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 Athelwulf (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 25 June 2014 (→‎Tenth Circuit decision!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconLGBT studies File‑class
WikiProject iconThis file is of interest to WikiProject LGBT 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.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT 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. Opening the file with Notepad or WordPad works as well.

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 4: Check and submit the new version

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.

Wisconsin next up?

The Wisconsin AG has filed a pre-emptive stay request with the US District Court, which likely means he's expecting a ruling sooner rather than later. Mw843 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, more (potential) triple striping. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The supreme court of Wisconsin refused to hear a ssm case. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Condensed Footnote Proposal

I would like to proposal that we condense the 3rd footnote. My proposal is to replace the 3rd footnote with "some stayed states' situations may vary." That way it covers states that have partial bans struck down, states that performed same-sex marriage before a ruling was stayed, and states that recognize "grandfathered" same-sex marriages. Not only would it reduce the 3rd footnote, it would also redirect the readers to a link to go to for further information. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the change; I preferred explicitly pointing out that two states had only partial rulings against their bans. The current set up makes it seem like Ohio is in the same situation as Texas. I'd favor either bringing back the old footnote or finding a new color for the recognition rulings, and restoring the footnote would be simpler. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dralwik: That's a good point; without the new footnote there is absolutely no way to distinguish between Utah and Texas though. (However, thegreyanomaly would argue that UT, AR, & MI previously performing same-sex marriage isn't significant and Utah recognizing those marriages isn't either. They also argued against having a separate color because "The lawsuits are all stayed, it makes no difference to a same-sex couple in KY/OH versus the others; they are barred from SSM either way.") So currently they might be in the same situation, but eventually they wouldn't be. I also agree that it is important to note the difference between the possible future outcomes of KY/OH vs the rest. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1: "Some states also allow other same-sex unions" - why is this necessary?

Why is it necessary that footnote 1 include the sentence "Some states also allow other same-sex unions"? That's already covered by the light blue and teal categories that apply to Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin. I deleted the sentence from the footnote but then @Prcc27: reverted it and told me that "we already agreed to include it." I don't see where that was agreed upon. Can someone explain why the sentence is necessary? If not, I propose deleting it as redundant. Tinmanic (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence was formerly in Footnote 2. Including the sentence avoids the situation of having dark blue/medium blue striping in about nine states, when the key point is that they allow same-sex marriage. Mw843 (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I get it now - it's referring to marriage-equality states that also allow types of unions. I'd like to make that more clear, i.e. "Some states in this category also allow other same-sex unions." Tinmanic (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support that clarification. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. --Prcc27 (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Light Gray

Okay, this is the wording for light gray: "No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions in territory law." Is "In territory law" really necessary..? I think it should be removed.. --Prcc27 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, a viewer may overlook the territories shown on the map. The light grey color is only seen on the territories. It cues the viewer to look down at the territories now that NM and RI are no longer in that category. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe

(Edit): It seems as though the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians has a marriage law directly tied to Michigan's law. [1]

Should they be referenced in footnote #3? "Same-sex marriage is on hold in One Native American tribal jurisdiction"
I also put them under a new section on the Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions page: "Nation with recognition on hold", Is that accurate?
I kind of wish we would have caught it when ssm was briefly legal in Michigan.
Also, I might make a Same-sex marriage map for Native American Tribal Jurisdictions but I would need help from others in order for it to be good enough quality. --Prcc27 (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's good to be prepared to add it if ssm resumes in Michigan. Prcc27 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gold

I know this has been brought up before, but I really think changing the stripes to solid gold would be more reader-friendly. The reason we have pink vs red vs brown is that a constitution is more difficult to amend than a statute. But once it's overturned by a court, the distinction is moot. Sure, if the ban is reinstated we'll want to know which color to use, but at that point it's unlikely to change and so still moot. If it comes to that and people really think it's necessary, I suppose IN, WV, and WY could be striped gold-pink, but meanwhile solid gold for overturned constitutional bans is more legible. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY OPPOSE The differences are important. We literally just had this suggestion within the last couple weeks. There is not enough support for this idea. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit): How will they know what kind of ban is being challenged? I'm weakly opposed, but I do think it would be nice to make the map less complicated. Prcc27 (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter what kind of ban is being challenged? But like I said, we could have stripes for a statutory challenge. Or maybe light gold. We could decide that when the issue comes up. Meanwhile, gold would mean a constitutional ban has been struck down & stayed. — kwami (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Light gold? That could work.. Prcc27 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the idea of stayed const-bans be solid and statute-bans striped. I might be open to multiple shades of gold, but I don't know if getting consensus for that is possible. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be on board with multiple shades of gold. Maybe a brighter yellow for statute overturn and the current old gold for constitutional bans being stayed? Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the example of what I'm thinking, using a theoretical 10th Circuit decision being stayed to affect Wyoming. Notice how the number of striped states goes from 14 to 3, and we would avoid triple striping Colorado. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Looks much better. Though if I might make a suggestion, it's not intuitively obvious that the yellow refers to the same kind of thing as the gold. A lighter or brighter shade of the gold might make things clearer. But if people like the yellow, that's okay by me. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can darken the statute stay color; I merely grabbed the default yellow to make the map quickly. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just have one question, what would we do with the medium red states? I'm assuming they would be gold as well..? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shades of gold? Huh, I guess... makes the legend longer, but map simpler. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There'd be one more line in the legend with my proposal, two if we distinguish both levels of constitutional ban being stayed, but we'd eliminate all but the civil union striping. It's a worthwhile trade in my estimation. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support having different shades of yellow. Unless someone has a good reason why we shouldn't do it... --Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New map proposal

