Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newsboy85 (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 26 June 2013 (→Map Colouring Proposal № Duè (Amended): instructions to dismiss = solid blue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies File‑class
WikiProject iconThis file is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
FileThis file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Guide to editing this map

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

Step 1: Get an Editor

Any XML editor will work. I use EditiX-Free-XML Editor2009. I think opening the file with notepad works too

Step 2: Determine what you need to change

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 stripe combinations is somewhat confusing.

Step 3: Editing the map

Near the top of the file there is a list of g id tags Here is the list of g ids that have been programmed int

  • "Solid-marriage"
  • "Solid-similar"
  • "Solid-enum"
  • "Striped-enum-foreign"
  • "Solid-foreign"
  • "Solid-statuteban"
  • "Solid-constitutionban"
  • "Solid-constitutionbanmore"
  • "Solid-nolaw"
  • "Striped-enum-statute"
  • "Striped-enum-constitution"
  • "Striped-enum-constitutionbanmore"
  • "Striped-similar-constitution"
  • "Striped-similar-statute"
  • "Striped-similar-foreign"

Copy the g id you want, don't copy the quotation marks

For changing the color(s) of a state, scroll down to the part of the file filled with use ids. Find the id that equals the state of interest Here is an example

  • <use id="IN" xlink:href="#Solid-statuteban" clip-path="url(#clipPathIN)" transform="translate(731.59, -17.6287)"/>

Look at the xlink:href="#Solid-statuteban"
Delete everything between the # and the "
it will look like this
xlink:href="#"

paste in the g id you copied, save the file, open it with a web browser (e.g. Firefox, Safari, IE, etc.) and double check that everything looks like it is supposed to, and then upload

Actual Discussion

Why no "1" for Delaware and Rhode Island?

Same-sex marriage is not in effect there either. 72.92.235.239 (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those states are too small to overlay the 1. Honestly, I don't really think the number overlays are necessary at all. I'd like to see them removed from Minnesota and California. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The numbers are unnecessary given that they are in the legend, and the fact that two of the three states that should be marked with a "1" are not undercuts the thought behind doing so. Also, the three states could be mentioned in the note, i.e., "Includes recent laws or court decisions not yet in effect (RI Jul 1; DE & MN Aug 1)". Also note that unnecessary verbiage has been cut in my version. -Rrius (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a much better solution. It even has the benefit of giving the exact dates the laws take full effect. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same exact thing, I see no reason there should be a big fat 1 on Minnesota. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just went in and changed the wording of footnote 1 to remove the "may include" phrase. If every state where a law has been passed but is not yet in effect is going to have a 1 on it, then "may include" or "includes" is redundant. That said, I thought the consensus was that no state was going to have a number on it, and that the footnote would speak for itself. So I'd be just as happy if someone removed all the "1"s from the map and restored the footnote to the way it was before I changed it. I'm cool either way, as long as the footnote language agrees with the visual representation of the map. Tinmanic (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how we're going to do it, then we need to show the current laws. Only the English description says something about "laws passed" or "laws not in effect", rather the current state of laws. That is not acceptable for non-English users. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Magog - I saw that you removed all the recognition of states that have passed marriage laws that are not yet in effect. I think that goes against the consensus, which seems to be that no footnotes will be used on the map and that there will be a note below the map stating that the map may include states with laws that have not yet gone into effect (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#No_action_has_been_taken_to_implement_the_new_consensus). So, I'm going to go ahead and revert the map to how it was yesterday. Others are free to translate footnote 1 into non-English languages. Once a consensus is reached I think it's supposed to remain in effect until a new consensus is reached instead of being unilaterally changed. I mean no offense. Tinmanic (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - on further investigation it looks like I might have the consensus backwards. Feel free to do whatever, but the footnote needs to match the map. When you changed the map you didn't change the text of footnote 1 to match. Tinmanic (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current situation is farcical. It is bizarre to put a big, fat "2" over California. The footnote is to legend, not the map. Also, it is bizarre that California is the second footnote when (1) some languages don't have a first footnote, and (2) the current version of the first footnote is such that it will need to be hidden when there are no states with laws between passage and effective date. Having a "2" without a "1" makes no sense at all. Since both footnotes are to the first legend entry, it would make just as much sense to reverse the numbering. It would actually make a lot more sense to use symbols instead since listing a "1" implies there should be a "2", but as noted above that isn't always the case with the legend. -Rrius (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the numeral footnotes (1,2) with symbol footnotes (Asterisk and Obelisk). I have also reversed the order of the footnotes, so that the note about California comes first. ― Info por favor (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop editing this map without discussing your edits. There is no consensus for changing from numbers to symbols. Also, you changed CA to a dark blue stripe instead of a medium blue stripe. On this map, dark blue means a state performs SSMs. CA has a weird situation about SSM and is loosely in the category of recognizes but does not perform. Long ago, CA had a black stripe, but then the consensus was established that CA would be medium blue medium red with a 2 footnote. I have reverted your edit. Please do not revert back to it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, hadn’t seen this response until today. (WP:MASTODONS) (WP:BRD) ―Info por favor (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible upcoming changes (take 3)

