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

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)

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.

Virginia

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

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

Colorado stayed

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

Question. Does the Supreme Court stay of Virginia apply to all cases, including Florida? If it doesn't apply to Florida, Florida should be the transition color (who's wording I would like to fix if possible). If I am wrong, please correct me. 71.225.218.253 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Florida ruling was immediately stayed after issue. My bad. 71.225.218.253 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• On that note, keep in mind that lately cases have been stayed pending appeal of other cases i.e. Indiana (recognition) and Florida (stay lifted 90 days after resolution of similar same-sex marriage cases). Colorado might be in the same boat too. Prcc★27 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Indiana Recognition

Does Indiana recognize same-sex marriages..? Bowling v. Pence was stayed until the 7th Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. [2]. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And the Seventh Circuit has issued no order after ruling today and can be expected to stay its ruling. SSM is no more legal in IN and WI than in OK. There's just the teensiest chance that a Governor won't appeal. Hardly likely.

I note also that "in the process of being legal" isn't English. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: So should Indiana and Wisconsin be colored as stayed or as transition..? Also, we could change the wording; what do you think the wording should say..? In Bowling v. Pence it said they had to "rule on the merits" not issue an order. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In today's two cases, nothing has touched the district court stays. They remain in place. If anything changes it will be very clear. Judge Young won't do anything different in Bowling. Baskin is his case too. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

For easy ref, here's Boling, where the last sentence tells us to wait until Baskin becomes clear:

This Order is stayed until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence. Should the Seventh Circuit stay its decision in the related cases, this order shall remain stayed.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

But isn't this situation like Virginia where the stay was no longer in effect, but the mandate still had to be issued..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, which comes from reading various articles about this, the seventh issued no stay YET. I say this because as far as I know in my limited knowledge, once a circuit rules, that's a new ruling that has to be stayed all over again even if the district issued a stay. And nothing I've found says "The Seventh Circuit issued a stay." Swifty819 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So wouldn't that mean recognition is de jure legal (I don't think it is de facto legal since I haven't heard of any ssc receiving recognition)..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

They'd be in transition, since even though there is no stay, any appeals court ruling has to wait 21 days before the mandate is issued (or 7 days after a request for rehearing or stay is denied). This would be most analogous to a law allowing gay marriage passing that says "This law takes affect 21 days after passage." Swifty819 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (Five edits later and I finally get this to look right while actually logged in)

Also, why is Indiana striped anything? Even if the seventh circuit ruled they had to recognize marriages (which they implicitly did because there's no way you can permit marriages but not recognize them without being paradoxical), this would not take affect until 21 days either. Swifty819 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• It was a district court that ruled on recognition.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was, but that ruling was stayed, and the judge hasn't lifted it yet. Based on that I'd color IN solid light blue. Swifty819 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would the judge have to lift the stay..? The decision was stayed until the Seventh Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. If the Seventh Circuit would have stayed their decisions in the similar cases then Bowling v. Pence would have remained stayed. Even if a stay is eventually issued, I'm not sure that would mean Bowling v. Pence would be stayed because of the wording they used: "remain" (how could something remain stayed if the stay is no longer in effect)? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

So why is Indiana recognition striped? The state does not seem to be recognizing any marriages yet, which to me implies solid light blue. (Wouldn't Bowling being dependent on the Seventh Circuit require that the actual mandate be issued before it took effect?) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Dralwik Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and made Indiana solid light blue based on the initial comments per wp:bold. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if Indiana isn't giving recognition to same-sex couples (de facto) it is still legal there (de jure). We updated Kentucky when same-sex marriage recognition was de jure legal even though same-sex couples didn't receive recognition from the state. The name of the template is "State laws regarding same-sex marriage and similar unions in the United States." If the state wants to break the law, that's on them; but this template deals with laws. Also, the recognition ruling says "This Order is stayed until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence." It doesn't say the mandate has to be issued; Bowling v. Pence was stayed pending rulings in similar cases. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We updated Kentucky when same-sex marriage recognition was de jure legal even though same-sex couples didn't receive recognition from the state. - but then we created the transition color and changed procedure, so all your de jure de facto stuff is irrelevant. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. When recognition was de jure legal in Kentucky for 1 day it was not in transition. Kentucky's ruling wasn't stayed until the next day (which would have made Kentucky go from the recognition color to the transition color). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, can we please stop with the reverting..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently Indiana is solid light blue. As long as no one changes that no more reverts are necessary. Prcc27, you are the only one who thinks striping is needed, no one else holds that view and at least three people (including me) dispute that view. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No one in Indiana is recognizing marriages at the moment. If I found evidence that one was recognized, I would support the striping. Further, even if Judge Young's stay lifted automatically, I believe a case isn't concluded until a mandate is issued. The difference between here and KY is that KY was decided in a district court. In district court, an order and a mandate can be issued at the same time. In an appeals court, the judges are generally required to wait 21 days after the order to issue the mandate. So the comparison to KY does not apply. Swifty819 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_41. Indiana and Wisconsin can still appeal for cert, so no mandate has issued. Swifty819 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

