedia articles. My cache didn't update, so the territories still looked grey. Ignore this statement. Kumorifox (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace medium red with light red[edit]

I've been busy this semester (and hence largely absent from discussions). The medium red on a couple of the territories is kind of hard to differentiate (at least for me). I was wondering, would anyone be opposed to swapping it with the old light red (once used for statute bans)? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the difference between the two reds we have know is hard to discern. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a thought but are the current colors being used color impaired friendly? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Not really. As a colorblind person myself, it is a little hard to distinguish them, particularly in the way they are currently being used on this map. Changing the medium red over to the light red would be an improvement. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No problems here, the light red won't be used for anything else any longer. I'd say let's go for it. Kumorifox (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Kumorifox (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Stayed ruling in Alabama[edit]

The same judge that legalized same-sex marriage in Alabama has issued a stayed ruling and this time the ruling applies to every same-sex couple in every county within Alabama. Since the state court never ruled against the order that tells the AG not to enforce Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage recognition, I'd say Alabama should be medium blue unless there's a source that other people (i.e. the governor, the DMV, etc.) are denying same-sex couples in Alabama recognition. IMO, the purple color is no longer necessary for Alabama, and Alabama should be striped medium blue/yellow. [23] [24] Prcc27 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The judge is waiting on the SCOTUS ruling, I would make Alabama yellow as there is no more light blue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm... true. The ruling they just made today probably makes the previous ruling they made moot. So I support solid yellow too. Prcc27 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yellow sounds good to me as well. Kumorifox (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Alabama is the wrong color (yellow) as of 5/22. It should be blue instead of yellow. The federal district court in Mobile struck down Alabama's constitutional and statutory bans against same-sex marriage in January and lifted the stay for that decision in February. From February 9 to present same-sex marriage has been legal in Alabama despite the hostile position of state officials and inferior state courts. Federal District Judge Granade's rulings on 5/21 affirmed that probate judges who had received orders from the Alabama Supreme Court after February 9 to uphold the state laws that Granade had struck were not bound by those orders because the Alabama Supreme Court had no authority to overrule the federal judiciary (because of the US Constitution's supremacy clause). Although Judge Granade stayed her ruling on the now-class action lawsuit against all the probate judges, her original ruling still stands and has not changed since February 9. There is no legitimately enforceable law against same-sex marriage in Alabama now, nor has there been since February 9. With the class action lawsuit's decision stayed until the US Supreme Court rules on the Ohio case, the stay just means that Alabama probate judges will not, until SCOTUS rules, be compelled to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, now that the federal judge has clarified that the Alabama Supreme Court's earlier order to the state's probate judges to uphold the defunct laws were invalid, any probate judge in Alabama may lawfully issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Alabama should be changed to dark blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.43.227 (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The original rulings that legalized same-sex marriage in Alabama didn't even apply to all counties/same-sex couples so at best Alabama would go back to purple. It doesn't matter if the federal judge clarified that the State Supreme Court's ruling is defunct; the ruling is stayed which means nothing happens until the stay is lifted when SCOTUS rules. Prcc27 (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect because the original ruling struck down the law across the entire state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.43.227 (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • But it wasn't a class action lawsuit like this one and the probate judges weren't defendants like they were in this one. By the way, could you please sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~) after you're done? Prcc27 (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Even though the lawsuit was not a class action in the February 9 ruling, the court still struck down the state law as unconstitutional. A class action was pursued because of the confusion created by state officials and because the plaintiffs wanted the ruling enforced against the probate judges who were not issuing licenses in compliance with what was already, despite the state supreme court's pretensions otherwise, fact after the federal district judge's ruling went into effect in February: Alabama had no ban on same-sex marriage. Whether Alabama had a valid state law banning same-sex marriage was not in question in the class action suit. Alabama did not and had not since February 9. 24.163.43.227 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • What was being questioned in the class action lawsuit was whether or not the probate judges could enforce Alabama's same-sex marriage ban or not. ("Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a Plaintiff Class consisting of all persons in Alabama who wish to obtain a marriage license in order to marry a person of the same sex and to have that marriage recognized under Alabama law, and who are unable to do so because of the enforcement of Alabama’s laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and barring recognition of their marriages is GRANTED.") Are you still suggesting Alabama be colored dark blue..? Since the original rulings didn't require all counties to issue same-sex marriages- at the very least Alabama would be in the same boat as KS/MO (purple). Prcc27 (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Judge Granade said the ban was unconstitutional in her original ruling, but stopped short of compelling all probate judges from complying, saying only that more litigation would result from refusal to comply. We debated over the correct colour for AL at that stage, and in the end, the compromising "complicated" colour was used because of the confusion and the opposition from SCoAL and Roy Moore in particular. The SCoAL ruling may as well be shredded now after judge Granade's new ruling, but nevertheless, her ruling was stayed until SCOTUS rules in Obergefell. Unless evidence surfaces that there are issuing probate judges in AL, I'd say keep AL as yellow for now. Kumorifox (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