(edit conflict) For those who missed the example link, and in case it gets deleted in the future, the map shows:

  Constitutional ban and equivalents + stay
  Law against SSM + stay

Might I recommend the following for constitutional ban + stay? Seems different enough.

  

EvergreenFir (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support @EvergreenFir:'s proposal. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(It looks like it might have actually been @Dralwik:'s proposal.) --Prcc27 (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Evergreen's map. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I'm confused, I thought darkest gold (█) was for dark red (█) + stay and medium gold (█) was for medium red (█) + stay. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my idea is dark gold for the constitutional bans (dark and medium red) and light gold is for statute ban (pink). I see what you mean; give me a minute to work up the new map. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that, but Thegreyanomaly is concerned about loss of information. Also, I'd choose dark gold (█) over medium gold (█) if I had to choose. More contrast. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably keep the three levels of bans distinct in stay colors as well. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the proposed map using Tennessee as the mid-level guinea pig. Keep in mind the two lighter golds would not appear on the current map yet. I support this (three-color stay) scheme due to being an improvement over the current mass of striping. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making that! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support this map setup. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new map is in. Dralwik|Have a Chat 05:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. — kwami (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added legend info in hidden text since the colors are not currently used. Edit here. Will need to translate legend info for dark gold (█) soon. I'll take care of Japanese and French tomorrow. Tagging Dralwik. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. So if and when Wisconsin goes, and is stayed, it would be dark gold and light blue striping, while Colorado would be medium gold and medium blue? Also, would it make sense to interleave the red and gold descriptions, so the dark gold is moved to after the dark red, and when medium gold happens, it goes between medium and dark red? It would better show the relationship between the corresponding reds and golds. Mw843 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the civil union states would keep their striping, the only current striping scenario in effect. As for rearranging the legend, that might be clearer to emphasize (eventually) three stay levels for three ban levels, although I'm fine with leaving the rearranging of the legend until we cross the bridge of having the other stay colors in effect. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all might have waited at least a day or two to let people comment before making such a big change, instead of ten hours, especially on a long holiday weekend. How does ten hours allow anything remotely close to a consensus to form? I log in this morning and suddenly the stripes are gone. I actually liked the stripes and I find the proposal confusing with so many different shades of yellow. Not happy about how this was done. I'm not even sure how many yellow categories are being added. Is it just two? And why is Wyoming bright yellow in one of the maps in the file history? Tests should not be made to the main map. Tinmanic (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After ten hours, a unanimous support is a good example of WP:SNOW so I was bold. I apologize if you felt slighted, but consensus was clear when the new map went in. Also yellow Wyoming wasn't a test but uploading the wrong map. Firefox doesn't show the preview on Commons. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about me feeling personally slighted, it's about whether 10 hours is enough time for a consensus to form. Respectfully, I don't think it is. Everyone isn't necessarily checking this Talk page all the time, especially not every 10 hours. At any rate, what's done is done. Tinmanic (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the "waited at least a day or two" part. I would've opposed adding two new colors for future changes (medium gold █ and yellow █ in addition to the dark gold █ already used in stripes). The map will become too distracting—it already may be—as this map is about same-sex marriage, not civil unions, or constitutional bans on civil unions and other relationships. I would simplify it further and use only one color of red and get rid of the light blues. At least we've become accustomed to the "striping." Now we've got to get used to striping and all these additional colors? MarkGT (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on removing civil unions, but just last month that conversation was voted down. It looks like this map is as simple as standing consensus will permit: either have the stay striping with the three ban colors and thus a very noisy map, or the three solid stay colors. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imo this is a great idea its easier for a reader to read and see. I might say I prefer there should be a different type of shade of gold for rulings that have been completely overturned to the ones that have been just partially overturned for recognized only.I might add that Oregon ruling might be stay if the supreme court gives the stay NOM is asking them.I hope they fail and the stay is not granted as it was given to Utah.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new map revisited