The judge said the stay would be lifted at the CONCLUSION of Baskin v. Bogan. Because there has been no mandate issued in Baskin, the case has not yet concluded. Swifty819 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Did the judge actually say "conclusion" or are you misquoting them..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I'm thoroughly confused. I clearly misremembered because the judge's order reads "This Order is stayed until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence." However, at the same time, Indiana is saying that because there is no mandate in the 7th circuit case yet, the ruling is not in effect and they therefore refuse to perform or recognize the marriages, so I don't know what to do. Swifty819 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Part of my confusion is, until the mandate is issued, the order could be stayed at any time. And if we agree with your interpretation of the ruling (which could well be correct), then that means that Indiana might recognize marriages for 5 days, and then not do it anymore. Because "Should the Seventh Circuit stay its decision in the related cases, this order shall remain stayed.", I'm a little iffy on saying "OK, Indiana recognizes" until we KNOW the ruling won't be stayed. Swifty819 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: If recognition is legal in Indiana, we can't just not update the map because we don't know whether or not a stay will come in the future. That violates WP:CRYSTAL. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: Yeah I thought of that after I posted that comment. Swifty819 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: Would you care to chime in? Swifty819 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Can anyone produce a source saying that SSMs are actually being recognized as of yesterday in Indiana. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking for one ever since I got into this debate, and as of yet, I can't find one. In fact some Indiana officials actually consider the ruling to be stayed even though Posner made no mention of it Swifty819 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• A quote from http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/Rules/handbook.pdf follows: "It is important to note that the successful party on appeal cannot enforce its judgment in the district court until the issuance of the mandate has formally reinvested jurisdiction in that district court." Does this mean that the plaintiffs in the recognition case (the one in the district court) cannot yet say "Look, the appeals court ruled in Baskin, so the stay on recognition should be lifted." because Baskin is still in the 7th circuit? This is what I've been wondering the whole time. Swifty819 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: Hmm.. The district court may not have jurisdiction in the Baskin case, but since a district court could choose to temporarily stay their ruling or even choose not to stay it at all, the district court still has jurisdiction in the Bowling case if/until the Seventh Circuit steps in- in that particular case.

In Indiana, recognition seems to be de jure legal but there isn't de facto recognition. Kentucky legalized recognition (de jure) without recognizing any same-sex marriages and then the next day it was temporarily stayed. Kentucky was still colored as recognition even though it was only de jure legal. If Kentucky would have been in the same situation today, it would have been recognition for one day and transition until the stay was extended. Since this map deals with laws a state should be colored once recognition is de jure legal. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That was the previous consensus, but since we now update to transition color before a law is in effect, I think the OoS recognition is covered by the transition color. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Change Color Scheme

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

It's actually more of a green color on the World homosexuality map. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is not legally ambiguous, it is legally solid; it is just not yet in effect. Recognizing but not performing is neither affirmation or rejection, so a grey color is proper. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination is still enforced until it goes into effect, so having transition states colored dark gray makes sense. Recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere affirms the validity of same-marriage and gives same-sex couples the same rights as different-sex couples. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really, a state is not taking a position on SSM, it is just recognizing them as they would any other marriage. Many states do not permit cousin marriage, yet they will recognize cousin marriages from other states; those states are not affirming cousin marriage, they are just accepting them anyways. The analogy holds for SSM. Light blue makes more sense for a transition color as in those cases the law is affirmative (even if not yet in effect). Anyways, I am not responding in this section anymore until others chime in. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think cousin marriage is recognized in every state though.. Also, a same-sex couple receives more rights in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages than a state that legalized same-sex marriage (until it actually goes into effect, which would turn the state solid dark blue). Because SSCs (and even couples that are cousins) receive benefits and are treated as married, the law is in fact affirmative. Recognition states recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, but in-state same-sex marriages are considered invalid. Even though the law that legalizes same-sex marriages is affirmative, the law that is still being enforced (or in some cases the de facto discrimination) is "negative". As a result, I think that transition states should be represented with a color that shows that the current law is "negative" and the law that hasn't entered into effect yet is affirmative. I do agree that this discussion won't really get anywhere unless other people join in. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, CM is not recognized in every state, and the same goes with SSM. The analogy holds. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• The analogy proves nothing. Married cousin still receive benefits and are treated as married by the state. Same with same-sex marriage. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You are not making an iota of sense. A state that does not allow SSM but recognizes it anyways is identical to a state that does not recognize CM but recognizes anyways. They are directly analogous. They are recognizing OoS marriages, but they are not letting people perform said marriages; summing those two sets of facts, it is a fundamentally neutral position. A state that is about to enable SSM does not have the same neutrality. No one else is agreeing with you. It is pointless for you to try to respond here until more people actual chime in.. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • They are indeed directly analogous; which is exactly why it's not worth bringing up. If I view same-sex marriage recognition as an affirmative law, why would my opinion be any different when it comes to cousin marriages..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons set forth by Thegreyanomaly. States with a court ruling or law are going to PERFORM gay marriages, it just might be a few weeks or months before they do. On the other hand, a state that only has recognition might be months or years before they perform. In other words, I believe a state that has something not yet in effect is closer to dark blue (marriage) than a state that recognizes marriage but doesn't perform. Swifty819 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Broward County

