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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 4: Check and submit the new version

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.

Kansas statewide

Same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide in Kansas and many counties are refusing to issue license to same-sex couples. The ruling was only a preliminary injunction that applied to two counties. Furthermore, one county is barred from issuing under court order. Kansas should either be light red or striped dark blue-light red. [1] [2] Prcc27 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No county is barred from issuing licenses (at least, none are mentioned in the two sources provided). However, two counties are barred from refusing licenses. I'd stripe Kansas light blue and dark blue in this case, as I don't know whether or not all of Kansas is required to recognise these licenses. Kumorifox (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: AFAIK, a preliminary injunction leaves the law intact but prevents it from being enforced in limited cases (in this case 2 counties). Johnson county IS barred from issuing by the state supreme court and other counties are barred from issuing because the ban wasn't struck down. Prcc27 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: Ah, I see. Shows you what I know about law, and how much I'm slowly learning here. I'd still colour or stripe Kansas light blue, though, as the injunction is preliminary thus far, but is on the books. But yes, with this reasoning, fully dark blue is not appropriate.
  Man, can't people like us be cut a break and have some clarity in our lives? I guess some people just revel in making the lives of LGBT people difficult. (rant over) Kumorifox (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: Light blue is only used when same-sex marriage is legalized but not in effect. In this case, same-sex marriage is currently legal at the local level and banned at the state level with a circuit court precedent. That's why I said Kansas should be striped dark blue-light red. Prcc27 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure if same-sex marriage is even legal in those counties, they're just barred from enforcing the ban and are required to issue licenses. I lean towards it being legal in those counties but idk. Prcc27 (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The ruling says "Defendants are barred..." etc [3] on the last page. The primary named defendant is the Kansas secretary of health. That's a statewide position. In fact, federal district court rulings apply statewide, as shown by the primary defendant. Even the AG says the provision is disabled in [4]. So why the stripe? Swifty819 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh right, it's preliminary. Does that actually make a difference? I'm not sure there. Swifty819 (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This is where I point out that the controlling ruling in California, the District Court order, names a handful of state defendants and two counties specifically. Recall the Prop 8 proponents emphasized the limited technical nature of the ruling, much like the Kansas AG is doing, yet we still colored California solid blue. If we are to stripe Kansas based on the suit naming a state defendant who claims it applies to two counties specifically, labeling everything else rogue, what makes the other 56 California counties not rogue?

As well, WP:RS comes into play here. The Los Angeles Times, Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, New York Times, etc. all list Kansas as a marriage state. Unless we can find a reliable source that does not count Kansas, striping Kansas red fails WP:OR. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw my previous comment and instead concur with this. Swifty819 (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The ruling applies to all counties like the other states when the ban was struck down ex Indiana, Utah, Michigan etc. The thing is most are awaiting a ruling from the Kansas supreme court. Once they ruled we will see how to move.--Allan120102 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

California's ruling wasn't a preliminary injunction like the Kansas ruling. Furthermore, the California case ruled that the same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional whereas the Kansas case ruled that there was a "likely violation of (the plaintiffs') constitutional rights." Also, the AG in California ordered every county in the state to issue licenses to same-sex couples and on this map an executive order is akin to legalization as long as their is a binding ruling. In Kansas however, the AG is saying the ruling only applies to the two counties and AFAIK- same-sex marriage isn't recognized in the state. I have a source that affirms that this is indeed what the AG is claiming. It also says same-sex marriage is only legal in certain counties [5]. BTW, the Human Rights Campaign and Freedom to Marry are not reliable sources. The "Relationship Recognition", "Marriage Prohibition", and "Interstate Recognition" maps on the HRC website have not been updated. I think Kansas is more relatable to Tennessee since in both states, the same-sex marriage ban wasn't struck down or ruled unconstitutional, but a preliminary injunction was issued which rendered the ban unenforceable in limited situations. As a result, I think it is best if we stripe Kansas light red since the same-sex marriage ban wasn't struck down, this ruling was only a preliminary injunction (just like Tennessee's case), the ruling only required two counties to issue, the AG is not ordering the rest of the counties to issue licenses like the California AG did, I have yet to see a source that says Kansas is recognizing. Prcc27 (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So are you going to update every other map to match this one? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Sure, if you want me to... Prcc27 (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you're the one going to such lengths, I'll let you handle them. Don't forget the world homosexuality map, the world marriage equality map, the North American map, the US constitutional bans map -- both overall and Kansas' specific type, the ring map, the county-by-county map, the US state-wide recognition map, the litigation map... Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done (except for the litigation map; I don't know how Kansas should be colored so I will leave it be). I will update any other maps (and articles) that need to be updated some other time. Prcc27 (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas Supreme Court decision in State ex rel. Schmidt v. Moriarty is in; it 1) dissolves the stay preventing Johnson County from issuing SSM licenses, 2) holds the Moriarty case in abeyance permitting the "broader" U.S. district court decision in Marie v. Moser to control, and 3) declines to offer statewide guidance on the issue (order here). This should allow Kan. to go full blue. MarkGT (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MarkGT. Difbobatl (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As a follow up to the question of whether a preliminary injunction is to be considered fully effective, today papers were filed in Wyoming by the state defendants asking for the final injunction to be issued. Wyoming's same-sex marriages have been performed under the preliminary injunction since they began. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for colour reshuffling and clarification

With the current confusion in states like Kansas and Missouri, comprising partly of multiple rulings and incomplete information from the states themselves, we've been having plenty of discussions about map colours. I'm going to make a very bold suggestion here about an idea for a reshuffle, in order to keep things clearer.

Current scheme

• Dark blue: marriage is legal state-wide, even though there might be ongoing litigation attempting to counter it (such as currently in Idaho and North Carolina)
• Medium blue: marriages performed in other states and/or jurisdictions are recognised, but marriage licenses are not offered in the state itself
• Light blue: ban was struck down or laws were signed, but the ruling is stayed temporarily and has a definite date for lifting, or the laws are not yet in effect
• Gold: ban was struck in one or more courts, but the ruling has been stayed indefinitely, for reasons such as appeals
• Light gold: currently not used
• Grey: no laws regarding marriages, assumed de facto no marriage
• Light red: currently not used
• Red: the state bans marriage and possibly other forms of unions, contrary to Circuit of Appeals precedent which has ruled against bans
• Dark red: the state bans marriage and possibly other forms of unions, with no Circuit precedent

Suggested scheme

• Dark blue - licenses issued state-wide, and state-wide only (clearer than saying marriage is legal in the state; this would exclude MO and KS for now)
• Medium blue - licenses issued on local level only (would apply to KS and MO, as of writing this; would have applied to IL, CO, and NM in the past, among others)
• Light blue - recognition of out-of-state marriages, but no licenses issued (applies to MO, but not KS, as of writing)
• Light gold - ban struck, temporary stay (SC, FL)
• Gold/tan/whatever it's called - ban struck, indefinite stay (TX, AR)
• Grey - no specific laws (some of the territories)
• Red - ban in place, contrary to precedent (MT, maybe KS)
• Dark red - ban in place, no circuit precedent

This scheme would use blue for recognition or issuing in all cases, gold/yellow for all stays, and red for all bans. The only hiccup would be the need for a new yellow if the Ohio-style case would occur again, the stay of a recognition-only case (though light blue/yellow striping could cover that). Stripes would still be needed for some states with multiple rulings or unclear information (such as MO and KS), but it should clear confusion about local and state-wide issuing.

What are people's thoughts on this? Doable? Superfluous? Trying to fix unbroken things? A way to clear confusion? Complete rubbish idea? Please let your voices be heard. Kumorifox (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. This does seems clearer than the current setup due to eliminating the Kansas stripes. Here is what this would look like. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

At first I was undecided, but now I support this. Mainly because it clarifies the situations better. If I am reading it correctly, in this scenario, KS would be striped Medium Blue & Red, MO would be striped Medium and Light Blue, therefore also getting rid of the triple-striping eyesore we thought was gone for good when Oregon's ban was struck down. aharris206(talk) 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Kansas would be striped, as the local blue would imply that other parts of the state still have the ban in place. We could spell this out explicitly in the legend, something like "Select jurisdictions within the state perform same-sex marriage; ban in place in others." Likewise, Missouri loses its red stripe in consolidation. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if Kansas still officially has the ban in place. Some sources and users suggest it does and that two counties only are barred from refusing to issue licenses (implying medium blue/normal red stripes), and other sources state that the ban was struck, but many clerks are refusing to issue due to poor or conflicting information from the AG (implying solid medium blue). Also, not sure about the light red for FA and SC, as this (at first sight) suggests a ban and not transition, but I tried the light yellow (code #ff9), which looks very washed-out, so I'm leaving that to other people to decide for now. But yes, especially with the triple striping removed, it looks much better than what we currently have. Kumorifox (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas doesn't, at least legally, as the Federal court injunction struck down the ban throughout the state. The problem is, Johnson County is separately barred from issuing licenses still and the Attorney General is running with that as an excuse to not permit implementation of the federal ruling. De jure, Kansas is marriage dark blue (except for Johnson County), de facto (and in the AG's mind), it's striped currently. The state is also refusing to recognize marriages per Equality Kansas. In your map, I'd give it solid local blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose removing Kansas's red stripe and Missouri's gold stripe. Those states don't just ban ssm, one has a precedent against it and the other has it struck down but the ruling is stayed pending appeal. This is very valuable information! Furthermore, if a territory legalized ssm at the local level, we couldn't use language like "ban" in the proposed local ssm color. Also, consolidating a positive (local ssm) and a negative (statewide ban) law into a positive color (medium blue) violates WP:NPOV. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are worthwhile points, and I can see the merit in having a mess of stripes on Missouri and Kansas, given the confusing and contentious status in those states. Would it work if we flipped the proposed transition and local marriage colors, so that Kansas and Missouri would be pale tan, a neutral color? We could keep the transition and recognition blues then, with the local marriage light tan the only new color. As for the legend, instead of "local ban," we could use more generic terminology like "Only sselect jurisdictions within the state perform same-sex marriage." (Also is Wikipedia running erratically for anyone else?) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The main thing I don't like about this proposal is that a majority of the colors apply to only 1 or 2 states. This is not very efficient at all. My own proposal is below. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage legal (29 states)1   Same-sex marriage legal with case(s) in appeals and SSM precedent in higher court (6: NC, SC, KS, ID, AK, MT)2   Same-sex marriage legal with case(s) in appeals and no SSM precedent in higher court (2: FL, MO)3,4   Neither prohibition nor recognition of same-sex marriage or unions in territory law   Same-sex marriage banned with case(s) in appeals, highest court ruling in favor of SSM (3: TX, AR, MO)4   Same-sex marriage banned with case(s) in appeals, highest court ruling against SSM (5: MI, OH, KY, TN, LA, +PR)   Same-sex marriage banned (6: ND, SD, NE, MS, AL, GA) 1Native American tribal jurisdictions have laws pertaining to same-sex marriage independent of state law. 219 counties in KS have implemented SSM. 3SSM in FL goes into effect on 5 January 2015. 4SSM is recognized in MO, though performed only in St. Louis.

Neither support nor oppose. Let me first say I do agree that the color scheme could use an overhaul. Since the state of SSM developments has devolved entirely to the state of SSM developments in court, I think the change that would do this map the most good would be if we distinguished between states that have ongoing litigation at the appellate level and states that don't (i.e. original jurisdiction case in progress and/or no cases at all). The scheme could be: is at the right.

Or if the test file is updated: See here

This scheme tosses the distinction between de jure and de facto (which only applies to FL and SC), and relegates that along with foreign recognition (which only applies to SC for <48 hours and MO) to a footnote. There are other maps that can detail what and how SSM is banned where it is banned, and what and how SSM is legal where it is legal. Alternatively, the distinction between de jure and de facto could be conveyed by striping. Also, an SSM ban upheld on appeal might seem "stronger" than (and therefore seeming to merit a darker color than) an unchallenged SSM ban, but note the former is more vulnerable. Importantly, this scheme begins to approach balance between the number of states in each color category, which is generally a good thing for color-coded maps. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Montana should be dark red: everyone is waiting a District Court ruling. Florida should be pink. I don't like that we're tossing the "precedent" color ... but once Montana goes, we might not need it again, as there's a reasonable chance that SCOTUS would rule before the 5th, 8th or 11th Circuit (which are all likely to say no, anyway). For "Footnote 2"; the state of MO recognizes SSM. And could someone explain the circumstance to get to light blue? I can't think of one. And if there isn't one, how about middle blue for appealing, but fighting circuit precedent, and light blue for appealing, but not subject to circuit precedent? That would differentiate between MO and AK, WY, KS, and the other states in denial. Mw843 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been no rulings that Montana is subject to that are against SSM, so I disagree. [I thought you wrote "medium red"] But you're exactly right about there being approximately 0% chance of needing the precedent color again after the district court in MT has ruled, which is days away. FL should be same color as SC as they both have stays with expiration dates. Florida should be light blue, not pink. I very much like your proposal for light blue. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Wyoming case is no longer in appeals: Source. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To make things more straightforward, I'm coloring the map as if MT falls in line with ID and AK. [Edit: this just happened! 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)] 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Arizona is not appealing and I don't like this map that we have I prefer the one we have right now.--Allan120102 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm amused by the double entendre of "Arizona is not appealing" lol. But thanks for your input! 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Florida should be pink: SSM is not legal, and the last ruling was in favor. The fact that the stay has a schedule expiry doesn't appear to be relevant with this color scheme. And Florida has filed for an indefinite stay at the 11th. And SC has been ordered to recognize out-of-state SSM. (Like nailing jello to the wall, isn't it?) Mw843 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

SSM is de jure legal in Florida. If this map gets consensus, it probably won't be until after SC has SSM, so that last tidbit is fortunately jello I can eat. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely not de jure in Florida. Every order has been stayed - this color scheme makes no allowance as to whether the stay is indefinite or not. [Comment added by Mw843.[6] Not signing your comments is in violation of WP:Talk page guidelines. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)]