I have a question... Do the judicial rulings also apply to same-sex unions? "Judicial ruling against a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and similar unions stayed pending appeal" implies that the ban on similar unions is being challenged and stayed pending appeal too. If similar same-sex unions aren't being challenged then I suggest the wording be fixed. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rolled the legend back because those concerns seem like they're an explanation searching for an ambiguity. If you browse the state laws (here is our summary of each), you'll see the marriage and other union bans are the same sections of the statutes/constitutions, and I don't see how a ruling against a marriage ban could not apply to other unions as well, since both involve the deprivation of state recognition of relationships for the same rationales. Our goal is to provide a quick summary map to our readers, not to try and give a seminar on potential legal loopholes. (Your first edit to "similar unions" was a better wording though.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: Because in Ohio and Kentucky, the rulings only partially strike down the ban. It doesn't affect the ban on performing same-sex marriage and I haven't heard anything about it affecting similar unions. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm thinking we changed the wrong scheme on the map; instead of three solid stay colors I'm thinking we should have kept the stripes and used the yellow to reflect the distinct situations in Ohio and Kentucky. Maybe we ought to discuss that reversion to the stripes. If a situation requires three lines of text to be explained, we're doing the map wrong. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we might have to go back to striping. Would Ohio and Kentucky be striped too, just with a different color? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like them to be; I'm thinking go back to striping, and use a brighter yellow for the Ohio/Kentucky stay striping to reflect the partial overturn. That way, we also remove a footnote which is always nice. If I get further input, I could set up an RFC with the new "original striping + yellow OH/KY stripe" situation. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we go back to how the striping was originally right now and then try to get consensus for a different color for OH/KY or do we have to do two seperate RFCs for both possibilities? --Prcc27 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking try and get the reversion and the new color in one RFC and giving the board a couple days to weigh in; after the itchy trigger on the solid stay colors I want to be cautious about protocol.
Do others think this would be attainable? Better ideas? Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I don't think the original wording has the problem you're seeing. Of course sources aren't mentioning civil union bans; if the marriage ban is struck down who is going to want a civil union instead? To me, the ambiguity over civil unions is a point for removing civil unions from the map and limiting the colors to how the state laws impact marriage, not turning the legend into a semantic pretzel. I still think it might be wise to find a distinct color for KY/OH. Maybe a pale cream color? Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"when wording in dispute, the page goes to the original while it is being hammered out" Does that apply to the map too?

Yes, which would be the map in effect when this conversation started. Dralwik|Have a Chat 03:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only support removing civil unions if there is a civil union map made. I don't think the county map should be the de facto civil union map like you suggested though. And if there is a civil union map, what do we do with states that have both civil unions and same-sex marriages?
(Edit) Wait, hold up. So there are 3 stay colors currently right? If we do recognition wouldn't we have to have 3 different versions for them as well (to distinguish between the different bans). 6 stay colors, 1 marriage color, 2 CU/DP colors, 1 recognition color, 1 no law for or against color, 1 statute ban on ssm, 1 constitutional ban on ssm color, and 1 constitutional ban on ssm and cu/dp color. That's 14 colors.--Prcc27 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support going back to striping or fixing the wording. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced your issue of the civil union bans not being struck down with the marriage laws actually exists. Dralwik|Have a Chat 03:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: It does exist. For KY/OH it does exist. Since Ohio and Kentucky aren't different colors yet, I think we should change the wording for now because it's inaccurate. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source? If it's just KY/OH then noting the civil union bans are still intact would be more befitting the footnote, until/unless we get a KY/OH striping to consensus. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, footnote then. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's the wording look? Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe replace 'or' with 'and'. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: I still don't like how the key and the footnote contradict each other though. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: The footnote is no more. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: I know this is probably an annoying question but doesn't that mean the U.S. same-sex marriage map has to be updated as well..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you created two separate maps for marriage only and civil unions only, despite that very idea being shot down on this page? Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: I don't remember that idea being shot down. The idea that was shot down was removing content from this page. In fact, @Rreagan007: said that I was free to make all the maps I want, so I did. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I made this clear on your talk... --Prcc27 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please properly indent your replies to people -- it makes it easier to follow discussions. Thanks. Tinmanic (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the indentations to be one smooth thread. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New striping on Ohio and Kentucky?