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

No per WP:CRYSTAL, opening the door is not the same thing as legalizing something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87: Umm... I said when it goes into effect we should add a footnote. Also, the decision can't be appealed and same-sex marriage was legalized in that county. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not WP:CRYSTAL, Pam Bondi failed to appeal the decision by the Florida district court. S51438 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Broward County case is moot; the state wasn't notified properly. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Precedent Color

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

Oppose: A circuit precedent does nothing to a ssm ban, the ban is left intact. Furthermore, Kansas's ban isn't even being (fully) challenged, so the precedent is essentially useless to Kansas if/until the ban is challenged. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but the precedent does matter. Although you are correct in saying that by itself, the precedent doesn't do anything, it does essentially mean that when it is challenged, it has to fall. I figured that perhaps people might want to know that even though the ban is still in place, there is precedent against it, which DOES make a difference as far as the challenge goes, since as you know, it means a district judge in Kansas (or Wyoming, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia) won't be able to uphold the ban. The wording I would use is something like "Same-sex marriage banned, but subject to court precedent." Swifty819 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not chiming in (I have too much work to deal with another re-color proposal), but you really should not be starting this discussion, we just had it in July/August and it did not take hold. If you are going to continue this discussion anyways, you ought to ping everyone involved in that prior discussion (as well as any other active users on this page). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, my apologies. I wasn't around this page much when that was done, so I didn't realize. I withdraw this. Swifty819 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS Consideration

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

Here is what the map would look like if the Supreme Court denied cert for all of the cases [6]. Here is what the map would look like if the Supreme Court issued a nationwide ruling in support of same-sex marriage [7]. I'm still confused on how the map would look if the court issued a ruling against same-sex marriage... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So why is Florida transition blue upon a denial of cert? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Did you read Florida's ruling..? "The stay will remain in effect until stays have been lifted in Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen, and for an additional 90 days to allow the defendants to seek a longer stay from this court or a stay from the Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court." Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is because in this hypothetical, the opinion has come down, but the mandate hadn't been issued. Swifty819 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: Actually no, in this hypothetical SCOTUS denies cert in similar cases and same-sex marriage is legal in Florida 90 days later (so in the meantime, Florida would be in transition). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I consolidated the same-sex union color so it covers CUs/DPs and SSM legalization [8]. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is going to be a while till any of this is more than supposition. The SCOTUS can give cert as early or late in the session as it wants, so there really isn't much we can do on this matter. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed the process is going to take awhile. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, well- I just thought I should bring it up just like what we've been doing in the past. I also wanted to make sure we were clear on Florida so it wouldn't be like Indiana all over again! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Yeah, it would be a precedent, but it wouldn't necessarily be legal throughout the circuit... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: Would a ruling striking down a same-sex marriage ban be binding throughout the entire nation or would it simply be a precedent..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be binding throughout the nation, as all SCOTUS decisions are. The only way it might not be binding nationwide is if it were somehow a narrow ruling (something like the vacated 9th Circuit Perry ruling, which applied only to states in the 9th Circuit that had previously had marriage equality but then got rid of it, i.e. only California). Tinmanic (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that this is no longer speculation, was a clear consensus ever reached about what color Florida should be? Or has anything else changed that would render this question moot? Axelfar (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana

[9] Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana has to go back to red, as the ruling only affects Lafayette Parish: the ruling is not state-wide. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Source? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I rolled the map back (and updated the world maps). We should wait for a source that the ruling would actually be state-wide before changing Louisiana. For Federal District Court, this isn't necessary, but a state court bears double checking the scope of the decision. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

[10] - another source says 3 parishes, regardless, it is definitely not a state-wide ruling. Mw843 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Once it becomes legal I suggest we add a footnote. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No footnote necessary: a stay is likely, and the appeal is to the State Supreme Court ... if it's struck down, it's over, and if it's upheld, it will apply state-wide. Mw843 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, Louisiana should be a yellow dot (not a ring) on the world map. Also, Florida's and Arizona's rings should be green for recognition, not blue for marriage. In the future if there's ssm in select counties, there should be a footnote for this map, a dot for the world maps, and it should be colored in on the US map broken up into counties as dark blue. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussions pertaining to other maps (and not this one) should be made at those maps' respective talk pages, not here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright.