If the distinction between de jure and de facto is tossed, then states with bans with expiration dates get lumped with states with legal SSM, per a history of findings on this talk page. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea behind the second scheme is good, but include gold as a stay colour. Stays are important to note as well. If the current colours do note stays, the legend needs to be updated to reflect that. But I think stays should be noted explicitly as they are a different kettle of fish than bans. Kumorifox (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The current color scheme notes stays indirectly. In so doing, it preserves the distinction between states with tossed bans with temporary stays and states with tossed bans with indefinite stays (e.g. FL v. TX, respectively), but it does not preserve the distinction between states with tossed bans with no (or expired) stays and states with tossed bans with temporary, unexpired stays (e.g. NC v. SC, respectively). This latter is a direct effect of the tossing of the de jure vs. de facto distinction per a history of findings on this talk page. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My argument is that since the number of colors is a finite resource (due to readability, accessibility, and aesthetic constraints), it makes sense to channel the resource into maximally useful and informative categories. A distinction that only applies to two states (FL and SC, and tomorrow only FL) seems like a less important than a distinction that applies to, say, 6 states (NC, SC, KS, ID, AK, MT vs. the other SSM-legal states with no court cases). Since all SSM progress is now occurring in courts, it is apparent why the litigious differences between states are the most important. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To compare (grouping SC with NC as will be the case tomorrow):

• Dark blue - licenses issued state-wide, and state-wide only (34 states. clearer than saying marriage is legal in the state; this would exclude MO and KS for now)
• Medium blue - licenses issued on local level only (2 states: would apply to KS and MO, as of writing this; would have applied to IL, CO, and NM in the past, among others)
• Light blue - recognition of out-of-state marriages, but no licenses issued (1 state: applies to MO, but not KS, as of writing)
• Light gold - ban struck, temporary stay (1 state: FL)
• Gold/tan/whatever it's called - ban struck, indefinite stay (2 states: TX, AR)
• Grey - no specific laws (some of the territories)
• Red - ban in place, contrary to precedent (1 states: maybe KS)
• Dark red - ban in place, no circuit precedent (11 states: ND, SD, NE, MI, OH, KY, TN, GA, AL, MS, LA)

Ignoring the overwhelmer of dark blue, the standard deviation of 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 11 (your scheme) is 3.95, while the standard deviation of 6, 2, 3, 5, 6 (my scheme) is less than half of that at 1.82, where a smaller standard deviation indicates a more even spread among the colors. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Standard deviation does not matter, in my opinion. What matters is showing the information as clearly as possible to the best of our ability. To me, removing direct reference to stays removes the clarity of the information. It might show disparity in colours for the moment, but if it shows the information the most clearly, I prefer it over a colour scheme that is confusing and indirect. Kumorifox (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: You are making assumptions as to what "the information" is, and therefore begging the question. Currently, there is 0 distinction between states with legal SSM with no litigation and those with litigation (e.g. VA v. SC, AZ v. ID). There is also no distinction between states with banned SSM with cases headed to appeals (very vulnerable bans), and states with none (LA v. MS, TN v. AL). The question is whether these distinctions merit inclusion in the map moreso than the stay distinction, which at this point only applies to one state, and therefore seems rather better relegated to a footnote. Seeing that this latter distinction has been relegated to a footnote in the past, I don't think I am making an unreasonable proposal. The standard deviation is applicable because of information theory: dense codes carry more information than sparse codes. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: You're right, I'm sorry. The differences you name are just as important, and should indeed be represented. Kumorifox (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: Thanks for bringing up the topic about changing the color scheme though! I think it's very pertinent, and will likely come up again soon. [comment added after archive was created] 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I support at least changing tan to pink, so that there's an easily legible spectrum. I never understood the choice of tan; there seem to me to be several different degrees and tan seems to me to represent something entirely different. Anyone agree to pink?193.225.200.92 (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)193.225.200.92 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Let the map stand as is. Also we should have some stability in map colors. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina recognition

In addition to Condon v. Haley, No. 2:14-cv-04010-RMG, 2014 WL 5897175 (D.S.C. Nov. 12, 2014), stay denied sub nom. Bleckley v. Wilson, No. 14-2241 (4th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014)(order on stay here) i.e. stay denied today, so that the temporary stay expiring on Nov. 20th (allowing SSM in South Carolina) can only now be stayed by the U.S. Supreme Ct. — the case of Bradacs v. Haley, No. 3:13-cv-02351-JMC (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2014)(order here) i.e. a recognition-only case where the court found in favor of the plaintiff couples and issued permanent injunction of S.C. law as to allow recognition of SSM statewide — goes into effect immediately as there is no stay. For the time being, I think it's appropriate to stripe S.C. light blue/medium blue, or solid medium blue. MarkGT (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that SC should be strip as there is no stay for recognition.--Allan120102 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; I'm on mobile or I'd do it. We should watch out for a temporary stay while the AG appeals to SCOTUS and it gets referred to the whole court like Kansas was, though. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

And... your prediction's correct. The S.C. AG just filed for an emergency stay with the U.S. Sup. Ct. sub nom. Wilson v. Condon, No. 14A533 (application here); i.e. D.S.C.'s Condon v. Haley, No. 2:14-cv-04010-RMG, the in-state-marriage decision. Curiously, nothing in the brief about Bradacs v. Haley, No. 3:13-cv-02351-JMC, today's out-of-state recognition decision, but any stay application for the latter has to go to the 4th Cir. first. MarkGT (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: The Supreme Court of South Carolina, in State ex rel. Wilson v. Condon, No. 2014-2121 (Nov. 19, 2014) has just lifted it's October 9 injunction directing "[r]espondent and all other probate judges ... not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples" until Bradacs v. Haley was decided, as the judge in Bradacs ruled yesterday. Charleston County is issuing SSM licenses. MarkGT (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas Supreme Court

The Court has lifted the its stay [7]. Time to go dark blue? Mw843 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure but it looks like with this movement the court agrees that the ban cannot be enforce in other counties along the two mention.--Allan120102 (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In their ruling the state Supreme Court explicitly rejected the state's argument of the federal ruling applying to only two counties. I'd say it's time for solid blue, although Brownback will probably try appealing this to SCOTUS. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, saying yes. From State ex rel. Schmidt v. Moriarty, No. 112590 (Kan. Nov. 18, 2014): "Just as significantly, the federal district court's decision in Marie did not merely conclude that the Kansas same-sex marriage ban violated the Fourteenth Amendment as applied in the Seventh and Eighteenth Judicial Districts where the defendant court clerks were located. In other words, the federal court's decision was not based on some peculiar quirk in those specific judicial districts' operations. Instead, the federal court's analysis was aimed directly at the epicenter of the Kansas same-sex marriage ban ... In short, that court approached its decision as a facial challenge to the Kansas ban, not simply as applied in those particular jurisdiction" (italics in original). Thus the Kansas Supreme Court finds that Marie v. Moser struck down the ban on it's face, and it's effect is statewide. (Dralwik: The SCOTUS already denied a stay of the injunction in Marie. Remember the Scalia and Thomas dissents?) MarkGT (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was the Federal order. I'm saying Brownback will probably appeal this KSSC order. It's useless, but he is going to pull everything he can. I've updated some maps but the world and county maps will have to wait until I can get to my desktop. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry about the misunderstanding. You're right in that appealing the Kansas Supreme Court order would be useless, as the only practical, substantive effect it has is holding the state case in abeyance. There's not really any federal question involved for the U.S. Sup. Ct. to take up. The state's governor has a better chance gumming things up by trying to 'convince' some of the local judges in some of these more 'backward' Kansas counties to simply disregard circuit precedent, i.e. Marie, Herbert, and Bishop, and the Kan. S.C. dicta in this case, and deny licenses nonetheless. Then things might get interesting...MarkGT (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, same-sex marriage is not legal statewide.. [8] Prcc27 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically, it is but the majority of Kansas counties are in contempt of federal court. Also, note the federal ruling only mentions the state Department of Health as a defendant. The two county business is from the Attorney General, not the ruling. (To be safe I rolled back the county map.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 06:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point, all the counties that aren't issuing licenses are rogue. Since this map does not depict rogue counties, it's probably best to revert to the blue Kansas. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What happens when you have a rogue Attorney General?? hmmmm 0nlyth3truth (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusion. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll cheers to that! 0nlyth3truth (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The federal court ruling only applied to two counties though... Also, it was a preliminary injunction- so I'm guessing that Kansas's same-sex marriage ban will eventually be struck down officially. However, the ban is currently intact but unenforceable in two counties. Furthermore, AFAIC- the only "rogue" counties in Kansas are the ones defying the same-sex marriage ban (with the exception of Douglas and Sedgwick counties). Prcc27 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But if the only defendant it bars from enforcing the ban is state-wide, how do we know it is only two counties? What is the source for this? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: The court clerks of Douglas and Sedgwick counties are also defendants.. [9] Prcc27 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"The federal court ruling only applied to two counties though." No it did not. Functionally, it has been so far. But more importantly, the ruling was about the entire state, and occurred at a level where it is immediately binding upon the whole state, and the Kansas SC upheld the notion that it was not something unique to these counties that the federal court found in violation of the Constitution. All Kansas should be issuing gay marriage. The problem is that Kansas has an attorney general that does not understand (or refuses to implement his understanding of) Constitutional law. The only thing preventing various people and counties from being found in contempt of federal court is time. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But, the state defendant means the federal ruling is indeed state-wide, and the AG claiming otherwise is legally incorrect. Note that the state Supreme Court, while stopping shy of mandating that all counties follow suit, explicitly rejected this claim in their ruling today (page 5). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: The ruling only prevents the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment from enforcing the ban. The only thing their job entails is to furnish marriage license forms and keeps marriage records. So it looks like that from now on, same-sex marriage licenses will be gender neutral in all of Kansas and same-sex marriages will be recorded. However, the state is still allowed to refuse recognition and the majority of counties are allowed to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Prcc27 (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Without a source to back up that (rather tortuous) interpretation, you sailed right into WP:OR. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Lol, I already provided the source in one of the comments above..! "The defendants are court clerks in Douglas and Sedgwick counties, along with the secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The agency furnishes marriage license forms and keeps marriage records." I'm sure their is more to the job title, but it's probably irrelevant to what we're talking about. [10]

So we've got an injunction against the state recorder of marriages and county clerks, like every other injunction legalizing same-sex marriage. Does an injunction need to list every clerk in the state to be valid throughout the state? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Find a source proving that not every clerk needs to be listed (any of the many previous injunctions will do), and I will support reverting back to the solid Kansas. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Wisconsin one below? Or Wyoming, where the judge lifts the stay by "the preliminary injunction given immediate force"? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 08:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: What you thought was happening in MO (the ban for the whole state being thrown under the bus with no stay) is exactly what is happening right now in Kansas (there is no ban, there is no stay). The problem is that various powerful individuals are seeing fit to interpret Constitutional law as they like (namely, "I don't have to listen to the circuit court until SCOTUS rules") and directing county clerks accordingly, when the only thing they can legally do is defer to the now-finalized rulings and findings of the court system. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• @0nlyth3truth: How many times do I have to say that the ruling was only a preliminary injunction? Nothing was struck down! All the ruling does is prevent the ban from being enforced by the defendants while keeping the ban intact. Prcc27 (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Like the preliminary injunction in Wisconsin, against some state defendants and three county clerks, that created the window of marriages across the state? Was same-sex marriage only legalized in those three counties? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: I don't see where it says the ruling was a preliminary injunction. Furthermore, the judge in the Wisconsin case ruled that the same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. Prcc27 (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Page 87 and 88, she sets a timetable for the permanent injunction which wound up being stayed upon issuance, meaning the window marriages were entirely off the preliminary injunction. The Kansas federal injunction rules the state's ban unconstitutional as well. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Do you have a source that says the Wisconsin ruling was only preliminary? Also, the judge in Kansas said "The Court concludes, therefore, that plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood that they will succeed in establishing that Article 15, § 16 of the Kansas Constitution and K.S.A. § 23-2501 violate their rights guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment" but stopped short of ruling the ban is unconstitutional. Prcc27 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No source using those exact words, but the fact that she refers to a future injunction makes it preliminary by definition. An injunction is an injunction; a preliminary one has as much force as a final one. As well, the Kansas preliminary injunction bars Kansas from not issuing licenses in the interim; the exact wording of the finding has no impact given the specific order. We changed states to dark blue upon preliminary injunctions even in the face of government opposition (see Idaho), and Kansas is no different. Counties are holding out due to the State's contempt of the court order, not some limitation in the order itself.