So with the stay colors in place, Ohio and Kentucky still appear the same as Texas, despite the different reach of their individual rulings (merely recognizing out of state marriages against the state ban struck down). So I was thinking, why not stripe the out of state recognition stay color, akin to how we stripe out of state recognition? Making a state recognize out of state marriage has no effect on the state's performance of marriage, so we could still stripe the ban color. Full marriage is a solid color; full marriage ban stay is a solid color. Out of state recognition is striped, out of state stay is striped as well. We would also eliminate footnote 3.

How is this for a OH/KY color map? Here is the adjusted map. 14:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I prefer that both of them are stripe so people can know that it was a partial struck down and not a complete one.The only think I don't like is that white/yellowish color But that is something trivial--Allan120102 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would still prefer going back to the prior striping of all the stayed states, but then use a different shade of yellow for OH & KY. I'm not sure of the logical reason for using stripes for one type of stay (OH & KY) but solid color for another type of stay (the other states). But if we go with this test map, you might want to tweak the stripe alignment with OH & KY, and maybe a different color than white. Tinmanic (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The stripes versus solid color is reflecting the scope of the rulings; solid stay states have the entire prohibition on same-sex marriage struck down and to parallel the solid marriage color, while the striped stay would reflect the partial overturn of the states' marriage bans while the main prohibition on in-state marriages persist, and parallel how we stripe out of state marriage recognition. Also, a map that would have 12 striped states and growing quickly turns into an eyesore. As for the color, I'm open to suggestion. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I chimed in on this topic. I for one am glad to see that there's less striping on this map than their used to be and I'm quite in favor of avoiding steps that introduce yet more striping to the map; it's just visually jarring and messy. As I have stated in the past, it's all a result of trying to do what is, in my opinion, too many things at once. If I were the King of Wikipedia, I'd strip this map down to a barebones version that answers what I believe to be the question most users have when they see it : Is same-sex marriage legal in a given state or not? Well intentioned efforts to add more layers of information to the map have resulted in an ever-shifting plethora of different shades and striped configurations. Now the map is trying to tell us not only whether SSM is legal in a given state, but to differentiate between types of bans, to shoehorn in the status of marriage-like unions, recognition of foreign marriages, and so on. All good intentions but all resulting in information overload; we're asking one map to try and do what two or three should be doing. However, I am not the King of Wikipedia, and there's no way anyone is going to take my stand on it seriously, so I'll offer up a TL;DR version : Don't go back to more stripes. The map is much more user friendly without them. Shereth 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a good point about this map turning into a transient stew of coding and stripes, and I will admit the KY/OH striping is not as important to me as retaining the simplifying solid stay colors. Whereas the solid stay colors was to make the map easier to read at a glance, this newest proposal is a means to visualize the current footnote. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support striping for KY/OH because I don't like the contradiction between the key and the footnote. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the civil unions... I'd have to see a proposed civil union map before I'd support having separate maps.
I think it would be alright to bring the civil union situation up again since there wasn't a proposal for a new other unions map last time. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any changes to Kentucky or Ohio. I think the footnote is sufficient for now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, the footnote contradicts what the key says. Prcc27 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please come up with better wording!? I don't like the contradiction between the key and the footnote... Prcc27 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prcc27 To play devil's advocate, the stay color mentions a ruling against a ban, not necessarily a ruling invalidating the full ban, and the footnote, ugly as it may be, does cover the difference. I still favor a new color and striping for OH and KY, but I don't think we're as imprecise as you fear. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support striping Kentucky and Ohio. The striping would mean that marriages would be recognized meanwhile a change in color will show a complete struck down meaning the ban was completely overtuned.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the striping. It seems to make sense to stripe them, since when the stay is lifted (assuming the ruling doesn't change) the states will be striped again anyways. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support striping, or at least some map based distinction, for Ohio and Kentucky. It's a very different situation comparatively. The distinction is worth more than a footnote. (I'm personally of the opinion that the least important distinction on the map currently is dark and medium red. I think states having civil unions is of reasonable importance, but I don't really care about their banning status at this point.) --Siradia (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current vote tally is 4-1 in favor of striping KY/OH, with two further comments. Tinmanic, Shereth, what are your stances? Here is the map, with the striping aligned and the stay color darkened a bit.