My comment was mostly in response to "and updated the world maps". Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee

I believe Tennessee should be colored the same as Ohio, since Tanco v. Haslam granted recognition to out-of-state marriages, but it is stayed pending appeal. See also . Chris (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"The ruling, limited to the three plaintiff couples, means that the three couples are respected as married as the case proceeds."

The ruling is only a case-by-case ruling and doesn't apply to the entire state. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Missouri

Breaking News - Missouri has been ordered to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.[11] Mw843 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting a bit to find a news source saying if it's going into effect right away or if Missouri will get the stayed striping of Ohio. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Judgement here: [12] The judge did not stay his order. Mw843 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Missouri can probably get striped then. But keep a close eye out for an appeal. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Stripes should be #7f7f7f, not #cccccc. Mw843 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

They are; it's hard to tell the difference without the two grays being adjacent. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad. Mw843 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

ACLU says the ruling is in effect now. Appeal not likely, but no one knows for sure. "“As of right now, the injunction and order requiring the state to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdiction is in effect,” Rothert told BuzzFeed News. " HERE. Tony Rothert is legal director of the ACLU of Missouri. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, I say we don't color a state dark gray until recognition is actually legal. In the meantime, a state that legalized recognition (but hasn't gone into effect yet) should only have a footnote. In this case, Missouri's ruling is already in effect so I removed the footnote. If I'm wrong then a footnote should be added and Missouri should go back to solid dark red. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, don't start this damn discussion again. If something is legal but not in effect it goes to the transition color. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Thegreyanomaly: Well that's not what happened here was it? Someone colored Missouri dark gray for recognition and added a footnote saying it wasn't in effect yet (even though it actually was). It makes zero sense to have a state go from light blue when recognition isn't in effect to dark gray when the state actually starts recognizing same-sex marriages. I'm guessing this is why they used the recognition color instead of the transition color (unless they forgot about the "transition" color). IMO, it would make more sense to have the "transition" color be yellow and have the states with same-sex marriage bans that have been struck down be medium red and pink (light red). We could even re-add the limited same-sex union color as light blue (even though I'm not a big fan of it). Or we could use the light blue as the recognition color. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• You recently just made a re-coloring proposal and it fell flat. You frequently make these merit-less proposals and almost all of them fall flat, please stop. For stability, we should aim to stick with the colors we have. Readers will get confused each time people try to change up the color scheme. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: You do have a point (about the color scheme being changed too much). How about we keep the colors the same and put the recognition color above the transition color (I mean, that's what was done with the document):

".foreign {fill: #888;} /* Foreign same-sex marriages recognized */

.transition {fill: #0cf;} /* Unions granting limited/enumerated rights */"

Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Reordering the legends is fine with me. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Missouri attorney general will not appeal ruling. http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2014/Attorney_General_Kosters_statement_on_his_decision_not_to_appeal_in_Barrier_v_Vasterling/Baltimatt (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS

Scotusblog.com is reporting that all same-sex marriage petitions have been denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw843 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The states involved are Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Virginia. It's unclear at the moment when the stays will dissolve. It will take someone getting into court for the rulings to apply in the other states in the 4th and 10th Circuits - all states in the 7th will have same-sex marriage with this refusal to get involved. Mw843 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

While I prefer the immediate-update method, the recent consensus is the transition color. Since it is unclear if SSM is being performed or recognized in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Virginia, they should be light blue. SC, NC, WV, WY, CO, and KS probably need to be light blue too. I would make these edits right now, but I am at work (=school) and I need to get off Wikipedia now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

[13] - at least one county in Wisconsin has started. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Colorado will soon be dark blue too.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

VA should now be issuing licenses [14] - I've updated the map to change the states to transition except WI and VA, as the other states have yet to take action that I know of. Also changed the precedent states to transition per the above. Shereth 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

All five states have taken action; all the stays have been lifted. SC, NC, WV, WY, CO, and KS need actual court decisions before changing color, don't they? Tinmanic (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The link from Dudeman says that Colorado will begin them soon, so I think CO needs to be transition. The other states I am leaving alone for now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

CO is issuing marriage licenses: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_26672658/colorado-ag-says-all-64-clerks-must-issue. I think they should be dark blue. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is unclear but it still says "Once the legal formalities are finalized." Tinmanic (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Article is now updated; couples are now receiving licenses. 165.82.81.73 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