If you want this to be a de facto map, Kansas is striped given the clerks' inaction. If you want this to be a de jure map, Kansas is full marriage blue. I am off to sleep but will check this page in the morning. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 08:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The main differences between Wisconsin and Kansas is that Wisconsin was ordered to recognize same-sex marriages whereas Kansas was not. Also, AFAIK- there is no source saying same-sex marriage is only legal in some counties of Wisconsin. However, there is a source saying same-sex marriage is only legal in some counties of Kansas. Furthermore, since the Kansas ruling didn't rule that the ban is unconstitutional, it is still intact. Prcc27 (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to make the same point Dralwik. I strongly suggest that Kansas be changed back to solid blue. [Comment added by 107.2.70.190.[11] Please sign your comments with five four tildes (~) per WP:Talk page guidelines 0nlyth3truth (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)]

Per [12] "Doug Bonney, legal director of the ACLU Foundation of Kansas, said the group reads the Supreme Court decision as a clear ruling that the state must stop enforcing its marriage ban on same-sex marriages." And per any analysis of this very complicated issue by Prcc27 (or any of us with less legal training than Doug Bonney) violating WP:OR, I support a solid Kansas. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• @0nlyth3truth: Your source doesn't say same-sex marriage is legal statewide.. Also, I already provided a source that says same-sex marriage is only legal in select counties [13]. Furthermore, the ACLU does not have jurisdiction to legally interrupt rulings pertaining to Kansas's laws like the AG does. Prcc27 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Another source for you [14]. Prcc27 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The source demonstrates that anyone trying to enforce a ban on SSM in Kansas is in contempt of federal court. The question then becomes whether contempt of a federal court order prohibiting application of an SSM ban is something we choose to depict on the map. There is no consensus on this, and in similar situations (e.g. rogue counties), the consensus has been to not do so. And so far 3 out of 4 individuals (!vote) support not depicting this. Also, your last source is from almost a week ago, so it is basically irrelevant here. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Or rather, the source demonstrates that, given all the rulings and all the injunctions, a legal expert believes that the whole state of Kansas should be issuing licenses. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The source demonstrates that anyone trying to enforce a ban on SSM in Kansas is in contempt of federal court." No it doesn't, the ACLU doesn't have the right to legally interrupt rulings pertaining to Kansas's law like the AG does (I already said this!) Do you have a source that says anyone is in contempt of court..? I provided the last source to proof that same-sex marriage was banned before the state supreme court ruling. "a legal expert believes that the whole state of Kansas should be issuing licenses." Well... that's their opinion, but that doesn't mean they're right. Their interpretation doesn't trump the AG's binding opinion! Prcc27 (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The opinion of a legal expert trumps your opinion per WP:OR. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have backed my opinion up with sources and since my opinion is based on the AG's binding opinion I am not in violation of WP:OR. You're opinion is in violation of WP:OR because you have yet to provide a source that anyone has been charged with contempt of court. Prcc27 (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The supreme court of Kansas ruled against the AG, fyi, by permitting marriages in Johnson County.[15] I rescind the "contempt of court" language, but I assert that that was a sufficient but not a necessary criterion for Kansas being solid blue. Also, AG's don't issue "binding opinions." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have read the full order issued by the Kansas Supreme Court, and I agree with Prcc27, noting 1) preliminary injunctions usually result in state-wide SSM because most AGs are sane and like to avoid legal chaos predicated purely on technicalities, unlike Derek Schmidt 2) SSM may become legal in all counties if plaintiffs can add officials in all of them as defendants to the Marie v. Moser case 3) SSM will probably become legal in all of Kansas sooner by a federal court order, which will almost definitely also mandate recognition of SSM, which is not currently at play in any of the most advanced court cases in Kansas 4) Derek Schmidt may continue thinking that things in Kansas are not settled until SCOTUS rules on SSM, and he would be wrong, as the 10th circuit has authority to force Kansas to perform and recognize SSM throughout the state, without a ruling from SCOTUS, in particular if this case is appealed to SCOTUS from the 10th circuit and is denied certiorari. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

At the very least it seems like the State Supreme Court's ruling means that the ban is gone and that the Red is not correct.75.179.42.181 (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. There is no color for obstreperous local officials. Mw843 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the Kan. Sup. Ct. ruling, do we know of any counties where local judges have refused same-sex marriage licenses? AFAIK, the news seems to indicate that certain Kansas counties are issuing, certain counties have not in the past, and most, which are rural and have small populations, have not been confronted with the issue and probably won't be for months. But I haven't seen an official order (i.e. administrative or judicial) out of any county judge's chambers post-Moriarty (Kan. Sup. Ct. Nov. 18, 2014) refusing licensure outright. Thus suggesting blue or blue/grey striping, not blue/red.MarkGT (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

At least three counties (Butler, Elk, and Greenwood) are refusing to issue. The preliminary injunction orders defendants (which only includes officials in specific counties and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment) to stop enforcing Kansas' ban. The injunction does not order anyone else to do so (this is the aforementioned technicality that most AGs would ignore in pursuit of uniformity in the state). Johnson County started issuing of its own initiative, and the Kansas AG sued it alleging it was in violation of the existing Kansas SSM ban. The Kansas Supreme Court rejected this argument, allowing SSM in Johnson County to proceed, ruling that at this time counties not listed as defendants can decide the matter on their own. This is a legally defensible position, and entails that there are, unfortunately, two Kansases: one comprising the counties injuncted and their friends, and one comprising the unfriendly counties. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: It's more complicated than I thought, then. I am aware of the specifics of the preliminary injunction: While I believe U.S. district court rulings (Marie v. Moser) are not binding on state courts, the federal Marie ruling combined with the dicta in last night's state supreme court ruling in Moriarty (note that the article you post seems written before the Kan. Sup. Ct. ruling in Moriarty last evening, which reflects that Marie is applicable statewide, while not specifically ordering that...are these three still refusing today?) and 10th Circuit precedent of Kitchen, should be persuasive enough authority for local judges to rule these marriages legal. Each chief judge of a Kansas Judicial District, when faced with the issue (besides the two in Marie and the one in Moriarty) and is still refusing, will have to issue an order explaining his/her opinion on why, legally, they are going against. It would be on shaky grounds, indeed. MarkGT (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There is anecdotal evidence (in the comments) that counties are still turning away same-sex couples, although news so far today is hard to come by. I'm thinking it might be best to leave Kansas as unsettled, i.e. striped, and that trying to decide which group of counties is rogue or whether marriage is legal throughout the state is likely beyond our scope at this point. If judges and the AG can't agree on the law in Kansas, we aren't going to have some spark of insight. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkGT: All the Moriarty ruling found was that it was permissible for Johnson County to issue licenses, namely because the court found that individual counties in KS have the discretion to interpret the recent proceedings as they see fit ("because the Kansas Supreme Court does not give advisory opinions"), which includes the counties that are refusing to issue SSM licenses. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Throughout the past year, the editors of the map have seemingly lost their minds, and begun to apply inconsistent editing methods which downright shock me. When Illinois legalized same-sex marriage, we turned it blue before licenses were issued because the map is about the legalization of same-sex marriage and not about which states issue licenses. We turned Hawaii dark blue before licenses were issued. We did this for every state until recently, when editors have somehow came under the impression that the map is of active licensing which it is not and never has been. With that said, the color of Kansas is unacceptable if we are to remain consistent in how this map has formed from day one. A top Kansas official has been ORDERED to issue same-sex marriage licenses. In federal court terms, this means a statewide decision has been implemented. If the plaintiffs had only sued a county clerk, we would have a different result. This was not the case here. Whether some counties want to violate a court order is irrelevant because as of this very moment, same-sex marriage is legal in Kansas. It is legal in every county that is refusing to issue marriage licenses. If we are to properly edit this map in a way that is consistent with how it has always been done, we must change Kansas to blue. S51438 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You asserted below, "an attempt to stay this decision was denied by the Supreme Court." This is not the case. That decision was restricted to Johnson County. The AG sued to stop marriages there. What the decision found was the AG of Kansas cannot stop counties from issuing SSM licenses. However, the court did not rule that all counties must offer SSM licenses, and it explicitly left that decision to the individual counties. No state AG has performed such an action to date, though I wouldn't put it past MT and SC to try to emulate this. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I referring to the Supreme Court of the United States, which has denied a stay of the federal court order I mentioned. Your point would hold weight if I was speaking of the Kansas Supreme Court. Let it be clear, counties not issuing marriage licenses are violating a federal court order, an order that has been given the go-ahead by the United States Supreme Court. Even if you made a valid point, the map is once again about legalization, which encompasses the entire state because the defendant in the federal case was a top Kansas official. S51438 (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I am in awe of how you believe the justice system works. If I, as the Governor of MyTexas, am permanently enjoined from enforcing law #1234, I can not turn around and say "well, individual counties can still enforce law #1234". What a blatant disregard for our system of government. If a top official is permanently barred from enforcing an unconstitutional law, AS IS THE CASE HERE, then the law is dead. S51438 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, "A top Kansas official has been ORDERED to issue same-sex marriage licenses." This is also not the case. No top state officials issue same-sex marriage licenses. They provide license forms to the counties. At this time, Kansas has gender-neutral marriage license forms statewide, but individual counties can refuse SSM couples from getting them. However, the counties named as defendants cannot refuse SSM couples from getting them. At this time, all that Kansas has been ordered by federal court is for 1) the Department of Health and Environment to provide gender-neutral license forms 2) the named counties to issue SSM licenses. All that Kansas has been ordered by state court is for 1) No prevention of other counties issuing SSM licenses. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything you are asserting has been argued in this section by others (including myself before I changed my mind). 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the title of this map should be changed to "where licenses are issued" because it clearly is no longer about where same-sex marriage is actually legal. A top state official represents the entire state in a legal case. I guess this fairly easy concept has been lost on everyone. S51438 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What top state official are you referring to? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert Moser. When a representative of the state is sued, and a decision is levied against said representative, the decision is applied statewide. In most federal court decisions, an individual county was not sued. Why? Because it's irrelevant in the federal court system. When a top official is told what to do, an official who represents the entire state in a legal battle, the decision is binding on the entire state. Governor Butch Otter, who does not participate in issuing marriage licenses, could not legally say "Well, counties can decide". Neither can Robert Moser. S51438 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Moser does not issue licenses. He provides forms to the counties. He is complying. County judges and clerks not named as defendants have not been ordered to do anything, and as both the AG and SCOKS refuse to advise them in any way, they have left them to do as they please. In every state so far, the AG or SC have not abdicated their responsibility in this way, choosing the legal order of substantive findings over the chaos of acquiescing to procedural technicalities predicated on animus. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to get in my reply before edit conflicts get to me: @0nlyth3truth: You're correct, but not only did the Kan. Sup. Ct. say that local judges "have the discretion to interpret the recent proceedings as they see fit," these judges still have to consider that "the federal court's decision was not based on some peculiar quirk in those specific judicial districts' operations. Instead, the federal court's analysis was aimed directly at the epicenter of the Kansas same-sex marriage ban ... In short, that court approached its decision as a facial challenge to the Kansas ban, not simply as applied in those particular jurisdictions" State ex rel. Schmidt v. Moriarty, No. 112590 (Kan. Nov. 18, 2014)(emphasis mine). Thus judges adhering to the Kansas Supreme Court dicta as to "discretion to interpret" must also find persuasive it's holding that Marie v. Moser struck down the ban on it's face, and it's effect is statewide. I have not seen any local ruling to the contrary; I would argue for solid blue until a local judge issues an opinion otherwise, that's just me, though :) MarkGT (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@S51438: I wouldn't say "lost their minds" as there's been no precedent, i.e. 'ground rules', and a lot of people have worked very hard to get to where we are today with respect to these maps. But OTOH, bickering and fighting never goes away on this page; I try to stay away for the most part. The problem is not just with same-sex marriage, but results as to legal rulings and laws in general – as no ground rules were set except simply following consensus. But consensus can sometimes be irrational; for example, if past consensus turns out to be wrong. Of course, there's no way to address unforeseen problems, either. Does a map change color when a law is passed, or when it takes effect? When a court rules, do editors interpret the effect of that ruling, or change a color based on "what's happening on the ground"? Do we do 'what we've always done in that situation', even though this situation might be a bit different and not exactly analogous? No easy answers. MarkGT (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkGT: I only argue for precedent - because since litigation has taken off, it has been continually violated. Nowhere in the map key does it say "Where same-sex marriage licenses are issued". S51438 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that SSM is not legal in counties where judges are not persuaded by Marie v. Moser and neither are these counties in contempt of anything. Or if they are, please provide a source! 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got nothing :(. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen a ruling where a local judge has not been persuaded by Marie as interpreted by Moriarty. You're correct in that there's no penalty of contempt; there's nothing to be in contempt of. It just hasn't been litigated locally yet. That's different from SSM being "not legal". Three separate branches of government and two concurrently sovereign jurisdictions means everything is not always in sync. We have light blue for that, not red... MarkGT (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are saying to double stripe KS light blue and dark blue, I support that. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I will also support that. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose using the transition color. I think the precedent color is more accurate since the ban is still in effect but is just one court ruling away from being legal or legalized because of the precedent. Prcc27 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether there is a de facto ban (which there is) but whether there is a de jure ban in KS. It's not clear that there is a de jure ban. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right now, SSM is de jure and de facto legal in injuncted counties, and at least de facto legal in friendly counties. SSM is de facto banned in the rest of the counties, but given the Kansas Supreme Court ruling, there is no de jure anything in these counties. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence other than the suggestion a state official - representing the state in its entirety - can allow individual counties to interpret that decision. S51438 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert Moser is neither allowing nor disallowing counties from doing anything. That is not what he does. Further, the KSC asserts that individual counties can interpret the legal proceedings as they see fit, and their legal reasoning is sound. Please read their entire opinion if you disagree. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas should stay strip or change to total blue. Just because some counties are refusing doesn't mean its not legal. Even KSC say that the order apply more than the state official thought. Federal decisions are usually binding to all counties. --Allan120102 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you prefer medium red / dark blue, or light blue / dark blue for striping? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose striping because there's no legal justification for a county to deny a marriage license to a same-sex couple in Kansas. If anyone could present me with evidence the federal court decision applied to only select counties, I will be persuaded. S51438 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The evidence has been provided above. To counter: I could be persuaded by you if you can find a source that says the rest of the counties are in contempt of court. If you can't, that's evidence that you are wrong. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This map is not one of de facto bans on same-sex marriage. Nowhere does it insinuate anything but de jure. "Same-sex marriage legal" is the title of the dark blue, not "Same-sex marriage offered". Regardless of de facto status, the map is one of de jure situations. S51438 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The only purpose of light blue is to distinguish between de jure and de facto. So you are again wrong. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Saying "...the ban is still in effect" is wrong per Moriarty (Kan. Sup. Ct.) The state high court told county judges to appraise the situation and rule as to their understanding of the law. I haven't seen a Kansas county rule against issuing same-sex marriage licenses post-Moriarty. "State Attorney General Derek Schmidt said in a statement that the Kansas court's decision leaves it to the federal courts and local state judges to decide whether marriage licenses are issued to same-sex couples." (source here) So there's no "ban" to stop local judges from allowing same-sex marriage, and more than enough legal grounds and precedent on which to do so. That's more certain than a local judge upholding the facially-struck-down ban (See Marie as interpreted by Moriarty) by circumventing circuit precedent and citing Baker or using other nebulous legal reasoning. There's nothing to stop a rouge judge from doing the latter, either; but that is the test case we're waiting for in order to appeal and go full dark blue. For 90+ counties to act individually would take months. Hence dark blue/light blue. MarkGT (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@0onlyth3truth: I never mentioned light blue. There is no "pending legalization" because same-sex marriage is de jure legal in Kansas. De facto does not equal legal. It only references the reality of the situation. Nowhere on the map is de facto the implied basis for different colors. S51438 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Better said than my remark. This is a statewide map. To say "Same sex marriage is banned and legal" means to me that we have a statewide ban, except one or 2 judges broke that ban. This is not what's happening here. If I were a KS judge, there is NOTHING PROHIBITING ME from giving a license to same sex couples (as red implies). However, there is nothing forcing me to either. I'd stripe dark/light blue with a footnote that "Some counties have chosen not to issue licenses. Swifty819 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The counties that are not issuing SSM licenses are enforcing a statewide ban. Furthermore, they have permission to do so until a federal court specifically orders them not to. I agree with your support of light blue / dark blue. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