As well, my proposed wording for the map legend is "Judicial ruling for a state to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages only stayed pending appeal." Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support striping and I like the new color. I would change the wording to "Judicial ruling striking down ban on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages stayed pending appeal." Tinmanic (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Since it looks like we have a clear decision, I'll put the new map in around 6 PM Central time (4.5 hours from now). Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new map is in. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! I know it's redundant, as the new map is in, but I support the change, as I've been advocating a new look to KY and OH since the start. I feel this is necessary for viewers to differentiate whether the whole ban, or part of the ban was struck down. aharris206 (aharris206) 05:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New map for other same-sex unions

Instead of "removing civil unions" from the map what if we just had 2 separate maps for same-sex marriage and other same-sex unions at the state level? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having this map be the same-sex marriage only map would get rid of medium blue (Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex domestic partners), light blue (Limited/enumerated privileges granted by state), and would merge the two darkest reds into one (since bans on other same-sex unions would be reflected on the other map). Here is a rough draft proposal of the dsame-sex unions map [3]. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC

@Thegreyanomaly: It definitely wasn't intentional.. It was probably a mobile edit. Prcc27 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Dropping information from three states is not going to make the map any less cluttered. This proposal is pointless. Multiple recent discussions to remove CU/DPs have failed. This proposal is pointless and redundant. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would affect more than three states... it would merge dark red and medium red into one (since the cu distinction would become unnecessary). Prcc27 (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, this was put up for discussion very recently (April 16th), and there was far more opposition than support File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/Archive_11#Making_the_map_less_busy:_Is_it_time_to_remove_civil_unions.3F. This discussion should not exist. Please exhibit some restraint when making proposals. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • They didn't suggest having a map exclusively for civil unions though. Instead, they proposed we use a state/county/local level map with civil unions and marriage. I'm suggesting two separate maps for two separate unions. Prcc27 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit) I would like to add that there is a possibility of having eleven different colored states on the map. My proposal (unlike the other civil union proposal) would get rid of three colors (plus one of the hidden stay colors we added). This would decrease the maximum possibility of colors to seven. Still a lot, but at least it's better than eleven! (we currently have eight different colored states/territories on the map btw). --Prcc27 (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're proposal isn't 100% identical, it is still extremely similar. Everything you have said has been said in some form or another in that discussion that took place just barely over a month ago and it did not sway the opposition. This is too soon to be bringing it up again. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Thegreyanomaly: Some people might support the idea of having two separate maps rather than just removing civil unions altogether and having them represented on a state/county/local same-sex union map that includes marriage. The reason why I didn't support removing civil unions before was because I didn't like the map that @Dralwik: suggested to be the "'other unions' map". --Prcc27 (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can happily support this proposal; it quite neatly goes along with my comments in the above section. I can think of no compelling reason why the information in these maps cannot (or should not) be split into two maps with a more narrow focus. The name of this file is, after all, "Samesex marriage in USA" and not "Samesex unions in USA", description and longstanding consensus notwithstanding (consensus can change). It'd be much nicer to see this map with only 4 colors (Legal/Banned/Judicial action/None), and then a separate map for 'other types of unions' with a similar number of colors. Footnotes can be added for KY and OH in the event they are ultimately forced to recognize, but not offer, SSM. Shereth 13:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the "just marriage" map looks like. I like how simple this map is, and I agree that civil unions are becoming irrelevant to this map as the focus of the current movement is on full marriage and the recent rulings are largely silent on allowing civil unions. However, I'm doubtful we'll find the consensus for this cleaner, but civil union-less, map. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dralwik: Thank you for making that map. It looks much better than our current map! The only thing I'm concerned about is that there's dark blue for same-sex marriage and pink/medium red against same-sex marriage. But that's probably a problem that would have to be solved later on. --Prcc27 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Makes more sense to have a map that has all the information in one place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But does it really? The dividing line between "appropriate amount of information" and "too much information" is admittedly arbitrary, but this map certainly doens't contain all of the information. Pardon the foray into reductio ad absurdum here, but one could argue there is value in adding yet more shades of blue to differentiate between states whose pro-SSM laws are derived from legislative action vs. judicial action vs. popular initiative, or perhaps further shading to indicate what year the SSM laws went into effect, or so on. My point being that there's always a way to stuff more information into a map but it's not always a good thing, and I'd argue that this one already suffers from having too much. Shereth 17:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shereth:, you are completely in the wrong here. This map is "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States." The file name is irrelevant. CU/DPs are types of same-sex partnerships, they belong on the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The map is "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States" because that is what the current prevailing consensus says it is, not because of some innate and immutable quality. Consensus can change and if a discussion leads to a new consensus, then this map can change. There is no harm in bringing it up for discussion, but it's hardly useful to paint my argument as being "wrong" because it is not in agreement with the previous consensus. Shereth 02:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose creating a separate map. There is no need for it. There are only 2 civil union states and 1 "limited privileges" state, and the trend is away from doing civil unions and towards same-sex marriage only. At this point it seems highly unlikely that any more states will be doing anything with civil unions. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rreagan007: Even if same-sex marriage is legalized in all of those states, we'll still have to have 3 shades of red instead of 2 because of civil unions as well as 3 shades of yellow instead of 2. We could potentially have 11 different colored states if we keep civil unions! Prcc27 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should only have 1 shade of yellow no matter what. I actually think we should just go back to the yellow striping. And by your logic, why stop at just 2 shades of red? Why not just have 1 shade of red and have it be for "same-sex marriage or civil unions illegal". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Rreagan007: Here's a quote from @Shereth: "one could argue there is value in adding yet more shades of blue to differentiate between states whose pro-SSM laws are derived from legislative action vs. judicial action vs. popular initiative, or perhaps further shading to indicate what year the SSM laws went into effect, or so on." So you tell me, at what point do we decide how many colors to have in the legend? Why not have more than 1 same-sex marriage color..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • As nobody is actually proposing doing that, I'm not sure what relevance it has. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • But if there are never ever going to be anymore civil unions like you claim, there's no point in the distinction between the two reds. Fine, if we're going to have a detailed map then I'll suggest it. Why have one standard for blue and one for red? Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, well then I would say that if something is legal (like gay marriage) it doesn't really matter very much why it is legal, or how it ultimately became legal after a period of illegality. After all, in our legal system, as it is traditionally understood, everything is legal unless there is some specific law that makes it illegal. Conversely, for something to be illegal there must be a specific law that makes it illegal, and what kind of law makes it illegal (e.g. statute vs constitutional prohibition) is important because one type of law is more difficult to change than the other due to things like supermajority requirements or immunity from judicial review. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • FWIW the process by which a pro-SSM law came into being has every bit as much bearing as the process by which an anti-SSM law came into being, vis a vis the difficulty in changing them : a law legalizing SSM brought into effect by a state legislature can be revoked by the next state legislature, or by popular initiative, or by judicial action, whereas a pro-SSM decision by a judicial review is immune to any overturning except by a court higher up in the appeals process. To claim that the process by which a law came into being is relevant for "negative" laws but not "positive" laws is inconsistent. Not that I intend to push the point further, I'm just being a little pedantic. Shereth 02:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, civil unions are legal in way more than 2 states. Check the proposed civil unions map. Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 matter for purposes of this map. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate CUs map would allow for more information on civil unions though. Prcc27 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make all the maps you want, but the creation of new maps does not mean information must be removed from this map. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, thanks for the idea. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose creating a separate map. I wish people would stop proposing solutions for non-existent problems. Leave the map alone for a while. Tinmanic (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been trying to get others to exhibit restraint with all their proposals (some of which are completely meritless), but those same users just keep making them (and in this case they made one only a month after a very similar proposal failed...) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I am not sure if the proposal above this one about Kentucky and Ohio being stripe won? Are they going to be stripe or we are going to wait more?--Allan120102 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Prcc27: - I've noticed you have been trying to replace this map with your new PNG map that lacks CU/DPs on a variety of pages... By doing this, you are essentially undermining the consensus against your proposal. Please stop! Thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.png