By allowing the appeals court rulings to stand, the Supreme Court has de facto endorsed those rulings by their inaction. All the states in circuits that have a federal appeals court ruling as their binding precedent should now get the transition color, including SC, NC, WV, WY, CO, and KS. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. These states are under binding precedent that requires them to issue marriages to same-sex couples. They may ask for an intermediate court order, but the court that issues it has absolutely no discretion in the matter. Same-sex marriage will be legal in these states within a week, maybe 2 weeks at most. Color them light blue. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. SC, NC, WV, WY, CO, and KS should be in transition. Skbl17 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, someone still needs to update the "Recognition of same-sex relationships" and "Constitutional restrictions on recognition" maps. aharris206 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Colorado is still in Transition ... some counties are issuing licences, but the Colorado stay still stands until someone gets in front of a judge. And why has Florida been changed to Transition? It isn't covered by today's ruling. Mw843 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida's ruling had a line that any stay in the case would expire 90 days after cert for "similar cases" was denied (i.e. 90 days from now). It remains to be seen iirc if the Florida AG will try her luck with the 11th Circuit. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK ... found it ... 91 days. Florida's brief in their appeal is due at the 11th Circuit by October 15. If they file, they'll probably get an indefinite stay, if they don't, the stay will likely be dissolved sooner. Mw843 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: Where do you get 91..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: [15] 91 days makes sense, because it's divisible by 7, and stops things from happening on weekends. Mw843 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious, but does any other state that has been granted a stay after a ban was struck down have similar language to what is in Florida's? Reason I ask is because as of now, before AG Bondi has decided whether or not to continue her legal defense of the ban in light of the SCOTUS non-decision, that language seems to leave open that the stay might be lifted (I know more than likely it won't, but we're relying on the case itself at the moment). Would that mean that FL should be in the "pending" category, or is the stay beige more appropriate...as an overall category regardless of differences in language? Perhaps a little clarification would be needed. Ghal416 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A binding precedent is binding on courts. You can't get same-sex married in South Carolina, for example, just because there's a ruling in the appellate court. There needs to be an order from a court telling state officials to recognize same-sex marriage. Pretending that SSM is now legal in SC misrepresents the situation. It's probably not going to be as fast as someplace where the govt officials are cooperating like Colorado. But then the category "pending" seems very crystal ball to me. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why we have the transition color. The precedent is binding and with the Supreme Court's action it is now inevitable that same-sex marriage will become legal in those states and nothing reasonably foreseeable can stop that now. Only legal formalities need to take place for it to happen. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliable sources are referring to SC/NC/WV/CO/KS/WY as having legalized SSM (e.g., Jeffrey Toobin at CNN [16]). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. People had opposed a precedent color because "a precedent doesn't do anything." However, once a circuit court actually ISSUES the mandate, then a district court is actually BOUND to strike down the law. So, as the others have said, you KNOW it will be legalized soon. Swifty819 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence, from SCOTUSBlog: "But today’s orders will have a broader impact as well. Specifically, because the Court let stand the lower court decisions striking down the five bans, those decisions and their reasoning become the law of the land for other states whose federal appeals are heard by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth (Virginia), Seventh (Indiana and Wisconsin), and Tenth (Utah and Oklahoma) Circuits. This means that, although they were not directly before the Court, bans in North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming are also effectively dead. That would bring the number of states where same-sex marriages are legal to thirty." Swifty819 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

CO is different from the other precedent states, because their ban had already been struck down in Federal Court: it's just a matter of getting the stay lifted, and the State AG expects that within a "matter of days". WV is the next furthest along: the judge had stayed a case pending the VA decision, so he could act fairly quickly. For the others, the bans will stand until someone gets in front of a judge and requests an injunction. Mw843 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Mw843. We denied the precedent color for a reason. Furthermore, Kansas's same-sex marriage isn't being challenged so light blue is extremely inaccurate! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Most news sources say it's as good as having it legalized. Kansas doesn't even NEED a challenge per say. Although they will be challenged if someone denies the licenses. Even SCOTUSBlog says you can consider the amount to be 30. A week ago, I would have agreed with you, but EVERYONE is saying the precedent kills the bans. They don't even mention that "It has to be challenged". That's why this is so complicated now. Swifty819 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the precedent states should be updated to transition per reliable sources. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing that. From Scotusblog [17] ... "and probably adding six more in the coming weeks" ... "such marriages can occur when the court of appeals rulings are implemented in federal district courts in three more states in the Fourth Circuit ... and in three more states in the Tenth Circuit". Colorado needs a stay lifted, but the other 5 precedent states need a judge's order before marriages can occur. Mw843 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The precedent states need to be indicated on the map. The best solution is to just use the transition color we already have. Otherwise, we will have to add another color to the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but unless someone wants to start a proposal, what can we do? I think that by not showing what the mandate affects on the map, we're effectively pretending that there's nothing going on with the state, ie that the law is banning gay marriage, and there is nothing at all that will affect it. And this is simply untrue. I think before the mandate was issued, there was a case for leaving those states red, because the rulings MIGHT affect the states; or they might not if they are overturned. Now we know that the rulings WILL AFFECT the states. We should indicate that.Swifty819 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Mw843, I read a different Scotusblog article at [18], which reads "...This means that, although they were not directly before the Court, bans in North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming are also effectively dead. That would bring the number of states where same-sex marriages are legal to thirty." Swifty819 (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is what coloring the rest of the 4th and 10th Districts the transition color looks like. I prefer the status quo since Colorado is so much closer to equal marriage than the other transition states. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"They're all dead. They just don't know it yet." We don't have a color for that, so we make do with what we have. Mw843 (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a state that legalized same-sex marriage and a state with a precedent against a same-sex marriage ban. We could add a precedent color but this proposal has already failed. There has to be a distinction between a state with their ban struck down (not yet in effect) and a state with a precedent for same-sex marriage (but the ban is still intact). We can't just lump them together. But honestly, a precedent doesn't matter unless the state's ban is actually being challenged and as of now, this just isn't the case for Kansas. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Dudemanfellabra: No it isn't; not yet! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• I cannot offer an opinion on this because the site requires me to subscribe to read the article. Swifty819 (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that Colorado has legalized same sex marriage we should put precedent colors in the 5 remaining states as it is likely that in the coming days or weeks the ban in those 5 would be struck down. NC ban should be the next one I believe but one could come sooner.--Allan120102 (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A note on the civil union color