They aren't enforcing a "statewide ban", simply because if it were "statewide", a county would not have the blessing of SCOKS to perform gay marriages. That's why I'm saying counties are "choosing not to perform". But nonetheless, we agree on the final result. Also, my position is more of a "If we go with a solid color, do dark blue, otherwise stripe it." I think a dark blue omits information if we decide to do something other than "Dark blue means you can get married somewhere in the state." But I think having red anywhere is a lie. Swifty819 (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Recap (!vote):

• Persons in favor of solid dark blue (3+2/2): S51438, Allan120102, Thegreyanomaly, ?Mw843, ?MarkGT
• Persons in favor of solid grey (1): Knowledgekid87

If we must stripe:

• Persons in favor of light blue / dark blue (1+1/2): Thegreyanomaly, ?Kumorifox
• Persons in favor of medium red / dark blue (1+3/2): Prcc27, ?Allan120102, ?MarkGT, ?Kumorifox
• Persons in favor of grey / dark blue (4+1/2): 0nlyth3truth, Swifty819, 75.179.42.181, Dralwik, ?Knowledgekid87

Note the position with the least support is currently the one in play. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE this is also lopsided as you have three proposals that involve dark blue, it is something that nobody is arguing against. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

How about striping dark blue / grey? [See the "Grey" section below] I agree that medium red should be banished from Kansas. That also removes the color entirely from the map. Grey is reserved for jurisdictions where SSM is neither de jure legal nor de jure banned, which seems to be the case in most of Kansas. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: I disagree in part. The U.S. district court in Marie v. Moser offered two different forms of relief (only the latter form of relief was offered, preliminarily): "Specifically, [Plaintiffs] ask the Court to declare unconstitutional and enjoin defendants from enforcing certain provisions of Kansas law..." (emphasis mine) While the injunction part of the relief specifically applies to the two named counties, the declaratory relief striking down the Kansas ban on it's face, obviously, applies statewide. The Kansas Supreme Court said as much. Counties "enforcing a statewide ban"...that has been found unconstitutional, statewide? Wow, we're getting into a circular argument (As for the later dark blue/grey comment, that could work, but I don't have a strong opinion on it.) MarkGT (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree with MarkGT re the district judge's ruling striking the ban statewide, but am supporting the Dark Blue/Grey striping.75.179.42.181 (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• Just for the recap I support the current form of medium red/dark blue as not all counties are allowing SSM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas should be solid blue but Kansas agencies are no recognizing ss unions right now so Don't know which color http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article4020337.html--Allan120102 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The same-sex marriage ban was not struck down or ruled unconstitutional and is still in place. Furthermore, light blue is only used for legalization and the Supreme Court of Kansas decided not to touch on the issue which means same-sex marriage wasn't legalized anywhere. As a result, Kansas should remain striped dark blue / light red. Prcc27 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Consistent with this precedent, the Court concludes that the public interest favors protecting plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by enjoining Kansas’ plainly unconstitutional provisions" --Judge Crabtree. How can you read that and then say that he didn't declare the provisions unconstitutional? Swifty819 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

He was granting a preliminary injunction, not summary judgment. The official "striking-down" of Kansas' ban has apparently not occurred yet. S51438 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Having re-read the full Marie decision, and noting that while the Plaintiffs ask for declaratory relief, since this is a preliminary injunction (thanks S51438), the judge will not rule on the former relief until after the interlocutory appeal is settled. Thus Prcc27 appears to be correct (I strike my mistaken comment above); and while 10th Circuit precedent forbids these bans, and the Kansas Supreme Court realizes the statewide applicability of any ruling, there must first be a declaratory judgment by either the U.S. District of Kansas, or a Kansas District court. Without this, we've got to keep the status quo (blue/red stripe). MarkGT (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I support mblue+dblue. MarkGT, status quo is not (blue/red stripe). That is just something Prcc27 forced in a couple days ago. Looking at the history Status quo was dark blue. I have accordingly reverted the map to the true status quo pending a consensus. Also, no one is opposing dark blue, so this is fitting. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"That is just something Prcc27 forced in a couple days ago." Good catch. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• @0nlyth3truth: Not really... especially since there was never a consensus for Kansas being dark blue. And Thegreyanomaly I didn't "force" anything; that was the consensus for Kansas at the time since that was the only discussion on the matter. Prcc27 (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Prcc27, please stop lying. Of course, you forced it through. There was no to minimal support for red striping. You were the only person actually defending that edit, having reverted the state multiple times with no one else backing you. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thegreyanomaly: Okay... Are you aware that Kansas solid blue was implemented before the "discussion" on it even began? I am not lying because if you'll look through the archives you'll see that Kansas solid blue was not discussed- not once! Kansas wasn't discussed until I mentioned that it shouldn't be solid blue. So read the comments before accusing me of lying (this is the second time I've asked you to read the comments before accusing me of lying; you should probably stop jumping to conclusions). Prcc27 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Prcc27 You are lying when you claim you did not try to force striping through when you so blatantly did. Please read Swifty's post at the bottom of the page, there doesn't need to be a goddamn discussion for every damn edit. KS was dark blue for about six days before you tried to force in your striping. Six days of dark blue without objection in this case is clearly a silent consensus. We didn't support your move, so as always you come up with nonsense to put it up anyways as you are doing now. Anyways, I am logging out to sleep. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • @Thegreyanomaly: "There doesn't need to be a goddamn discussion for every damn edit." Well obviously there should have been one for Kansas, which is exactly why I started one. Prcc27 (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Just because you started one does not mean the silent consensus did not exist. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc, if you wanted to claim there was no consensus for dark blue, frankly, you should have said something sooner than 6 days after the change...like even the day of the change. Swifty819 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Montana Struck

No stay issued [16]. Since they're subject to 9th Circuit precedent, I think they can go dark blue. Mw843 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

FINALLY! 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When there's circuit precedent, it's just a matter of getting a case in front of a judge. Barring SCOTUS intervention, South Carolina goes at noon EST tomorrow (about 19 hours from now). Mw843 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas should be BLUE.

I do not understand what is so difficult about this. The Kansas decision, Marie v. Moser resulted in Kansas' ban being struck down, and an attempt to stay this decision was denied by the Supreme Court. Now, who was the defendant in this case? "ROBERT MOSER, M.D., in his official capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, et al.," The decision applies STATEWIDE, whether some counties want to illegally go against the court order is irrelevant. The map IS NOT A MAP OF WHERE LICENSES ARE ISSUED, the map IS AND ALWAYS HAS been about LEGALIZATION. Gay marriage is LEGAL in Kansas! There is no question about it! The color should be changed! S51438 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read and contribute two sections up. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems a little obsessive to bicker hundreds lines over such a trivial thing when in all likelihood the complex situation in Kansas will last perhaps a week or so. MKleid (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusing people of obsessiveness on Wikipedia? lol. I'm taking the opportunity to learn about the differences and interactions between the state and federal court systems. Will I need this information? Probably. I have big aspirations! 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: Not just dual sovereigns, three branches of government in each as well. I'm getting my free legal education here, too :-) MarkGT (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Grey

I move to change the language in the legend for grey from "Neither prohibition nor recognition of same-sex marriage or unions in territory law" to "Neither prohibition nor recognition of same-sex marriage" since 1) the map no longer deals with unions other than marriage and 2) there is no reason to include "territory law" as that is evident from which jurisdictions are colored with grey. Further, the latter would also have to happen if my proposal for a Kansas striped with grey is chosen. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Support, then stripe Kansas blue/gray. Swifty819 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Support, & Support striping Kansas Dblue/gray.75.179.42.181 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Support with striping. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Support just Grey It is a grey area so... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - the purpose of territory law is because only territories use it. I remember in the past people asking what the use for the color was because they had overlooked that territories were on the map. The phrase makes it clear that they need to look at the territories. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Then how do you wish to color KS? Swifty819 (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Answered above, KS should either be solid blue per status quo or be mblue/dblue. No grey. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the recap. The position with the most support is currently grey / dblue, followed closely by solid blue, with all others trailing significantly. Feel free to update the recap bullets as is appropriate. The situation in most of Kansas is most similar to the situation in those grey territories, in that SSM could start being performed at any time, yet it isn't, indefinitely, which is why I support the grey stripe. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Kansas is more complicated than that. Either the state still has the ban enforced, despite the KSC ruling (meaning red is in place), or the ban is tossed out but local clerks and judges are ignoring the ruling (implying medium blue is required). There is not likely to be another state where the ban is tossed but recognition does not follow immediately, meaning the new grey text is not really necessary. Kumorifox (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose light blue support dark blue with grey stripes.--Allan120102 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Recap (!vote):

• Persons in favor of solid dark blue (7+1/2): S51438, Allan120102, Thegreyanomaly, Swifty819, Dralwik, Kumorifox, Mw843, ?MarkGT

If we must stripe:

• Persons in favor of light blue / dark blue (1): Thegreyanomaly
• Persons in favor of medium red / dark blue (2+1/2): Prcc27, Knowledgekid87, ?MarkGT
• Persons in favor of grey / dark blue (3): 0nlyth3truth, 75.179.42.181, Allan120102

Please feel free to update the recap bullet points (no strikethrough or underline required) with appropriate info. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• @0nlyth3truth: I'm not sure if Knowledgekid87 every said they support striping gray... I think they meant they support the wording for gray. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I think you're right! 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm striking my last opinion. We should use solid blue. Swifty819 (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I also will support solid blue, and not try to get a reworking of the gray color. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I continue supporting striping with grey, but as previous consensus is solid dark blue, and current opinion favors solid dark blue, I am ok with the status-quo. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas state defendants

Yes the 2 county clerks were defendants. https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/242720672

It's also clearly stated in our coverage of Marie v. Moser. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• But were they state defendants...? Prcc27 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The term state defendants doesn't mean employees or agents of the state of Kansas. It means something far more general, like government officials or authorities. Think of the word state in its earlier sense, the nation state, not the literal state of Kansas. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina update

The state's appeal to SCOTUS has been rejected. SSM will be legal in about 90 minutes (noon EST). Mw843 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Archive 15 Created

Sorry if I've acted out of turn, but I thought it was getting out of hand. Mw843 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: There were still active conversations. I'd like to restore those. Please put the archive here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/Archive_15 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Aha! there it is. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, just gonna put the relevant tidbits under grey, and wrap up the convo with Kumorifox in the archive. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: You should probably put back the active conversations... Prcc27 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose archival and think the action should be reversed. Is this possible? Swifty819 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's easily doable. I've restored everything from the start of the Kansas debate. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Status Quo