Other than California, which should be figured out within the next month

  • Illinois: Waiting on Illinois House [1] Unfortunately, the session ended without the vote
Let's try to keep personal opinions out of the discussion. This map is solely about what is, not what we wish things were. The Illinois legislature voting or not voting is neither "fortunate" nor "unfortunate". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I do not consider it an opinion, I consider denial of civil rights to be an objective wrong. Anyways, discussion over. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, so much for trying to keep our personal opinions out of the discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rreagan, when discussing things it is best to keep WP:NPOV in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a big overreaction to the use of the one word "unfortunately", and it's causing far more trouble than the original comment ever would have. Sometimes people's opinions are evident in what they say on the talk page, and unless it's disruptive I think it's better to just overlook it. - htonl (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Jersey: Some Dems want to put it on the ballot, not sure if enough legislators want to do it though [2]

Still valid from "take 2"

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three states which currently have Democratic control of both houses of the Legislature and the Governorship: Illinois, Hawaii, and West Virginia. However given that West Virginia is well into the bottom half of support for marriage equality, I'm not expecting anything. However Given that Hawaii is in the top 5 in terms of support, I do wonder what's going on.Naraht (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean three pink states. There are plenty of states with Democratic trifectae that either have SSM or have an amendment blocking it. I figure after Illinois and the California SCOTUS case (and Hawaii), there aren't going to be anymore legislative changes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I dropped that clause. I actually meant three pink/gray/light blue since I'd include New Jersey and/or New Mexico if they had Dem Governors. I think things are flexible enough in West Virginia that there may be no Amendment, so West Virginia may actually be a legislative vote somewhere in the 2018-2022 range. Depends on whether it goes Republican at the State Level.

Illinois is out. California's SCOTUS decision will be made soon, since it has to made before the session ends. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second half of 2013

Which every way you feel about the issue, I think that it is *very* unlikely for the Second half of 2013 to be as "active" in changing this file as either the last half of 2012 or the first half of 2013 (And this is true even in the very unlikely circumstance that the US Supreme Court Decision on Prop 8 makes this file irrelevant).Naraht (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That presumably has something to do with the timetables of state legislative sessions, and the fact that there won't be any major votes in November since this is an odd-numbered year? One way in which I could actually see there being activity is if the Supreme Court adopts the "nine-state solution" (actually seven states now) - then there might well be continuing litigation to determing exactly which states are included. - htonl (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably discuss the Supreme Court a little. If the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage in California, we obviously just make that state blue. The same would be true if it legalized it in the 7 states that have civil unions. However, if the Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, I don't think we should turn the whole map blue, as an all blue map isn't really very helpful to anyone. In that case, I think we should just freeze the map in its present state at the time of the ruling and archive the map for historical purposes as being the legal status of same-sex marriage in the states prior to the Supreme Court legalizing it nationwide. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is more likely in terms of a useful map, IMO, after a Supreme Court legalize nation-wide would be a chronological map with the years of legalization being different colors.Naraht (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The DOMA case had nothing to do with the checkerboard-ness as it does not touch Section 2 of the law, so if the Plaintiffs get the favorable ruling, that just means the Federal government cannot discriminate same-sex from opposite-sex but state governments can. For the Prop 8 case, the legal pundits in their fallible but great wisdom have said that they do not see a 50-state ruling to come out of the court, so an all blue state probably would not result (but then again we are not 100% certain of that). Knowing how delayed the court was on taking the cases, I would expect they will hold on to this case for as long as they legally are before they finalize the ruling. Thegreyanomaly (talk)
I know DOMA won't affect the checkerboardness. Prop 8 was the one I was refering to. Naraht (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa: California, peeps !

aka ‘Dude, where’s my clear, precedent‐setting opinion?’