With Colorado awaiting the 10th Circuit lifting its stay, and Nevada facing a likely imminent pro-marriage ruling from the 9th and without the state appealing, we'll shortly have the civil union color finally gone from this map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I already brought up a similar issue earlier, but...

...this file should have been named "Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg" to be consistent with all the other files, as well as to match the primary (not only) article within which it is being used. What are conventions for naming in situations such as these? Dustin (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Didn't you already bring this up before..? You're welcome to change the name of the file... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The previous issue was only about the hyphen. This time, it has to do with actually making more significant adjustments to the file and making it consistent with the primary related article on Wikipedia. Dustin (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida

Apparently, there is a conversation going on about this map on Same-sex marriage in the United States's talk page pertaining to Florida. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've brought it up in other discussions here that it does seem like Florida's decision for a stay from Judge Hinkle involved a connection to the cases that were before the SCOTUS. None of the other stays across the country, so far as I know, had similar language so that does provide some insight that there is a difference. Just by that concept, with ACLU et al trying to get it lifted, for the time being it is "pending". However, if Hinkle extends his stay and/or if AG Bondi decides to press on with her ban defense, then it would be back to a basic stay. That's just the way how I see it, not trying to step on anyone. I don't know however if there is a source issue, as Dralwik brought that up in a previous discussion. Ghal416 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-gay-marriage-scotus-decision-20141006-story.html From this article: "If Hinkle lifts the stay, Bondi could still ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to issue a stay pending an appeal. If that court refuses, and Hinkle lifts his own stay, then same-sex marriage could theoretically become legal within a month." In the same article about the federal case: "Hinkle stayed his ruling until similar cases in federal appeals courts elsewhere were heard by the Supreme Court. Now, that stay is being called into question."..."The district court said that the stay in our case will exist until the stays in the 4th and 10th circuit cases are denied, plus 91 days," said ACLU lawyer Tilley. "And the stays in those cases will be lifted today. Once Tilley asks the court to lift the stay, he expects the state to take all 17 days to respond." Don't know if this helps, but just passing along. Ghal416 (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Colorado

It's a done deal in Colorado: https://twitter.com/EQCF/status/519516094860492800 Tinmanic (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina

Yesterday's decision by SCOTUS to refuse all same-sex marriage appeals meant that the Fourth Circuit's decision was allowed to stand. While there was some talk that North Carolina would immediately recognize same-sex marriage, that isn't the case. However, a federal judge has given both sides ten days to submit "status reports" before lifting the stay. I think that based on that information, in addition to the fact that AG Roy Cooper has dropped the state's defense of the ban (not to mention his belief that the Fourth Circuit ruling is "legally binding"), North Carolina should be placed "in transition" until the ten days have elapsed. Skbl17 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think North Carolina should still be red. Transition should reflect something that will happen without further action: we can't presume results. Mw843 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dralwik updated the map with "North Carolina judge could release decision in 10 days" ...how is "could" not WP:CRYSTAL????? NC should clearly remain the same color as SC and WV. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All precedent states should be light blue. And it is not WP:CRYSTAL if it is "almost certain to take place". And it is almost certain that any judge in a circuit with an appeals court ruling will follow the precedent set by the appeals court. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I should have worded that better, more like "Judge to strike down North Carolina's ban, possibly within 10 days." The Fourth Circuit precedent is strong enough that we're not violating CRYSTAL; now if we changed say Wyoming, which lacks an impending ruling, to transition blue without an impending dwe'd be failing it. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"All precedent states should be light blue." Well then let's do it. As things stand now, the map, the template, and the table alternate between being inconsistent and being wrong. On the other hand, if you're actually not prepared to change the color of SC and WV to light blue, then NC should be changed back. The judge's decision to wait 10 days is not legally binding, and involves inappropriate legal speculation on our part to conclude that it is "almost certain." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The key difference between North Carolina and a state like West Virginia is that the NC judge has given us a specific time table, much like the Florida situation if not as formal. The combination of a pro-marriage ruling precedent and an announced date is what turns North Carolina transition blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, judges in South Carolina[19] and West Virginia[20] have done that too. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, then let's turn those transition blue too. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What is "almost certain" is that the NC (and SC and WV) ban on same-sex marriage will be overturned by a judge as soon as a judge hears the case. And a judge is now scheduled to hear the case in 10 days. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