Status Quo means we aren't supposed to touch Kansas until there is consensus. I couldn't find where there was every consensus for coloring Kansas solid dark blue, but there was consensus for Kansas striping until the Kansas Supreme Court issued their ruling. Once this happened, people argued that Kansas should be solid dark blue because the court rejected the state's argument. However, this argument was refuted since the court decided to leave the issue for the federal court(s) to decided. Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and the federal court(s) have forbidden a defendant of the state - representing the entire state - from enforcing a same-sex marriage ban. Still should be dark blue. S51438 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dark blue was the status quo mind you. S51438 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc, you usually have good ideas, and can always be counted on for a debate, but I have to say this. The stripes were never status quo. What had actually happened was, we had all agreed it should be solid blue when the federal court struck down the ban. Then you came along and said "No, the ruling only applies to two counties" and forced us to stripe. Notably, ever since then, we've all been arguing about the stripes, and it seems that only you (And possibly Kumorifox, my apologies if I've botched the name) think red should be anywhere on there. So there was never a status quo for red stripes. We'd have left the thing blue if you never striped it based on your belief that the ruling only applies to two counties. I'm sorry, but that's how it happened. Swifty819 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this article sums up Kansas nicely [17]: Same-sex marriage is legal, but the Brownback administration is in denial. Mw843 (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Now this is good and thorough information! This changes my support from striped to solid dark blue with footnote explaining the refusal of the administration. Kumorifox (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) @Prcc27: if you revert Kansas to striping, I will have to report you for edit-warring again. There was never any consensus for red stripes. There never was a status quo for red stripes. There was an agreement on dark blue. Until the striping discussions are settled, we need to have a version that is supported by the status quo. Red stripes never was the status quo. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas should be blue, but I think a footnote acknowledging the intransigence of the state government would be in order. Mw843 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@S51438: @Swifty819: @Mw843: @Kumorifox: @Thegreyanomaly: Some of you guys claim that there was an "agreement" for coloring Kansas solid blue. This is not the case; in fact, Kansas was barely discussed. Here is the "discussion" that led to Kansas being colored solid blue. Umm... that was not consensus especially since 80% of the users in this "discussion" were only talking about Supreme Court justices Scalia and Thomas instead of talking about Kansas. IMHO this means that the actual status quo is the precedent color (since you guys seem to disagree with the stripes being the status quo) because that was the most recent time there was actually consensus on how to color Kansas. Kansas wasn't even discussed until I started the discussion on the matter. Anyways, since we seem to be in a gridlock on how to color Kansas I'm thinking maybe we should start an RfA so we can work through this complicated situation by discussing (especially since the discussion seems to have died down and we still need a consensus). However, in the meantime, Kansas should be colored solid medium red because it is the actual status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, If you look at the file history to see when Kansas was colored solid blue, you'll see that Kansas was added before the "discussion" on Kansas even began. Prcc27 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27: Nonsense, KS actually needed to be mred + dblue for a good chunk of time for it to be status quo. Kansas was clearly dark blue from 22:35, 12 November 2014 to 00:43, 18 November 2014 when you forced in your striping. It was dark blue all of the 13th-17th, five whole days plus of dark blue. That is status quo. Your striping was reinstating three times, each time only by you. If you map truly was the status quo, you would not have had to edit-war to get it into place. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Thegreyanomaly: Kansas was solid precedent color for a very long time which is why I'm suggesting that solid precedent is the status quo since you guys rejected my dark blue-medium red status quo claim. Prcc27 (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Prcc27, you are changing your story. At 20:40, 20 November 2014, you were saying striped was status quo. Precedent red was solid on KS for a long time, but then the legal status changed, and it was left untouched as dark blue for five.something whole days. That was a fairly significant time of inaction and thus a silent consensus. Please read Swifty819's post below Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thegreyanomaly: I am not changing my story; Here is what I said in one of the comments above: "IMHO this means that the actual status quo is the precedent color (since you guys seem to disagree with the stripes being the status quo)." I was saying that if the stripes aren't considered status quo then the solid precedent would be the status quo because an undiscussed edit shouldn't qualify as the status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: going from "There was never consensus for Kansas being solid dark blue. Status quo means don't touch the map and leave it as is until there is consensus!" to "IMHO this means that the actual status quo is the precedent color (since you guys seem to disagree with the stripes being the status quo)." is changing your story. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • @Thegreyanomaly: Exactly, if there was never consensus for solid dark blue either leave it as is before Kansas went dark blue or leave it as is before the stripes were contested, which wasn't until the state supreme court ruling (even though it didn't really effect anything). Also, these comments were made before Swifty's silent consensus argument and I decided not to refute it. Prcc27 (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • There was a silence consensus for dark blue. Full stop, it existed. You ignoring does not mean it did not exist. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think a silence on the issue can mark consensus just as well as a long discussion like this can, at least if it's left in place for a non trivial amount of time. Kansas was blue since November 12. Since that time frame, no one had filed any objection. Rather, they simply noted that "Look, Scalia and Thomas dissented." If there truly was no consensus, then we would have immediately seen either A) A discussion from people saying "Why is Kansas blue" as soon as they noticed, or B) We would have had someone revert soon after the new map was made. Most edits on the Wiki are not made after a long discussion like this one. Rather, they are simply made. And, other than the few exceptions where there are quick disagreements (like when Mubarak was removed, and there was a large disagreement on how to mark his VP), the edit remains the way it is. Based on the fact that for nearly six days, no one either objected to or tried to change the Kansas map, that leads me to believe that there was consensus. In fact, I was glad that for once, we weren't having a large discussion. As a parallel, SC was turned blue earlier. All that existed was "SC stay was lifted." No one objected. Now, no one is debating the status quo of SC. No one is debating MT, where an appeal has been filed. And for six days, no one debated KS, so I believe dark blue is the status quo. I also believe that you could still get consensus to add the stripes, but they are not status quo. Swifty819 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Or, to quote WP:EDITCONSENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted." Based on this, the fact that Kansas was colored blue "before any discussion began" pretty much kills your argument. Swifty819 (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Edited 05:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I do not appreciate having my words twisted. (Edit: public apologies to Prcc27 for the now-struck statement. I took their comment way out of context and my response was completely out of line.) I said that, with the new information in the link provided by Mw843 above, my support shifts from striped red/blue to solid blue. I never said anything about a previous agreement on Kansas colouring; in fact, I originally supported your colour scheme, that red/blue striping was appropriate with the limited information available. But with the new information, the original stance no longer applies in my opinion. Kumorifox (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: When I said "Some of you guys claim that there was an agreement" I was not referring to you.. The main reason I tagged you is because of the last sentences of the paragraph. I was wondering how you felt about an RfA and whether or not you would be willing to consider solid precedent the actual status quo. Sorry, I didn't want to respond to you individually; there was 5 of you! :/ Prcc27 (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing medium red / readjust color scheme?

Medium red is no longer being used (and has no chance of consensus for use on Kansas), so it should be removed. Medium blue and light blue are only now used by one state each. If there is interest in readjusting the color scheme due to these developments, please express that and I will re-post my proposal from a few sections up (and perhaps Kumorifox can do so with theirs as well?). Please contribute your own proposals/critiques/constraints. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure light blue will disappear soon once the 11th circuit concede Pam Bondi's wish and stay the ruling indefinitely in Florida.--Allan120102 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Light blue could come up again. I'll be surprised if precedent red is needed in the future. Mw843 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Precedent red is still possible in 3 remaining circuits. It seems like the only thing that would stop it from popping back up would be a nation wide ruling from the SCOTUS coming out before any more appeals court rulings.75.179.42.181 (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: I believe your scheme, as shown above, is more informative, after considering your previous arguments. Only Montana needs to be changed to dark blue. Maybe change the language for medium blue, as, despite Circuit precedent, not all states immediately follow it, and proceed with their own cases (as we saw with Montana and South Carolina, as well as the current mess in Kansas). Ideally, those states were legal, but precedent or not, they still kept things illegal until the courts had decided. Keep a colour in reserve for precedent though, as 5th, 8th and 11th Circuits have not ruled yet. Kumorifox (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Support, but as Kumorifox said, reserve something for precedent. Swifty819 (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Leave-as-is - there are circuits with cases working through them. We could very easily have precedent states and we will need transition color for states that legalize/order SSM but don't have immediate effect. We just had a long-ass discussion in July/August to get the transition color, removing it would be a ridiculously bad idea. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There does not seem to be very much interest in this. So for now, I'll 1) revert the Test.svg just one last time so that the figure above shows the map and 2) list off some keywords in case this is revisited and someone searches the archives: legend, colors, color scheme. Please add more words if you can think of them. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: How should we color Kansas?

A federal judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction barring the defendants: court clerks in Douglas and Sedgwick counties, along with the secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment from enforcing Kansas's same-sex marriage ban. The Attorney General insists that the ruling only applies to the defendants. As a result, the state of Kansas is refusing to recognize same-sex marriages and only 19 of 105 counties are issuing licenses to same-sex couples. These 19 counties account for 60% of the population and any same-sex couple that receives a marriage license from one of these counties can get married anywhere in the state of Kansas. In addition, Johnson County began issuing licenses to same-sex couples before the federal court ruling in response to a precedent set by the Tenth Circuit of Appeals. The state supreme court blocked the county from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. In response to the federal court ruling, the hold was eventually lifted. However, the state supreme court decided not to rule on whether or not same-sex marriage is legal. The current consensus for Kansas is deadlocked. Here is what has been suggested for how to color Kansas: solid dark blue, striped dark blue-medium blue, striped dark blue-light blue, striped dark blue-gray, and striped dark blue-medium red.

To the right is the map & key for all the colors:

State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States¹

---

Dark Blue:

  Same-sex marriage legal

Medium Blue:

  Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized

Light Blue:

  Same-sex marriage legalization pending³

Gray:

  No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriage

Beige/Gold/Khaki/Yellow:

  Judicial ruling(s) overturning a same-sex marriage ban stayed indefinitely pending appeal

Cream/Light Yellow:

  Judicial ruling against a ban on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages, stayed indefinitely pending appeal

Light Red/Medium Red:

  Same-sex marriage banned contrary to federal circuit precedent

Dark Red:

  Same-sex marriage banned

---

¹ Native American tribal jurisdictions have laws pertaining to same-sex marriage independent of state law.
² Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri. In Kansas, nineteen counties are complying with a preliminary federal court order barring the defendants from enforcing Kansas's same-sex marriage ban.
³ A ruling striking down Florida's same-sex marriage ban has been stayed until January 5, 2015.

Prcc27 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Same-sex marriage is legal in Kansas by court ruling, appeals of which the circuit court and SCOTUS have rejected to appeal. Kansas should remain dark blue in the map, should be in the table, and should appear without parenthetic comment in the box-out. It is important that the entire page that links these items should be consistent. Difbobatl (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a yellow brick pattern would be appropriate and suitable ironic :) Akerbeltz (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think mustard and dark blue seems most appropriate, as long as it looks different from other states prompting the reader to look into it further you'll be fine. SPACKlick (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no stay in Kansas, meaning there should not be yellow/tan/gold/mustard/whatever people call it. The ban was struck by the court. The fact that the Kansas administration is in denial about it does not change the striking. This is why I suggested an alternative colour scheme, with a colour depicting local compliance instead of overall compliance (this new colour would currently apply to Kansas and Missouri). But if that alternative use is not implemented, I'm sticking with solid dark blue for Kansas, based on information provided in a previous discussion section, stating the ban is struck but the administration is rejecting the ruling (effectively placing them in a contempt of court position, I believe). Kumorifox (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: I haven't heard of anyone being placed in contempt of court, do you have a source? Prcc27 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: I'm not stating this as a fact, merely as my opinion on this matter. Hence the "I believe" in my comment :-) Kumorifox (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Kumorifox is correct, no stay means no beige. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz: @SPACKlick: We only use the yellow color when the ban is struck down but the ruling is stayed indefinitely. The ruling is no longer stayed and whether or not the ban was struck down is debatable. IMO, the ban was left intact but what the preliminary injunction does is prevent the defendants from enforcing the ban. Since only 2 counties and 1 state official was listed, the other counties and state officials do not have to comply which is why a majority of counties and the state of Kansas are enforcing the ban. Prcc27 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas should be dark blue: same-sex marriage is legal. That some officials are acting in contempt of the law, and reality, is deserving of a footnote, but nothing more. Mw843 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Leaving the map aside, what is the consensus in the text of the relevant Wikipedia article? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Same-sex marriage in Kansas has the following first sentence: "The legal status of same-sex marriage in Kansas is currently in flux." That's not helpful. :)Naraht (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions goes with the following:

34 U.S. states and the District of Columbia allow and recognize same-sex marriages.

Most Kansas counties are issuing same-sex marriage licenses, but the state government is refusing to recognize any same-sex marriages until all appeals have been exhausted.

15 U.S. states and 2 territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands) explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages in their constitutions and by statute ...

I've had several thoughts for something more descriptive for what's going on in Kansas, but I'm self-censoring. :)

With any luck it'll all be moot in a couple of days: the ACLU is planning to go back to court for a more explicit ruling. Mw843 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bluerasberry: The Same-sex marriage in Kansas page lists the AG's interpretation of the ruling and the LGBT rights groups' interpretation of the ruling. Basically, we left it for the reader to decide. Obviously that's a little bit more difficult to do on a map. Prcc27 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support solid dark blue with a footnote, per the status quo section above and the state government's intransigence not negating the federal ruling. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dralwik: Status quo means the map remains as is until a consensus is reached, which is what we are doing now. Prcc27 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am referencing the status quo section two headings up. (Although the consensus here seems pretty clear.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: I know, the point of me adding the section wasn't to debate what consensus should be. It was to debate what the status quo was to decide how to leave the map while we are trying to reach a consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• (Two edit conflicts) Snowball Leave Kansas solid dblue per above. This RfC really doesn't need to exist, the recap somewhere above shows a clear coalescence towards dark blue, which was not Prcc27's preference. As a result and as usual, Prcc27 is trying to extend the length of the debate and trying to get their opponents to yield out of exhaustion. This is a typical (and disruptive) strategy this user has attempted multiple times on multiple proposals. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thegreyanomaly: Lol, I suggested an RfA in the Status quo section above and nobody contested (including you). If you would have said you were against an RfA and gave a good explanation why we shouldn't have one, I probably wouldn't have started one. Prcc27 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: Given your history of disruptive behavior, I knew that objecting their would have had zero effect on your decision. This is just a sequel to virtually every other failed proposal you had where you lost and you just wouldn't give up. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dark blue snowball. I'm not going to repeat the long spiel I said in the above section. Swifty819 (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Last time I vote in this I support dark blue as same sex marriage is legal even though the government don't want to accept it. --Allan120102 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Kansas should be striped dark blue/medium red since same-sex marriage was only legalized in two counties and because same-sex couples will not receive recognition from the state. Furthermore, the ban wasn't struck down; a preliminary injunction just prevents it from being enforced by the defendants (only two counties and one state official are listed as defendants). Prcc27 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

We could also stripe Kansas dark blue/pink. We could create a new light red/pink color to represent same-sex marriage recognition banned. We already have a same-sex marriage recognition legal color (medium blue) so why not have a same-sex marriage recognition banned color? Honestly, I think medium red is more accurate since most counties aren't performing and can legally refuse to license a same-sex couple but dark blue/pink is better than solid blue because solid blue implies that same-sex couples are receiving the same rights and recognition as opposite-sex couples. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

After thinking about this overnight, I'd prefer dark blue with a footnote.

I'd also note that state officials seem to have dropped the argument that the district court's order was only named at 2 counties. Their position has morphed to: "We're not doing anything until the Supreme Court decides." Maybe they noticed that the state's forms have been modified to work for same-sex couples, affecting the entire state.

The summary at the beginning of this section discusses the "ruling", an inexact term in this context. The judge wrote a memorandum that had a lot to say before he got to his one-paragraph order aimed at a few specific individuals. His memorandum made it clear that Tenth Circuit precedent makes it clear that the Kansas ban on SSM is unconstitutional.