Hello, I suggested the partly redundant map that @Prcc27: has been replacing (or advocating replacing) File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg with be deleted as the user has been doing this to undermine the consensus against removing Civil Union and Domestic Partnership content. Please chime in at c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.png. Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Apparently misusing an image is not grounds to delete it. Ignore this section. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have voiced my opinion to delete it, the map is not being used on Wikipedia anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some stability?

It seems changes to the map are constantly proposed and discussed. I would like to suggest to not make too much changes too often, because

  • It increases confusion to readers if we are changing colors once in a while.
  • Each time all color keys need to be updated. Other Wikipedias use this map as well, and they do not watch all changes, so their key would be (and probably already are) outdated.
  • We now only have three states with stripes anyway. Striping seems to be of most concern often, but we had much more striping in the past.
  • And above all, while I know Wikipedia should be neutral, I think anyone can agree that the Supreme Court will relatively soon rule on same-sex marriage, making this map redundant. So whatever we are still changing, it will be temporary anyway. For the future, it would only increase the difficulty to compare historical file versions. And making another map for civil union seems to me completely redundant since they will be gone in the relatively near future.

I'm not going to bother discussing much, but here are just my thoughts. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well regardless of whether or not we get rid of civil unions, there are going to be changes to the map unfortunately. There are currently 2 stay colors in the legend that are hidden but it's very possible that they will be used in the future. Getting rid of civil unions would remove 1 of those stay colors from the legend. Also, it's not just about striping. Getting rid of civil unions would decrease the maximum possibility of having 11 different colors to 7 different colors (that's less than we have right now!) --Prcc27 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:, you are misinterpreting the message from @SPQRobin:. People (this includes you) have been frequently and pointlessly been proposing to change the colors in the map, changing the meaning of colors, remove information, etc... Changing colors of individual states is inevitable. That is not the problem. Continually making merit-less proposals to add/remove colors all the time is getting tiring. You need to exhibit some restraint with all these proposals. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: I'm not saying we remove information, I'm saying that we could have a separate map for that information. The new stay colors would have an effect on the map in other wikipedia pages too. That was my point. Prcc27 (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please properly indent your comments. Yes you are suggesting removing information - You are suggesting removing information from this map and directing it elsewhere. You are advocating removing information, an idea that was just recently rejected. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planning for a post-Bostic/Kitchen/Bishop world

In the event that any one of these cases comes down in favor of same-sex marriage, it will drag states along in which the particular state's ban on same-sex marriage has not yet been struck down. Furthermore, if the ruling is stayed pending resolution at the Supreme Court, that will leave states like KS, NC, WY, etc. in a position where

  • There is a state constitutional ban (or statute) which has not been directly struck down
  • There is an appellate court ruling which has struck down a similar ban and is thus binding on the state
  • There is a judicial stay in place which allows the state to continue to enforce its ban

Options:

  • Go with Gold for all these states (assuming a stay)
  • Striping to indicate the State ban has not been fully adjudicated, but is challenged by the precedent of the (stayed) appellate ruling (red/gold)
  • A new color altogether
  • ?

Davidmac2003 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There already is, hidden for now, coding for two lighter shades of gold to cover stays on marriage on states that either ban marriage only (like Colorado) or have only statue bans (like Wyoming). If, for example, the Kitchen/Bishop ruling is issued and not stayed, the whole 10th District goes blue, but the likelier immediate stay has the stay colors on the district. Likewise for the 4th (Virginia). Here is the map with both districts stayed. Dralwik|Have a Chat 13:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dralwik - appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think your map distinguishes between, e.g., TX in which a state ban has been adjudicated to completion and is stayed pending appeal at the 5th Circuit, and KS, where a state ban has not been adjudicated but would be subject to a stayed binding precedent. Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference, I admit... Davidmac2003 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There won't need to be a distinction; once the 10th Circuit rules, every state in the circuit will be in the same position. It won't matter what state the case originated in at that point. Tinmanic (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Tinmanic. Another possibility is that if the courts uphold the district rulings, SCOTUS simply doesn't grant cert on the cases and lets the appellate courts sort the issue out while they wait for a court split, meaning the circuits go right to marriage. I'm hoping that is what happens, as it would result in a much simpler map: this. A quicker resolution in those states, and a much less busy map. If the court will grant cert to a pro-SSM ruling, we'll find out quickly since Utah especially seems intent to appeal as far as they can. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it would be political suicide for Gary Herbert and AG Reyes *not* to appeal, I fully agree. And I'm not truly convinced that even a defeat at the US Supreme Court on this issue would truly be the legal end of the issue in Utah. (for example, I could either the entire state or some counties (ie every county except SL County) deliberately keeping the marital form as Husband and Wife rather than Spouse 1 & Spouse 2).Naraht (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, it doesn't necessary go District -> Appellate -> SCOTUS. The anti-SSM defendants can request the appellate court to review the case en banc to stall the situation. That is what happened in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will depend on how narrowly or broadly the decision is crafted; whether the decision applies to the state in question, or the whole circuit. But even in the case of a narrow decision at the Appeals level, people in the rest of the circuit could head to district court with a copy of the ruling, and have a reasonable chance of getting a preliminary injunction. Also, remember that Texas has parallel state and federal cases going on. Mw843 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin

A federal judge has struck down Wisconsin's marriage ban. http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-ban-on-same-sex-couples There is no stay yet, but the ruling does not go into effect yet, either; the judge is giving the plaintiffs until June 16 to propose an injunction. I see a user has already turned Wisconsin blue on the map; I've created new footnote text and commented out the light-blue color on the legend for now. Tinmanic (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, I wonder if this is right. This is an unusual scenario: a state where (1) there is no stay yet, but (2) the decision is not yet in effect, and on top of that (3) the state allows domestic partnerships. Looks like we've already decided what to do if there's a stay (dark gold + light blue striping), but what about now? Am I overthinking this? Tinmanic (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain either. Without an actual stay (yet) I'm hesitant to go to the gold + sky blue striping, and lean towards treating it as analogous to a state where a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has passed but is not in effect yet: i.e. marriage blue with the footnote. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like that analogy. I think you're right. Tinmanic (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like blue is indeed correct for now. Licenses are being issued in at least Milwaukee and Madison. Link Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The District Court has declined to stay its order, and more counties are performing marriages: I suggest that Wisconsin be removed from the footnote. Mw843 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is still in flux, though; Judge Crabb has declined to stay her order, but she also says the order is not yet in effect because she hasn't issued an injunction: http://equalityontrial.com/2014/06/09/quick-wisconsin-updates Tinmanic (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: There could be a stay issued today..! [4] --Prcc27 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cream Color