9th Circuit

Nevada and Idaho should now be "in transition." Heads up on Alaska, Arizona, Montana, American Smoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands whose courts are bound by this precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.66 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you any proof? Swifty819 (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This will do. Opinion: [21] Swifty819 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada and Idaho ruling was stay or not?--Allan120102 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The opinion mentions no stay. Or rather, it makes no mention of a stay. Swifty819 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean "was stayed or not?" Looks like they were not stayed. The Idaho district court decision is affirmed and seems to take effect immediately. The Nevada district court decision is reversed and remanded (since the Nevada district court decision upheld the ban before SmithKline required strict scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination). See last page of main opinion here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/idaho-and-nevado-marriage-bans-are-unconstitutional-federal?utm_term=ybhdfy#1grpyem Tinmanic (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A decision by a Circuit Court of Appeals does not go into effect until a mandate issues. This hasn't happened yet. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely relevant, but what do you make of the majority and concurring opinion being written by the same judge? Swifty819 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly odd! Never seen that before. Tinmanic (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In the majority opinion, the judge speaks as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, personified. He issued a separate concurring opinion because he could not get at least one other judge on the panel to sign onto that language, which means he had to speak as himself.216.165.95.66 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"The mandate will issue 7 days after rehearing petition deadline or denial of such petition, unless the court says otherwise." https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/519586027879424001 Tinmanic (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

FRAP-40 (page 150 of FRAP) : Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. So judgement effective by mandate in 21 days from when opinion released if there is no petition for an en-banc rehearing of the case = 28th October 2014. — Mimich (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow the map is really changing and fast, depending on the decision of the 6th circuit we might end the year with 39 states for marriage equality, only remaining 11.--Allan120102 (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Idaho/Nevada need a footnote explaining the mandate. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina and West Virginia

The legalization process seems to be rolling in South Carolina[22] and West Virginia[23] Those states should be changed to light blue on the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We need a footnote for those states explaining that judges are likely to overturn the bans (NC needs one too). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) vvv21:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't just "likely". They are bound by legal precedent to do so. But I would be fine with a footnote. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely what I was going to say. There's nothing likely about it. The judge will strike down the bans because the precedent forces him to. This is why the last 2 days I've been pushing for some kind of acknowledgment that precedent exists, since we can't just say "despite the precedent these bans might be upheld." Swifty819 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Light blue w/ footnote..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was bold and went ahead and made WV, SC, KS, and WY light blue (not touching the 9th yet). Someone should formulate a new footnote, as I need to get off Wikipedia now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Precedent Color?

We have now reached the point where there are as many states subject to Circuit precedent (AK, AZ, KS, MT, NC, SC, WV, WY) as states where the ban stands (AL, GA, LA, MS, ND, NE, SD, TN). The Supremes non-decision yesterday has presented us with a new reality that I think should be addressed. Mw843 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The light blue color we already have should be used on all of those states. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll support that. Note that outside sources, like Nate Silver, are already doing this. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will support that. I think the transition color should become a transition/precedent color. Swifty819 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So the label becomes "Subject to Circuit Court precedent, or legalization pending, but not yet in effect"? Mw843 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In which case, Florida, Idaho and Nevada would be mentioned in the footnote, but not other states, because they don't yet have a legal decision. Mw843 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why would the other states not get a footnote?