Let's also be careful about the statement that "most counties" aren't licensing SSM. Counties in Kansas are as small as 1,300 people and as large as 560,000. Counting counties doesn't tell us much. As of this afternoon (Friday), about 64% of Kansans live in a county that licenses SSM. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: I already mentioned that those few counties issuing comprise of a majority of the state's population. What do you think about my new dark blue/pink proposal I proposed above? Prcc27 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A footnote will suffice. We already have a circus tent of color. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Dark blue, full stop. If you want to toss in a footnote that some counties are being stubborn and disregarding what is the law Іof the land that's fine, but in general SSM is now legal in Kansas. The color should reflect the law as it pertains to the state (which seems to be SSM here) rather than accommodating the exceptions. Shereth 21:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Shereth: Not just the counties, the state of Kansas is refusing to recognize same-sex marriages because they claim the ruling only applies to the defendants. A preliminary injunction doesn't necessarily strike a ban, it just prevents it from being enforced by the defendants (in this case, the state of Kansas and most counties are not defendants). Source that same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide and that the decision only applies to two counties according to AG [18]. Prcc27 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Give. It. Up. Mw843 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: No. Prcc27 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Mw843: Prcc27 is a fundamentally disruptive user. When they don't get what they want, they just don't give up but instead move on to irritate everyone else as a result. I am really tempted to reporting them to Wikimedia Commons for their long history of well-documented disruptive behavior.. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Thegreyanomaly: I started this RfA because 0nlyth3truth's tally showed a gridlock. Obviously that is changing but I started this because there wasn't a clear agreement at the time. When people were saying they were in favor of dark blue status quo, I took that as support for dark blue being the status quo until a consensus is reached. Status quo means the status quo remains while discussion is happening, which is why I thought we were still discussing. Also, I said "maybe" when suggesting an RfA and anyone could have easily swayed me not to start one. Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am tired of this, the majority have vote to change Kansas to solid blue and you continue throwing proposal after proposal. Let it go. Prcc27. Just stop it. --Allan120102 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Allan120102: Majority vote ≠ consensus. I provided a source that same-sex marriage is not legal statewide; can you provide a source saying otherwise..? Prcc27 (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why we need a footnote. Please stop. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Missouri has a footnote too (and those couples are going to actually be recognized). That doesn't mean Kansas qualifies as solid blue because solid colors are reserved for statewide cases. Prcc27 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Solid blue says nothing about statewide, just "Same sex marriage legal". I vote solid dark blue with footnote. Swifty819 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Then why not have Missouri dark blue since same-sex is legal at the local level like Kansas and unlike Kansas, SSM is actually recognized in MO. Prcc27 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, it seems that no one else dissents from solid blue. I think that we should close the RfC. Swifty819 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: There are two other people against solid blue. They support gold (which is totally inaccurate) but I'm waiting for them to explain their position further and potentially change their position once they realize the ruling wasn't stayed. Prcc27 (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Prcc27: Oh, my mistake! Perhaps our explanation confused them or something? Swifty819 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Swifty819: Yeah, that might be my fault. RfA intros are supposed to be neutral and brief. I tried using as much detail as possible while also being brief! :/ Prcc27 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• oppose dark blue while there are legal shenanigans going on. the specifics of this situation should not be "blue washed" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the RfC. This issue was settled above, and Thegreyanomaly is exactly right about this issue. You should note, Prcc27, that just as majority ≠ consensus, unanimity ≠ consensus either. For instance, I am not party to the majority because I believe dblue/grey is the best option, yet I understand the inherent value in holding the community in good faith (and vice-versa), and so I am party to the consensus. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This RfC is needed because there is no source that says same-sex marriage is legal statewide in Kansas, that the entire state of Kansas must comply with the ruling, and that any officials are in contempt of court. However, there are sources that say same-sex marriage isn't legal everywhere in Kansas, it's not recognized by the state, and that the ruling only applies to two counties according to the AG. Akerbeltz, SPACKlick, and TheRedPenOfDoom all agree that solid blue is inaccurate, but they just need to clarify their position on how Kansas should be colored (gold would be inaccurate because there is no stay on the ruling. Bluerasberry has not said how they think Kansas should be colored (same might apply for Naraht unless they already stated their opinion in another section). Btw, even if solid dark blue Kansas had a silent consensus at first, Kansas was contested because many people supported stripes (including people that now support solid dark blue). Because of this, solid dark blue went from consensus to status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The attorney general's opinion and interpretation of the law is important. When the AG of WV said the circuit court precedent was binding in the state we colored WV blue. When the AG of OR said same-sex marriage could be recognized we colored OR for recognition, despite the blatant ban on same-sex marriage recognition. Kansas's AG says that the ruling only applies to two counties so we have to go with it. It is their job to interpret the law, not ours. Going against what the AG and the reliable sources say is a clear violation of WP:OR. We don't get to pick and choose which AG opinions we honor and which ones we ignore. Prcc27 (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Leave as it is for now, for the following reasons:

1. As best as I can tell from this discussion, the map is not wrong, it simply is giving a poor and biased representation of only one perspective. Saying something conflicting could be equally correct and incorrect.
2. Some people say that the issue will be more clear soon, perhaps within weeks. I do not think this is urgent enough to make varying pictures, especially if the situation is scheduled to be clarified.
3. A footnote can add enough clarity for now and can present or link to enough information to make up for the confusion.
4. Personally, and this is an editorial decision unrelated to Wikipedia policy, I feel like this issue is not important enough at the map level to merit more debate than it has had at the article text level. I see that there is back and forth at the article level to say it is "legal" or "in flux".
5. Personally, and this is also an editorial decision, I do not think the majority readership of this article cares much about Kansas, but does need to see the map of the US. If the map is not grossly wrong, if information is changing, if there is not consensus otherwise, then the original mapmaker gets the privilege of presenting the status quo just by being first to post to Wikipedia. The original map showed a Kansas colored in a certain way, and had it been another way, I would have said to keep that for all the same reasons.

I regret giving all of these opinions because they are unfair but I can think of nothing better to say, and I see no better workable ideas. I would recommend that people who do not like the color to draft a footnote for the image, because I think there would be consensus for that now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bluerasberry: So would you support a footnote that says same-sex marriage is only legal in two counties? Prcc27 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 That seems reasonable enough, even though I know nothing at all about the issue or what is legal. Personally I might avoid using the word "counties" because only people in the United States would understand that term and this article is read by a lot of people who have never heard of counties. Other options might be "Same-sex marriage is legal only in some places in Kansas" or even "Same-sex marriage is illegal in most of Kansas", if it is illegal in most of the state. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, The two county count is the most troublesome depiction of Kansas right now, as on November 18 the Kansas Supreme Court issued an order confirming that other counties are within their right to issue licenses (pages 5 and 6), concluding with "While arguably only two judicial districts [the two counties] are directly affected by the injunction, the federal district court's rationale is not as localized as the State argues." The Kansas Supreme Court is binding on the Attorney General, and thus this order negates his argument of same-sex marriage in only two counties being legalized. Injunctions in other states -- from the final district court order that controls in California to the currently preliminary injunction in Wyoming -- have the same format as the Kansas injunction with state-wide defendants named with specific county clerks, and we colored those states solid blue once those injunctions were in force. The difference is that Kansas is fighting the injunction, yet the Attorney General himself does not have the power to repeal the injunction. The two county count is taking the Attorney General at his word, and taking the words at face value of a strongly biased politician who is not the controlling authority on an ambiguous and debatable situation would fail WP:NPOV. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the reason why I suggested adding a "local compliance only" colour to the map. It would solve a load of troubles at once, and might prevent these issues in future in case other states are going to be difficult. Kumorifox (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Should we give that proposal another try? That would also clear up Missouri, since if I am reading your idea right, it would be the local marriage-state recognition striping, two colors instead of three. If we get consensus for that, I'll also update Kansas on the world maps (general and marriage) to be a local dot instead of the current solid blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dralwik Can you say briefly (one sentence) what you want to happen? Is there something wrong with a note in the caption? I am not sure that I want to know more about the law or what is happening. The issue, I thought, was whether this state with local dissenting regions should be grouped with states that have no local dissenting regions. Is there something more to this discussion? If there is demand for a subset of "states with dissenting regions" colors then I would want that, but whenever possible, maps are better with fewer groupings and when as many odd places can be thrown into their own grouping called "other" just so that the main idea is easier to see. If this were a three color map, "legal" "banned", "other", then that would work too, and that would need no explanation at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally would like Kansas to be counted as a legal marriage state, with a footnote denoting the limited number of counties issuing due to state opposition, and for the two-county count to be laid to rest here. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: @Bluerasberry: The state supreme court ruling doesn't do anything because when Boulder County was given the green light to issue licenses to same-sex couples, we didn't change the map or even add a footnote. Since this map deals with legality, the other counties don't matter. Even though they were given the green light, the court didn't say same-sex marriage would be legal in those counties. I don't think a footnote will fix things, especially since the wording for the footnote is/was being disputed in one of the sections below. Basically, we're trying to find out if same-sex marriage is legal statewide or not. If same-sex marriage is only legal at the local level then Kansas would either be striped dark blue/medium red or dark blue/gray per what we did with Missouri. There is also talk of adding a local compliance color. I would only support it if Kansas would be striped same-sex marriage legal at the local level/same-sex marriage banned (at state level) and Missouri would be striped same-sex marriage legal at the local level/same-sex marriage recognized (at state level)/same-sex marriage ban struck down but stayed pending appeal. I might be willing to compromise and let Kansas be solid local compliance and Missouri striped local compliance/recognition and just add a footnote about the ban/ban struck down. It definitely seems more accurate than having Kansas solid dark blue... Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see discussion on local compliance below! Prcc27 (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems to complicated and I do not wish to learn this level of detail. In answer to the question, "Is marriage legal in Kansas" the correct answers are both yes and no. Since "yes" is the interesting, strange, and new answer, the map has a bias to note yeses. I disagree that the point of the map is to find out if marriage is legal statewide because that is a complicated question since "statewide" is a concept which most people, especially those outside the US, will not understand. It is close enough to me to color the entire state and put a footnote on it. Maps cannot give detail to this degree. If anything, Kansas could be colored "other" and grouped with anything else that is not either yes or no, but it seems to me that there is some yes in Kansas. I will not support a solution which makes the map more complicated. I might support a solution that says "no" to Kansas if there is something different about the kind of legality in Kansas, but so far as I can tell, it is the same legality just regionalized in some really unorthodox way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm in complete agreement with Blue Raspberry. The situation is in flux, and we are an encyclopedia. I see little harm in waiting for it to sort out, when our options are to add unwarranted detail to an overview map, or to replace the slightly misleading color with another slightly misleading color. Gigs (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bluerasberry: @Gigs: Would you guys be opposed to striping Kansas same-sex marriage/ban on recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere? We could use the pink color that we used to use for states with a statutory ban on same-sex marriage. We already have a same-sex marriage recognition legal color (medium blue) that we are using for Missouri, so it doesn't make sense to not have a same-sex marriage recognition banned color. I think dark blue/pink is better than solid blue because solid blue implies that same-sex couples are receiving the same rights, benefits, and recognition as opposite-sex couples which isn't the case. There is already a footnote stating that Kansas doesn't recognize same-sex marriages which is inconsistent with Missouri. Either both states should have a footnote explaining their status on recognition or both states should have a color that does so. Prcc27 (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 I am not sure what you are proposing, but I think it would make the map more complex. I support your request for clarity, but I am not sure that new map color combinations will bring clarity. When I look at that map my personal care is to see the yes and no states, and in my mind I group everything else as "other". Right now the purpose of the map itself is not entirely clear. If it were titled "States where same sex marriage is legal" then it would be easier to break into binary plus an "other" category. Since right now the map could be titled "the variation in laws in the states" there are all kinds of distinctions being made, plus stripes. The map presents more detail than I want already, and I do not want more detail in the picture. More detail in the caption and notes is fine to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Legality vs. State Policy

A couple of comments, in a new section. (Personal opinion is pro-ME)

1. Even groups that are most pro-Marriage Equality (like AFER) aren't counting Kansas as a Full Marriage equality state yet.(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZKDaWelPMI&list=UU2sJZ3e3DYvAwCCsrr34S7w)
2. The ACLU is going back to court to have the Federal District court expand its ruling, *not* to have people punished for Contempt of Court.

So as a result, at this point, with the current color choices, I support striping of Dark Blue with the Bright Red that it was a week or two ago. Yes, these seem like contradictory colors, but that more or less matches with the current contradictions there. As for a note, I oppose any note with an actual count of counties in Kansas. This is a National level map, dealing with state level situations, asking a user to go to the Article on Kansas which includes a county-by-county map is *very* reasonable.Naraht (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my undoing your new section. It's an ongoing conversation.

Per Associated Press on November 19:

[Kansas Attorney General Schmidt] said same-sex couples' marriages are legal now, but they can't yet be sure their unions will remain so. "I don't think anybody can answer the question — other than the U.S. Supreme Court — for the long-term," Schmidt said. "Everybody can speculate, but until the U.S. Supreme Court takes a case and decides the question, the reality is nobody can know for sure."

Legal now works for me, even if AP didn't use quotation marks. And it's not just a question of color. We have footnotes. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