Background

I’d like to reach a firm consensus about how to colour the map, should the high‐court find the plaintiffs (those arguing for enforcement of Proposition 8) lacked standing to contest the US District Court ruling to US Appellate Court (Ninth Circuit). ―Info por favor (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible SCOTUS Rulings
  • 1. Supreme Court finds a right, under US constitution, of access to marriage, regardless of gender. Very unlikely outcome.
I agree with Rreagan007 above: map should be frozen with current colouring for historical‐reference‐use in articles. Again, very unlikely outcome. ―Info por favor


  • 2. Supreme Court finds California voters, revoking neutral access to marriage after it had been granted, in violation of US constitution.
Undoubtedly California should be coloured blue as soon as such a ruling were announced. ―Info por favor


Ninth Circuit ruling, affecting the entire State of California, stands. California should be coloured blue as soon as such a decision were announced. ―Info por favor


  • 4. Supreme Court finds plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal Perry v. Brown, thus vacating Ninth Circuit ruling, meaning only Judge Walker’s District Court ruling is valid caselaw.
Total. Legal. Mayhem. Ensues.
Check this newspaper article, and other RS‐print‐articles like it. Opponents of neutral marriage can litigate on the idea that the District Court ruling applies only to the named California counties (Los Angeles and Alameda) or only to the named Perry v. Brown plaintiffs (two specific couples seeking marriage licenses) the statewide‐question could remain in legal limbo for months! ―Info por favor (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. Also there is the Nine (now Seven) State solution, which says if you give everything-but-marriage you must keep and retain SSM. This ruling appears unlikely, but we still should be prepared. This would affect OR, NV, and CO striping, because their anti-SSM amendments all pre-date their E-b-m laws, and could lead to more court cases. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a can‐of‐worms I didn’t want to open with this particular proposal, as apparently(!) with a seven state decision, there could be legal‐wrangling, from neutral‐marriage‐opponents in some of the seven states, trying to litigate their states out of SCOTUS’ seven state decision; oy vey. There is also that other highly‐unlikely outcome where SCOTUS declares marriages between couples of the same gender unconstitutional in all 50 states, or am I reading the case wrong ? ―Info por favor (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is both out of scope of the case and would never get the vote of any except *possibly* (< 2%) from Scalia or Alito.Naraht (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so I was on‐to‐something thinking it might be out of the scope of this case, as SCOTUS has taken‐it‐up, yay! …but wouldn’t Thomas sign‐on to an opinion like‐that in a heartbeat (> 45%)? [I’m just asking this in fun.] (Or write it himself(!)? He might even hold a press conference to talk about it… –) ) ―Info por favor (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just can't see Thomas pushing at the edge of scope, and unlikely to sign on. And press conference? Heck, no.Naraht (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more (both of which lead to no map change) (according to SCOTUSblog http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=161985)

  • 6. The Supreme court finds that Proposition 8 should stand. Naraht (talk)
  • 7. The Supreme court vacates the appeals decision and sends it back to be reconsidered based on what the Supreme Court decides on the DOMA case.Naraht (talk)

Also, with the same effect as #3, the Supreme Court could split in so many directions that there functionally *is* no result, Ninth Circuit stands since there is no decision in any direction.Naraht (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Slightly tangential) Also, if the result is more court battling, the California legislature or LGBT groups in California could just put an SSM amendment on the ballot for 2014. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(NPOV hat)Which would be completely irrelevant for this map unless it then passes on election day.Naraht (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map Colouring Proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Should the US Supreme Court, find plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry lacked standing to appeal Perry v. Brown, The State of California, on this map, should remain striped in constitutional‐ban red and civil‐union blue until all legal challenges to statewide neutral marriage have been decided or have failed to materialise, and any edits rendering California unstriped should be speedily reverted. ―Info por favor