How about we change the wording for the transition color to "Government/court legalized or announced intention to legalize." That way, we can leave Kansas as is and only add states when courts say they will follow the precedent. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Idk, the precedent still doesn't do anything (especially for a state like Kansas). I definitely do not want to see Kansas go light blue. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that there's no chance the Kansas judge won't legalize it. It doesn't matter if s/he's the most rabidly anti gay person ever, because the 10th circuit said it is legal, so will s/he. The judge won't say "I will follow precedent." They will get the case, and then be forced to follow it. Whether the KS case was filed right now or in a week, the judge will strike that ban. Prior to the precedent, we could say that "We don't know what will happen if Kansas gets a case"Swifty819 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If/until Kansas gets a case, Kansas needs to be left alone. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also no "if" to Kansas getting a case challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. It will happen, most likely very soon, and when it comes before a judge that judge will overturn it based on the appeals court precedent. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kansas IS getting a case, the ACLU is filing it. And I'm sorry, but at the moment, no one else is backing up your point of view, so I'll just ask, WHY are you so sure that Kansas should be left red? You keep saying "Kansas doesn't have a case", but I want to know what else you're thinking. Swifty819 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proof [24] Swifty819 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 often is the only one (or one of few) to hold their viewpoint in these discussions. It would be interesting to know why, but regardless the 4th/9th/10th precedent states should be light blue. Since the 9th stuff is new, I am not touching it, but I am being WP:BOLD and uploading a map with the 4th and 10th precedent states fixed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the key should be fixed for that color, but I'm not sure how to change that. Can someone either tell me or do it themselves? Swifty819 (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Until then, the precedent means nothing to Kansas, period. Also, what happens to the territories with no ban..? Will they be required to legalize same-sex marriage or not..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Certain territories are under the jurisdiction of certain circuits (Guam and Samoa under the 9th for example). So, I'm pretty sure they would be required to permit if their circuit rules. Swifty819 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Ninth Circuit ruling did effect some territories, but I know little to nothing about that ruling and its appeal-ability (and thus I neglected it). Someone else can handle that. I need to go get some food now. Logging off. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands

These territories should be in light blue. Federal law applies the 14th Amendment to these territories and they fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. Therefore, the 9th Circuit's determination that the 14th Amendment grants same-sex couples a right to marry is binding precedent in these territories. Note that while American Samoa does not have a federal District Court, federal lawsuits that originate in that territory are heard in the District Court for the District of Hawaii, which is also bound by the precedent of the 9th Circuit. 98.113.109.43 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not yet, the mandate affecting the other states hasn't issued. Swifty819 (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There won't be another mandate affecting the other states/territories. Just like all the other Circuit Courts, it will require a District Court to issue an injunction in these states/territories to erase the marriage ban. These District Courts are bound by the 9th's ruling and have no discretion in issuing this injunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.109.43 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

But that's the thing. The mandate hasn't issued at all, so the courts aren't bound yet. Swifty819 (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The mandate was issued a couple hours ago. 98.113.109.43 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The opinion and the mandate are not the same thing, are they? Swifty819 (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It issued. [25] Swifty819 (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How can these territories be colored "legalized" or "precedent" for that matter when they don't even have a ssm ban..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Alaska and Idaho

Alaska should be light blue, and since the stay remains in effect for 7 days, so should Idaho. Mw843 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. 9th Circuit has struck down the Idaho stay.[26] Mw843 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Idaho for now should be blue as there are no counties issuing same sex marriage licenses and I believe until a mandate is given we should stay with the light blue. --Allan120102 (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the stay is gone, same-sex marriage is legal in Idaho. The state could appeal, but given the last couple of days, they'll be hard pressed to find someone to appeal to. Mw843 (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Arizona and Montana are also under the 9th circuit, and needs to be light blue as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF82:CCE0:87B:8E4F:9926:705B (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This map is totally inconsistent. This precedent applies to Alaska, Arizona, Montana, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. If Wyoming, West Virginia, etc. are in light blue, so should these states and territories. 98.113.109.43 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all 9th circuit jurisdictions should also be colored light blue. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's inconsistent because the blue circuits have already issued their mandate, but the ninth circuit has not. Swifty819 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay well I suppose we can wait another day or two for that. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The 9th issued the mandate (Scroll down to image). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF82:CCE0:87B:8E4F:9926:705B (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an opinion. The mandate is what issues provided no one appeals that gives the opinion legal authority. By federal rule, it could come as many as 21 days after the mandate. Swifty819 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

However, I found the mandate. It's [27]. This means 9C should be light blue. If I knew how to upload new maps, I'd do it myself. Swifty819 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada

Nevada will start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on October 8. Skbl17 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, we can finally get rid of civil unions on the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Soon, but not likely tomorrow. One county will start accepting applications, not issuing licences. The state says it could take up to two weeks for the District Court to act. Mw843 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The map is totally inconsistent. Montana, Arizona, and Alaska are precedent states just as much as West Virginia and South Carolina, as are the Pacific territories. Someone fix it already! 98.113.109.43 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada should be change tomorrow as counties are going to start tomorrow and now the AG and Governor say its up to the lawyers of the county clerks.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that Idaho is dark blue. I'm presuming it's because the mandate in Idaho's case has been issued. But said mandate seems to apply to Nevada's case too. (Click!) Does that mean the two states should both be dark blue? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 03:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Light grey not needed.

Per the discussions above, I "completed" my edit from above and turns the 9th circuit precedent states and territories light blue. This means that the light grey color is no longer in use. Soon the medium blue will no longer be in use as well. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to try to edit the key so that light blue also ties to precedent. Swifty819 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)