See [19] for link to the statement. In addition, the article states the ruling is not Kansas-wide, but is up to district court clerks.
Once again, this would seem to push my request for a local compliance colour, or at least footnotes detailing such while retaining dark blue. Kumorifox (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: @Bmclaughlin9: Yes, same-sex marriage is currently legal in Kansas. However, same-sex marriage is only legal in two counties. Nothing in that source says Kansas is recognizing same-sex marriages nor does it say that same-sex marriage is valid in the other counties. The main problem with a local compliance color is that the same-sex marriage bans would be ignored. In Missouri's case, the stayed ruling would be completely ignored if we got rid of the gold stripe. I wouldn't mind striping a state with a local compliance color (MO: Local marriage-Recognition-Stay; KS: Local marriage-Ban) but solid local compliance wouldn't work IMO. I think the local compliance color would get rid of the contradictory Same-sex marriage legal/Same-sex marriage banned with stayed ruling against the ban in MO so I'm willing to support it, but only it if we stripe Kansas and Missouri with it. I might be willing to compromise and let Kansas be solid local compliance and Missouri striped local compliance/recognition and just add a footnote about the ban/ban struck down. It definitely seems more accurate than having Kansas solid dark blue... Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying solid local for either state, actually, just use it to be rid of the dark blue conundrum for now. All the different sources reveal different information, some claiming it is up to the clerks and is not state-wide, others say that it is state-wide striking that is ignored, others again state the striking is state-wide, but due to the injunction being preliminary, only applicable to the two counties, etc. and I'm confused as all get out. My main question now is, has any ruling established the unconstitutionality of the Kansas ban, whether or not an injunction was issued or whether or not the ruling is ignored. The preliminary injunction in Marie v. Moser indicates that only the two mentioned counties are affected right now, I haven't read the KSC ruling for Johnson County yet so I cannot comment there. If such a ruling exists, then light blue is the way to go, maybe with local striping (if that is included at some stage). Kumorifox (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: So would you be okay with striping Kansas local same-sex marriage/medium red and Missouri local same-sex marriage/medium blue/gold..? FYI, the state supreme court said it was okay for Johnson County to issue licenses to same-sex couples (and probably other counties as well) but did not rule on the legality of same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: If the KSC did not explicitly strike down the ban, and it is still in place in the general Kansas districts (which I was led to believe was different through a source referred to above), then yes, local blue/medium red striping is the way to go for Kansas. Missouri would be local blue/recog blue/stay gold, of course, as all three of these reflect the status quo in MO. This would free up dark blue for state-wide and halt further confusion. Kumorifox (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kumorifox: Since striped dark blue is the current local blue color for Missouri (since there is no distinction between local and statewide for the dark blue color yet) does that mean that currently you support Kansas being colored striped dark blue/medium red until we are able to add a local compliance color? The reason I say this is because rearranging the colors can take days and I really think we should make a decision on Kansas ASAP and hopefully remove Kansas's solid blue. To be consistent, I think it would be best to stripe Kansas dark blue/medium red because it doesn't make sense to have Kansas solid dark blue when same-sex marriage is legal at the local level but not recognized at the state level, yet Missouri is striped dark blue/medium blue/gold and same-sex marriage is legal at the local level and recognized at the state level! I do support the local compliance color because it would get rid of or shorten the 2nd footnote and because the transition color would most likely become the cream color we use for judicial rulings against bans on recognition (or at least that's what it would be in my proposal). IMHO, having the transition color a shade of yellow makes more sense since it is used for states with a stay that expires. A stay is a stay. Anyways, do you think we should have a separate section (and possibly another RfA) for the local compliance color proposal or do you think we should work it out on this RfA without changing Kansas and continuing the conversation for even longer? Prcc27 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am pretty strongly opposed to 'local' coloring of any variety. I do not want to see this map further cluttered by new colors or exotic striping schema; it should be simplified as much as possible. The color of a state should reflect the legality of SSM in that state and not make special exceptions for local jurisdictions who are acting against the prevailing state law. If SSM is legal in Kansas but some counties are not handing out licenses, the state should be dark blue with a footnote. If SSM is banned in Kansas but some counties are going rogue and handing out licenses, then it should be red with a footnote. That's what footnotes are for, handling exceptions; not inventing new colors. It is my understanding that SSM is currently legal in Kansas, as even AG Smith has conceded that they are legal. Any couple in Kansas can obtain a marriage license (that they may have to do so outside of their home county is irrelevant). The situation here is not as complicated as folks are making it out to be. The only wrinkle is that state officials may not want to recognize the validity of those marriages, but this does not change the fact that a same-sex couple in Kansas can legally obtain a marriage license at this point. Dark blue is the only color that makes sense. Shereth 05:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Shereth: Solid dark blue does not make sense! In Kansas, any same-sex couple can obtain a marriage license in certain counties and marry anywhere in the state. This is also the case for Missouri, but the main difference between the two states is that same-sex marriage is recognized in Missouri but not recognized in Kansas. So why is it fair to have Kansas solid blue when those same-sex couples will not receive recognition and have Missouri triple striped when same-sex couples will receive recognition? As for the AG conceding... I believe his exact words were "I don’t think anybody can answer the question – other than the U.S. Supreme Court – for the long-term. Everybody can speculate, but until the U.S. Supreme Court takes a case and decides the question, the reality is nobody can know for sure." I don't believe he ever said same-sex marriage was legal (with the exception of two counties) nor has the State Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court giving other counties the go ahead to issue same-sex marriages is akin to the state courts giving Boulder County, Colorado the go ahead to issue same-sex marriages. And you know what we did when Boulder County was allowed to issue licenses to same-sex couples? Nothing! The situation is very complicated. Prcc27 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. SSM is legal but not recognized. I advocated against striping Missouri - it too should be solid blue - and I will advocate against striping Kansas. If we had an existing color for "does not recognize SSM" I could see a case being made for striping Kansas dark blue and that theoretical color, but we don't. Until now we've been able to safely lump "does not recognize SSM" with "SSM not legal." Now we have a one-off curiosity where SSM is legal in a state that refuses to recognize it. You know what the perfect way to handle one-off exceptions is? A footnote. Not new colors, not exotic striping schemes. A footnote. Citizens of Kansas may obtain a marriage license and be wed to their same-sex partners. The state should be dark blue. The situation is not what is so very complicated - that distinction belongs to your proposed changes to the map. Shereth 16:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Kansas Supreme Court ruling stated that “In addition, the federal court’s order in Marie took on a statewide perspective when it concluded that defendant Moser, as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, is 'significantly involved with recognition of marriage in Kansas.' See also K.S.A 2013 Supp. 23-2509 (requiring district courts to comply with specifications of the marriage license forms as prescribed by the secretary of the department.)” So yes, SCOKS did say the ruling was statewide, without making one of their own. Swifty819 (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: Actually, all the state supreme court did was reiterate the fact that the Secretary of Kansas Department of Health and Environment was listed as a defendant along with the court clerks in two counties. That particular agency's job is to furnish marriage license forms and record marriages [20]. Sure- the agency is significantly involved with recognition, but the recognition is limited and not worth noting in a map that only deals with full recognition. AFAIK, same-sex couples will still not be able to file taxes jointly, adopt, have hospital visitation rights, etc. There have been many cases of limited recognition: Colorado recognizing same-sex couples for tax purposes, Ohio for death certificates, Wyoming for divorce, but for the most part- that kind of information was left to the articles to sort out. If you'll go through the template's history you'll see that I mentioned the Secretary of Kansas Department of Health and Environment in the Kansas footnote, but that has since been edited out and because they only provide limited recognition- nobody has challenged it being removed. Prcc27 (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot remember who first said "The more I know, the less I understand", but it feels apt here. I just read the order in Schmidt v. Moriarty, and the whole situation makes even less sense to me now.
In Marie, the ruling is preliminary, and is pertinent to the county clerks in only two counties, meaning those clerks are prohibited from enforcing the ban. It directs a ruling at Mr. Moser as the state representative. The Moriarty ruling states "At this time, Marie remains pending and the ultimate issue whether the Kansas same-sex marriage ban violates the United States Constitution appears to be proceeding toward final federal resolution" (page 3 of the Moriarty ruling). In other words, the actual state marriage ban is still in effect, as Marie is not finalised, but the preliminary order affects two counties directly, as well as secretary Moser, who, as Moriarty also states, "is fully complying with the federal district court's preliminary injunction in Marie" (page 3 of the ruling). Therefore, even with Moser complying, the ban is still in effect in Kansas, from what I can tell from these two sentences.
Next, however, Moriarty states that "the federal court's analysis [in Marie] was aimed directly at the epicenter of the Kansas same-sex marriage ban: Article 15, § 16 of the Kansas Constitution and K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 23-2501" (page 6 of Moriarty). Therefore, the Marie case did look at the constitutionality of the ban. Also, Moriarty further states that "while arguably, only two judicial districts are directly affected by the injunction, the federal district court's rationale underlying its order is not as localized as the State argues" (page 6 of Moriarty). From these sentences, I understand that, despite the Marie ruling not being a final ruling, it is, in effect, stating that the Kansas ban is unconstitutional, and while only two districts are prohibited as of this moment from enforcing the ban, the actual ban is no longer valid Kansas law, as determined by the judge. The only thing that remains to be done for a full striking is a permanent injunction from the Marie judge.
Based on this, and on the good points many people here are making (including Prcc27 and Shereth) I am again changing my point of view on Kansas colouring, and I'm sorry for being so inconsistent about this. My current view would be light blue/dark blue striping if people refuse to allow a local colour, or else light blue/local striping if a local colour is permitted (and it might not even persist for long, but I still think it is a good idea to have a local colour). Judging by the federal and Supreme Kansas Courts in Marie and Moriarty, the ban is on its way out, both from a judicial and a human standpoint; the judicial side just has to be confirmed by permanent injunction. Kumorifox (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: Light blue is only used when same-sex marriage is legalized or when there is temporary stay. Although there is a very good chance same-sex marriage will be legal statewide, it is WP:CRYSTAL to assume this. When a South Carolina judge announced that they would probably strike down the state's ban, South Carolina was left medium red. Medium red would seem to fit Kansas because Kansas's same-sex marriage ban is vulnerable and same-sex marriage could easily be legalized by a court ruling due to the precedent. But tbh, we can't be 100% sure that the ban will be struck down/ssm legalized or if it is- that it will not be stayed. AFAIC, "the federal district court's rationale underlying its order is not as localized as the State argues" can mean one of two things: either that same-sex marriage is legal locally but the same-sex marriage ban is vulnerable statewide due to the precedent (dark blue/medium red) or that same-sex marriage is legal locally but there is no law for or against same-sex marriage statewide (dark blue/gray). However, it is still possible to rule that a same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional but only have the ruling apply locally; this is what happened with Cook County, Illinois. That fact that the court affirmed that the two counties were directly affected implies that the rest of the state was indirectly affected. However, when the ruling says "the federal court's analysis was aimed directly at the epicenter of the Kansas same-sex marriage ban" this might mean that the ban was struck down. But this isn't necessarily the case because a ban can be ruled unconstitutional but only have a limited outcome i.e. only apply locally (Cook County), only require performance not recognition (Indiana; Missouri), only require recognition not performance (Ohio; Kentucky). So if the ban was directly struck down but only two counties are directly affected then that would mean Kansas would be dark blue/gray. But if the ruling only applies to the defendants and the ban wasn't struck down then Kansas would be dark blue/medium red. AFAIK, despite the ban being ruled unconstitutional, the ban is only unenforceable by the defendants but everyone else is allowed to enforce the ban. Prcc27 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Dark Blue, per reasoning given by User:The Red Pen of Doom.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Petition to lift Missouri's stay filed

The plaintiffs in the Missouri federal case, Lawson v. Kelly, are petitioning for the stay to be lifted. If granted, Missouri will be solid dark blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Good dig! Mw843 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly striped dark blue/medium blue if the AG claims the ruling only applies to that one county already issuing anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No change for the moment, but solid dark blue if the stay is lifted. Mw843 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: Only if the ruling applies statewide. Prcc27 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Federal rulings always apply statewide unless one of the defendants is an ass...so at worst, we'll do to MO a version of whatever we decide with KS. Swifty819 (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Dems somehow hold the Governor's Mansion and the Attorney General office in MO, so odds are they will defend the law to stay in office in a reddening state but not be asses about giving up when they lose to not disenfranchise their base. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In the filing, it says "Defendant [Robert Kelly, the Jackson County recorder of deeds] does not oppose this motion; Intervenor [the State of Missouri, represented by Attorney General Koster] takes no position." (bracketed additions mine) Petitions like this are usually granted unless the judge himself finds a legal reason preventing him. MarkGT (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

He will probably let Missouri have same sex marry as it is already in effect in St Louis and Jackson so I don't see why he wouldn't let the others have it.--Allan120102 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The judge gave the defendants until December 8 to appeal. Otherwise, the stay expires on the 9th. Is it time to turn Missouri light blue but keep the striping in hand? The state is sure to appeal but considering that the stay COULD be lifted... Source Einsteinboricua (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The stay now has a definite end date, so for now, I support changing gold to light blue in MO. Kumorifox (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with changing the map: the stay only expires if the AG does not file an appeal, which he has said he intends to do. Mw843 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: The same-sex marriage ban is set to expire. If the AG files an appeal then that expiration will be reversed. It is WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the AG will indeed file that appeal. Also, if you read the source it says that the AG may also appeal and ask for the stay to be lifted. Currently, the AG is appealing the St. Louis marriage case and didn't ask for a stay so it's quite possible that the AG won't bother having the ruling be stayed in this case. Prcc27 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I keep having to remind myself that Wikipedia maps are not second-to-second updates... Previous comment withdrawn. Kumorifox (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas wording

We're writing a footnote, not an explanation or a history. A simple statement of what is going on, like "29 counties license", should suffice, not the why and wherefore. It's a footnote. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• We should add "but only two counties were listed as defendants in the court ruling" because whether or not it's legal in the other 27 counties is being debated. Prcc27 (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's beeing debated, but it is a fact - 29 counties give the SSM licensies. So I agree with Bmclaughlin9's offer. M.Karelin (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, I'm opposed to including a county count. As long as a link is given to the Same-sex marriage in Kansas, I think that's fine. (Note, I'd personally like a link to What's the Matter with Kansas?, but that's just me :) )Naraht (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got this wording now: "In [[Same-sex marriage in Kansas|Kansas]], a minority of the state's counties are issuing licenses to same-sex couples despite the opposition of the state government which does not recognize the licenses." Does this work? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "a minority of the state's counties" misrepresents the situation, since two-thirds of the state's population lives in those counties. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I've reworded it. Now I've got "In [[Same-sex marriage in Kansas|Kansas]], 29 counties covering a majority of the population are issuing licenses to same-sex couples despite the opposition of the state government." Is the majority of the population statement too much detail? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest more footnote style, short and sweet. Juxtapose the facts without "despite" and "opposition". The reader won't have any trouble recognizing the contradiction between the two statements. If we trust the reader, we can present facts without underlining. If you really feel the need to emphasize the contrast, add "but" between the 2 sentences. Also "issue" instead of "are issuing", just cause it sounds like policy and not like current events reporting. And those licenses. Don't think we need the # of counties, since it will be changing, but don't feel strongly about that.

"In [[Same-sex marriage in Kansas|Kansas]], counties comprising two-thirds of the state's population issue licenses to same-sex couples. The state government does not recognize those licenses."

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help! Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The only relevant counties are the two counties where it is legal. Furthermore, it should say how many counties allow it not how many people live in those counties. That is extremely irrelevant since any Kansas resident from any county can waltz right to one of those counties to get a licenses. So why does population matter if it's open to all residents of Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The current wording sounds like only 2/3 of KS residents can get married. — kwami (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If we say "## counties", we're not helping the reader who has no way of knowing how many counties there are. That's just plain bad writing.

If we say 2 of 105 or even 32 of 105 (the latest number), we suggest that licenses are not as readily available as they are. And we know they are readily available, even if harder for some. The latest figure is 69% of the population. The fact that they are readily available is the point to be made and there are a number of ways to do so, but just "32 counties" doesn't do that.

We could say this of course: "Same-sex couples in Kansas can obtain marriage licenses, but the state does not recognize same-sex marriages." I'd be happy with that.