      • I do think that the state should be colored dark blue. Because the original ruling struck down the law as of February 9, same-sex marriage is legal in Alabama. Any probate judge in Alabama could legally marry a gay couple today, even though the stayed May ruling means that they are not currently going to be forced to do so. Whether any probate judges actually do marry same-sex couples is a different question from whether they may legally do so. Until new same-sex marriage licenses are issued in Alabama, I could understand coloring the state purple, but I think yellow is inappropriate because the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage is in effect and was not stayed after February 9. 24.163.43.227 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Which is exactly why we used the purple colour. On paper, SSM is legal in Alabama, even after the February ruling. But in practice, pretty much the entire state refuses to honour that ruling, with a few notable probate judges who are protesting the SCoAL ruling. If somebody were looking at the map and AL is dark blue, they will likely assume that you can go to AL and expect to receive a marriage license, but that isn't actually happening as a same-sex couple will be refused. Hence a different colour. Also, the courts in AL are taking the letter of the law to the extreme, saying only the plaintiffs are entitled to relief (which is BS, but no going around it for now), so the class action suit is the only one guaranteeing full state-wide equality, and that suit was stayed by judge Granade. Thus, yellow for the whole state is quite a correct colouring in my eyes.
          Like you said, on paper, the state should be dark blue. But in practice, yellow or purple is the best we're getting right now. Kumorifox (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
          • That is a really good point. Even if recognition of the fact that practice and the letter of the law are two very different things right now in Alabama means that blue is not the appropriate color, though, why should the state not be purple? Yellow is used for states where same-sex marriage isn't legal and so using yellow for Alabama reflects not the reality of the law (that same-sex marriage is legal in Alabama) but the charade that has been perpetuated by Roy Moore and SCoAL usurping the authority of the federal judiciary. Alabama's situation isn't the same as the other yellow states; the federal district courts in Texas and Mississippi actually stayed their decisions striking down those states' laws pending appeal to the 5th Circuit. If the page needs to reflect the reality of the law's enforcement and not just the letter of the law, Alabama should be purple or, if its situation is unique, should have its own color with the label "Same-sex marriage legal but legality not enforced" or something like that. Thanks. 24.163.43.227 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It depends on whether the current ruling supersedes the old one, I'd say. Does anyone have any information on this? If it does, then yellow would be appropriate; if not, purple would be the right colour like you said, or purple/yellow striping in a pinch. Kumorifox (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Then purple is the best colour for AL instead of yellow. It is similar to MO in that case, with one stayed ruling and one in effect. Kumorifox (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Can you change it? 24.163.43.227 (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

More consensus is needed than just mine, but if no rational and convincing protests are made, I'll gladly change it. Kumorifox (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kumorifox 24.163.43.227 (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done No remarks or protests in 2 days, colour reverted to purple. Kumorifox (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm way late to the party here, but I really think yellow was right to begin with. I think the class action ruling extended the original, but she stayed it. Thing is, she can't stay the original because the order was already issued. Swifty819 (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit like MO, with one ruling limited but in effect, and another wider in scope but stayed. Using MO as precedent, purple is the colour to use, IMHO. Kumorifox (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)