Is it just me or does the cream color seem too close to the light yellow color? In this test map [5], you can hardly distinguish between West Virginia and Ohio. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest we switch the statue stay color from (█) to (█)? --Prcc27 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about FFEE00 (█)? That way we preserve the triplet coding (fe0). Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Prcc27 (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana next up?

The judge considering whether to stay his preliminary injunction that the state recognize one out-of-state marriage is taking his own sweet time about it (five weeks, and counting), leading to speculation in legal circles that he's readying a state-side ruling. Mw843 (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As well, keep in mind both the Fourth (VA) and especially Tenth (UT/OK) Circuits could issue their rulings any day now, and a circuit court ruling would be circuit-wide (so NC/SC/WV and/or WY/CO/KS). But with the flurry of rulings pending, trying to guess which one will be next likely falls out of the scope of this page. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Would the Indiana ruling only be a partial ruling (like OH, KY) or could the judge strike down the entire ban..? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct is another OH/KY partial ruling, but the judge could toss the ban outright. As well, Colorado will have a hearing in state court on its ban Monday, and the Colorado Supreme Court is expected to uphold a pro-marriage ruling. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Colorado case did not go well for the state ... AP reports that the judge repeatedly mentioned the recent 0 for 15 run of rulings, and "mocked" the state AG's argument about procreation: never a good sign. NOM is holding a rally in Washington on Thursday ... any betting that one or more outstanding rulings drop Wednesday or Thursday? Mw843 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Imo I believe that Indiana,Florida and Colorado are the next bans to be strike down(without counting the circuits ban) btw the judge in Indiana is suppose to strike down all the ban if its a positive ruling.--Allan120102 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Colorado's AG is not running for re-election. For all we know, in January the new AG could just pull out from the defense. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ACLU sent a letter to the Wisconsin Attorney General reminding him that he has thirty days after the June 13 judgement to appeal. If neither he nor the Governor appeal by July 13, iirc the judgement would stand and Wisconsin is back to blue. Both AG Van Hollern and Walker look like they're willing to delay and just run the clock out. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Walker has been feigning indifference but Van Hollern looks like he's still gung-ho ... maybe the delay is his staff telling him "We got nothing." Mw843 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if the 4th and 10th circuits operate anything like the Supremes: big dump of rulings now, and then go away for the summer? Mw843 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they don't have annual terms like SCOTUS, and instead they operate year-round. Tinmanic (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tinmanic is right. Whereas SCOTUS has fixed terms and set times of year for issuing major opinions, the Circuit Courts operate continuously, with no ruling dumps. So the 4th/10th Circuit rulings could come this week, or in July, or August... Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 9th Circuit will not revisit SmithKline-Beecham, so "heightened scrutiny" is now the precedent for sexual orientation and gender identity decisions in 9 states. Mw843 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's great. However, let's keep the Talk page for discussions of the map. Tinmanic (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ban struck down in Indiana. No stay as of yet. Map updated. Tinmanic (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth Circuit decision!

The 10th Circuit has struck down Utah's ban. The court has stayed the ruling. The decision doesn't explicitly mention the other states in the circuit, but the decision is controlling throughout the circuit, so I've updated the map with @Dralwik:'s stay colors. I think this is the correct approach but I'm open to being wrong about that. I've also un-hid the stay colors in the main legend, and I also bolded some words to make it easier to differentiate them. Tinmanic (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The decision does set a controlling precedent for the 10th, but since no other state is mentioned, I don't think it automatically applies to any other state. Someone still has to get in front of a Federal judge in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming, and, based on this ruling, request relief. Mw843 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How come Wyoming is yellow and not orange? Seems to me it falls under the category "Judicial ruling against a state constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage and similar unions stayed pending appeal", same as all the other 10th Circuit states. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 17:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wyoming does not have a constitutional amendment against ssm it has just a statue against it.--Allan120102 (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why isn't there a separate key for that in the legend? As I noted in my last comment, there's a single category, "Judicial ruling against a state constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage and similar unions stayed pending appeal". — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 17:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg&oldid=614390719"