  • Support: Statewide‐question in California could remain in limbo for months should SCOTUS take such a finding. ―Info por favor (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this proposal as it's basically saying that we wait until we know what the hell is going on before we change the map. BUT I doubt we'll have to wait very long. Once the ruling comes out, I have no doubt it will be widely covered in reliable sources as to what exactly the ruling means within a matter of hours. Once there is a pretty good consensus among reliable sources as to what the ruling means, then we can change the map accordingly. Any changes based on the Supreme Court ruling should probably be discussed here first before someone goes to change the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in part. If there is a decision that the plaintiffs never had standing, we can't say for sure that SSM will become legal statewide, and the map should not immediately make that claim. I'm not so keen on laying down strict rules that may not work so well in circumstances we can't foresee, and I don't know that "wait until all legal challenges are over" will necessarily be the appropriate rule to follow. I'd wait for a consensus to develop as the situation unfolds. - htonl (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I wrote that part stupidly. I will amend my proposal to read Should the US Supreme Court…until consensus has been reached among Wikipedians about how to represent such a finding on this map, and any edits rendering California unstriped should be speedily reverted. ―Info por favor (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There is one wrinkle people are not thinking about. If option 4 goes down, just because there may be more litigation there might not be a stay, there probably will be, but it is not a given. (i.e., SSM could resume anyways). That said, I think the SCOTUS is afraid of option 4 because then it sets the precedent that any Governor and Attorney General could refuse to defend any embattled law they do not like and then effectively kill it in court by not appealing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is no stay, there may be a period where some jurisdictions solemnize marriages and others refuse to, further supporting my suggestion of using a different color to flag up the mess. -Rrius (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite The problem with leaving the stripes is that it makes an assertion about the situation just as strong as changing would. I think we should make California striped with civil unions and a new color with the legend "Status of same-sex marriage unclear" (or something to that effect) and a new footnote saying, "It is unclear whether same-sex marriage is valid statewide following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry." I would also caution against Rreagan007's advice that we may have reliable sources within hours of the decision. It may take weeks for the decision to filter back down to the District Court, at which time the opponents may move for clarification of the judgment to determine whether it applies statewide. If the Supreme Court decides it doesn't have jurisdiction (and the 9th Cir didn't either), then it can't rule on the decision to apply the decision statewide. It could say something like "Because we do not have jurisdiction, we do not reach the question of statewide application, but we have grave doubts about the District Court's determination." Even then, it would be up to Walker. Therefore we have to prepare ourselves for the possibility we won't know for weeks, or even months, what the situation really is, making an upfront use of color coding even move important. -Rrius (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Here is a thought: as soon as SCOTUS releases a result, visitors to articles using this map are going to expect California to be coloured differently to Nevada and Oregon, (edit 16:30, 16 June 2013, and I meant to add: There will be endless reverting of people wanting to see California a “new” colour.) unless the court has upheld prop. 8, so I like the idea of a new colour for any outcomes where SCOTUS does not rule‐on‐merits. ―Info por favor (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map Colouring Proposal № Duè (Amended)

Should the US Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, find the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal Perry v. Brown, The State of California, on this map, should remain striped in constitutional‐ban red and some other colour until consensus be reached among Wikipedians as to how to represent such a supreme court finding on this map, and any edits which render California unstriped, prior to the finding of such a consensus, should be speedily reverted. ―Info por favor (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this one per my reasoning in the previous section. - htonl (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this proposal, because its scope is limited to only one of the many many possible findings of the court, and it leaves open to further discussion what colour to stripe California in the event of this‐one very specific finding being taken, and furthermore, leaves open, in the period after such event, the discussion of whether to maintain California striped, and if so, in what colours. There are several findings the court could take whereupon California or other states would be marked a solid‐colour immediately, but this proposal would have no effect on the map in the event that these such findings be delivered. ―Info por favor 16:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Well, the Walker ruling theoretically could effect anywhere from just Alameda County and Los Angeles County to the whole ninth circuit, so don't have a solid direction to plan for. In that ruling, some Governors and AGs could order whole states to go SSM pending the cases and others could say to hold still. I don't think we can plan what to do until we know what actually happens. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, IMHO the present image should remain as is, until there is a definite ruling from SCOTUS, there is no need to go and messing with it when there is a pending ruling that may come out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This proposal is about what to do if the Supreme Court comes out with a particular type of ruling. It doesn't propose any changes be made until the ruling comes out. - htonl (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion, how about a new solid color that means "in legal limbo"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree to new sold color Retaining the constitutional ban stripe asserts there is a ban, which is the very thing we don't know. There is no evidence that domestic partnerships have ever disappeared in California, so that is the stripe that should remain, if any. -Rrius (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid Blue - There is no stay (or at least to my knowledge). Reliable sources have said that SSM can resume in CA [5] [6]. If there are future lawsuits, that is one thing, but paraphrasing Jeffrey Toobin the political machinery of California will most likely have SSM resume and let any possible lawsuits come. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid Blue All of the reliable sources I have looked at are saying that same-sex marriages can resume in California. This appears to be the end of the line in California and there is no reason to belabor this. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid blue. As I understand it, the appeals court has been given instructions to dismiss the case for lack of standing, which means Judge Walker's ruling stands. Newsboy85 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg&oldid=561683346"