Prcc27's comment above says that SSM is only legal in two counties ("the two counties where it is legal"). The distinction being drawn is that between licenses issued under order of the federal district court (2 counties) and licenses issued by 30 other counties under the direction of a judge who is within his rights, according to the Kansas Supreme Court, in ordering the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These licenses are all legal. One may be more explicit (the order in Marie) and the other less so (the statement of what a judge can legitimately determine in Moriarty), but they are both routes to the legal issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I see no reason to privilege one over the other. What makes a marriage license obtained in the 30 counties anything other than legal? The state isn't recognizing the validity of licenses from the 2 counties or the 30 counties, so that can't be it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: Just because the other counties were given the green light to issue licenses to same-sex couples doesn't mean same-sex marriage is legal in those counties. When Boulder County, Colorado was given the green light to issue licenses to same-sex couples, we didn't color Colorado any differently nor did we add a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Bmclaughlin9, I added "out of 105" after "29 counties." If you'd rather use the population number, feel free to change it; I'll probably stand back for a bit and give the page history a rest while you guys lock down the footnote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of effort is being diverted to discussing a bike shed over here. This is an awful lot of discussion over which number to put and what to number, counties vs population and so on. Footnotes are supposed to be brief snippets of information that lead a reader to get more details elsewhere. Why not "Same-sex marriage licenses are only issued in select counties, and are not currently recognized by the state" or some simple variation? Optionally toss in a link to the relevant article/section. The majority of the readers aren't going to care what the number of issuing counties are or what percentage of the population lives within them, and the few who do aren't going to expect to find that data in a footnote. Shereth 05:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How about we just limit the Kansas footnote to a generic non-numerical statement like "some counties issue" and the state refusal to recognize. The number of counties where same-sex marriage is legal is both debatable and thus poor for a footnote, and doesn't have a real world effect on the validity of the marriage as pointed out above and thus poor for a footnote. A reader is likely to be confused by seeing "two counties legal but 29 issuing." (IMO "two counties legal" is still POV, as well as something the AG himself conceded.) Leaving the number out means no need to fight over the proper number, and no need to continuously update. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 05:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the "state doesn't recognize" footnote. If we're going to have a footnote on a recognition ban, then we must have a footnote on legal recognition (such as Missouri). Otherwise, a recognition ban color should be added to be the legal recognition color's counterpart. IMHO, the current setup of Kansas violates WP:NPOV. Prcc27 (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Missouri is recognizing in line with a ruling as expected; Kansas is not recognizing in contravention of a ruling. That difference is sufficient to explain why Kansas gets a recognition mention in the footnote and Missouri does not. This will be the ninth day you've been bickering over Kansas on this page; barring a new ruling will we still be going in circles in nine more days? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Recognition and performance are two different things. Many court cases either rule exclusively on recognition: Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana or exclusively on performance: Florida (county level), Indiana, Missouri (federal court ruling), Illinois. Can you provide a reliable source that Kansas was ordered to recognize same-sex marriages? Even if Kansas's ban was struck down/ruled unconstitutional, the judge could still either rule exclusively on recognition like Ohio or exclusively on performance like Missouri or Indiana. BTW, this just proves my point further that it is possible to rule a ban unconstitutional without full same-sex marriage performance/recognition being legal statewide (since you claim the ban was struck down). Also, please don't accuse me of "bickering." I am here to discuss the complicated situation of Kansas and disagreements ≠ bickering. Prcc27 (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, The Cook County, Illinois ruling is a good example of a same-sex marriage ban being ruled unconstitutional but same-sex marriage only being legalized at the local level. Prcc27 (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

With any luck, the confusion will go away soonish ... an amended complaint goes into some detail as to who should be issuing, and recognizing, SSM licenses. Mw843 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Petition to lift Texas' stay filed

With arguments a little over a month away, the plaintiffs in De Leon v. Perry have asked for the stay in Texas to be lifted. This one, if granted, could be messy, as the Texas defendants are strongly opposed, and the Supreme Court justice overseeing the Fifth Circuit of Appeals is Antonin Scalia who has gone on record as preferring to retain these stays. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

So far, the SCOTUS-issued stays have been referred to the full court, haven't they? At least by Sotomayor, in any case. Could they object if Scalia acted without referring it to them? If not, I have a feeling Texas will remain gold for a while longer. Thanks for the update, glad to see some life in the Texas case. Kumorifox (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Chief Justice referred the request for a stay in Condon v. Haley (South Carolina) to the full court last week. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Although the other states (Kansas, South Carolina, Idaho, etc.) all had circuit court decisions. Texas could give us the answer as to whether SCOTUS would retain a stay that is relieved before circuit arguments. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering that Scalia is the circuit judge, I won't hold my breath on him rejecting a stay. The same goes for states in the 11th Circuit with Thomas at the helm. Alito, in the 8th, would definitely be interesting to see.Einsteinboricua (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Arkansas

I've noticed that a federal judge has struck Arkansas' same-sex marriage ban, but the state is "expected" to appeal. 128.61.23.97 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The decision is stayed pending appeal so Arkansas stays beige. There is a state Supreme Court case to keep an eye on, though. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi struck

The order has been stayed for two weeks, to give the state opportunity to appeal [21]. Mw843 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Does that make it light blue (temporary stay) until the eventual indefinite one? Ghal416 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Light blue is the appropriate shading. I'm sure the Fifth Circuit will stay the decision. Until then, light blue. S51438 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The shading should be gold as it is almost certain that it will be stayed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Once we get the stay it will be. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This just shows how odd the category "pending" is. The proper label would be "stayed until a date certain", as opposed to stayed temporarily or stayed pending appeal. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The transition blue was born out of a compromise, to show where a state'a ban was removed but with a concrete date of implementation, and I agree it is a rather pedantic distinction between it and an indefinite stay now. If we were to get another state via legislative act, its purpose would be clearer, as it would cover the time between the act being signed and marriages beginning. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. In the case of legislation with an effective date, "pending" makes good sense. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from this ruling only being a preliminary injunction, the same-sex marriage performance part of this ruling is stayed indefinitely: "The Circuit Clerk of Hinds County shall continue to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex applicants and only those applicants until further word from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court." Thus, same-sex marriage recognition will go into effect in two weeks but same-sex marriage performance will not go in effect until we hear from a higher court. I support light blue-gold striping [22]. However, I think it's weird how we have a color for a ban being struck down that only affects recognition but not a color for a ban being struck down that only affects performance. Maybe the cream color should go from ban on recognition struck down to ban partially struck down..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source for this interpretation? I believe the Hinds-specific sentence is being read as an elaboration of the previous sentence setting the 14-day limit, not a separate order. Judge Reeves is saying: "Hey Hinds County, this means you!" Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi should not be striped. The ban is struck in a ruling that will become effective on December 9th, if the state fails to, or decides not to, get a stay. I don't understand how two conflicting colors can be rationalized from a single ruling. Mw843 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the light blue/gold striping for Mississippi. Gold is for an indefinite stay which isn't the case here, outside of the novel interpretation of a single editor. Creating striping based on such an interpretation - or indeed any kind of striping that seems to be blatantly self-contradictory - should come about as discussion with consensus, if at all. Shereth 14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: @Mw843: @Shereth: I provided a secondary source that backs up my claim in one of the comments below. How do you guys think we should color Mississippi? Prcc27 (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Being honest, Prcc27 should be banned from editing the map as well as this talk page. Hell I'd even support a full topic ban. Literally every single post (s)he makes is disruptive.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dudemanfellabra: Please assume good faith; my edit was done in good faith. Prcc27 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dudemanfellabra: If you start the processes to get this disruptive user blocked/banned, I will back you 100%. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 is one of the most prodigious editors on SSM topics on Wikipedia. Banning him [sic] would do Wikipedia a disservice. However, Prcc27 also gives the impression that he would prefer if there weren't any other pesky editors to get in the way of his vision for perfect and most glorious Wikipedia. He should not be banned. But he also should absolutely not ever be made an admin of any kind. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• @0nlyth3truth: I can't tell if that was a compliment or an insult... Prcc27 (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• @0nlyth3truth: this talk page and map is Wikimedia Commons jurisdiction. Getting them blocked on Wikimedia Commons but not English Wikipedia means they can edit but just not be disruptive on the maps. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose a ban procedure. However, I would prefer if we all started acting more in in conjunction with each other (and yes, I include myself in that, as I have made disruptive edits and comments myself). I believe that, with the remaining states, there is going to be a whole lot of confusion going on in the near future. Just look at Missouri and Kansas. Now Mississippi gets added to the list because of a partial ruling with a temporary stay, and a partial ruling with an indefinite stay. So in future, let's discuss the map first before we simply go and change, unless the change is clear-cut (like Montana was recently). Any striping consideration should be discussed, first of all, as stripes can add to the confusion instead of clarifying things. Kumorifox (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The state has started the process to get a stay from the 5th; even though plaintiffs oppose, they'll likely succeed. Mw843 (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"He stayed his ruling for 14 days but also noted clerks could not issue gay marriage licenses until further guidance was given from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court" [23]. Since it is quite possible that this ruling could go into effect when the stay expires without Mississippi getting further guidance to issue licenses to same-sex couples; Mississippi should go back to striped light blue-gold. Prcc27 (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe Mississippi should remain light blue with a footnote saying "Same-sex marriages can't be performed until further guidance is given from the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court." And since the source claims the ban was struck down, if the ruling goes into effect in 14 days but neither court steps in then Mississippi would be solid medium blue with that footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No. I'd explain but I've learned there's no point reasoning with you. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: You oppose the footnote or the coloring? Prcc27 (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose footnote and map changes. I don't think the purpose of the map is to explain every nuance of every court decision. Mississippi should be light blue, with a footnote saying the stay expired 2012/12/09 without further action. As noted above, an indefinite stay has been requested from the 5th: MS will likely be gold soon enough. Mw843 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Support current map (solid transition blue) and I've simplified the footnote. I don't think we need to elaborate on what exactly expires on December 9 until we get there; in the meantime saying the ruling is set to go into effect is sufficient and a curious reader can click through for more details. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The way things stand with states and colours, I support solid light blue for MS. The stay is temporary for now, and that is what should be reflected.
I think light blue for a stay is a bad choice though, as any form of blue gives the impression of soon(ish) legalisation. Some people have suggested light blue for as-yet inactive legislative measures (which I don't think are going to happen in any of the remaining states any time soon, as they are all court battles right now), and the light cream for "confusing" states (can I call these "confustates" from now on?) with partial striking or conflicting rulings or something like that, and explain the nuances of cream with footnotes if necessary (so currently, MS, MO, and KS would be cream with that scheme right now). Just a suggestion, I often want to regulate stuff like this more than necessary. Kumorifox (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: Tbh, I don't think having a separate color for states with complex situations will bring any clarity because MO & KS already have footnotes anyways. What needs to be done with confusing states is having them colored whichever color(s) it closely qualifies as, and then the footnote would be used to explain how it is different from other states with that same color. Personally, I think states with temporary stays should be gold with a footnote that says when the stay expires. Prcc27 (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: And quite clearly, there are disagreements among us what the colours represent and which ones are required. I have suggested a colour reshuffling, and so far, nothing has come of that (and that's fine with me). But as long as there are disagreements on colour uses, it means we can likely clarify everything further, I believe. Right now I'm going to refrain from making yet more summaries or suggestions as my mind has been shown to change with the direction of the wind. Kumorifox (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Consolidate Missouri stripes

Could we consolidate Missouri's dark blue and medium blue stripes? I think Missouri should be striped dark blue-light blue with a footnote that says "Same-sex marriage is legally licensed in St. Louis, Missouri, and recognized statewide." Since same-sex couples can legally get married anywhere in Missouri and have their marriage recognized by the state- I think dark blue is appropriate. Keeping medium blue seems a little redundant. The light blue would still be appropriate since same-sex couples still can't legally be licensed in other jurisdictions and because it is still banned everywhere within the state (except St. Louis); rulings that overturn a ban with an expiry stay qualify as light blue. Prcc27 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just as soon see it go full dark blue with a footnote, the logic being that anyone in Missouri can obtain a license (although perhaps not in the county within which they reside), be married and have their marriage recognized by the state. It's my opinion that all blues are redundant to the dark blue. It's my opinion that the map should be simplified as much as possible and none of this striping to accommodate local variations. Since I doubt I will get my way, I can support at least collapsing the medium blue into the dark blue. Shereth 14:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. If anything, the color that should be removed is dark blue. SSM is not available state-wide - it is only authorized in the City of St. Louis. Light and medium blue do reflect state-wide conditions. Mw843 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: You do have a point.. but this map was also striped for local SSM in the past (New Mexico). Remember, even though only St. Louis can license, same-sex marriage can still be performed anywhere in the state. The footnote explains that the dark blue means SSM is legal in St. Louis and recognized statewide. But if we agreed to only show statewide cases then I'd support striping Missouri medium blue-light blue. Prcc27 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If we remove dark blue from MO for that reason, it must be removed from KS as well. Kumorifox (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: I'm not suggesting we remove dark blue; I'm suggesting we remove medium blue (recognition color) since dark blue already implies same-sex marriage is recognized. Having both dark blue and medium blue is redundant. Prcc27 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was in reply to Mw843. I'm fine with the medium blue removed from MO. Kumorifox (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Face it: Missouri is a confused mess, and there is no combination of colors that will correctly describe the situation on the ground. Given that, leave it, and the footnotes, alone until something happens. Mw843 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And stop trying to use New Mexico as a precedent: New Mexico law was silent on SSM - it can't be used in an argument about a state that has statutory and constitutional provisions. Mw843 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: The medium blue meaning wouldn't go away. We could kill two birds with one stone by applying dark blue for local SSM licensing/statewide performance & recognition. Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: I think that what you are proposing is change for the sake of change that does nothing to improve the map. Mw843 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Mw843: Removing redundant stripes does improve the map; dark blue already implies that same-sex marriage is recognized by the state. But honestly, I can also support striping Missouri medium blue/light blue if we agree to only reserve dark blue for states where same-sex marriage is legal statewide and possibly even states with no ban/local ssm. That's why I removed Missouri's dark blue stripe on the North American same-sex marriage map; because same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide and the North American map is a statewide map. So if this map is a statewide map, then dark blue should be removed. But if we aren't going to remove the dark blue stripe then the medium blue stripe should go since it seems redundant. Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)