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.

Michigan?

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

• No, we didn't do anything with Utah when they were in the same boat. The state would only be required to recognize same-sex marriages previously performed. However, Michigan is worth noting on the world maps. Prcc27 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• I was thinking that in 21 days we'd have to add MI to the "previously recognized" part of the same sex unions template, and that everything else is footnoteable. Do you agree? Swifty819 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Michigan is already listed under the "previously performed" and (currently) recognized sections with an asterisk to indicate that it's not yet in effect. But we don't need a footnote for this map. Prcc27 (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no map footnote for Arkansas either, for starters. If we were going to footnote Michigan, we'd have to footnote Arkansas as well. Kumorifox (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, but the married same-sex couples in Michigan would be in a better position than those in Arkansas since MI would actually be recognizing those marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

True, but the Arkansas marriages are still not invalidated. I'd say hold off on the footnotes for now. With a little luck, tomorrow will bring news of (rejection of) certiorari for the cases from the 6th. We can always decide thereafter. Kumorifox (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama Struck

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

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

From the order:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant [Alamaba Attorney General] is enjoined from enforcing those laws.

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

Yep. I'm going to revert it back. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The county clerks aren't ordered to issue same-sex marriage licenses though. Also, per WP:Reliable Sources we can't change the map without a reliable source saying that same-sex marriage is fully legal and it's WP:Original Research to assume that same-sex marriage is legal from interpreting a ruling. Bigdaddybrabantio please don't, you need consensus and a reliable source! Prcc27 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Here: "There was no stay placed on the ruling. In the absence of a successful stay request by the state, couples can begin applying for marriage licenses as soon as clerks offices open. HRC congratulates the plaintiffs and attorneys involved in the case on this historic victory." I think it's appropriate to consider it a marriage state for now at least. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Bigdaddybrabantio: That's a little better... but that source isn't necessarily "reliable". There is inaccurate information on HRC's website: the "Relationship Recognition", "Marriage Prohibition" and "Interstate Recognition" maps are all inaccurate and haven't been updated. And btw, Alabama hasn't been added to the "authorizes same-sex marriage" states on their "Marriage Recognition" map yet [3]! Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

• But the map was changed so I'm suggesting we change it back; OR we could color Alabama light blue since things are still pending... Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The ruling is very, very clear, and news media are reporting it as such, even if HRC hasn't instantly updated its map (I haven't checked). It remains to be seen whether a stay will be granted, and it appears unlikely many (if any) licenses will be issued over the weekend, so this does have time to develop. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• According to the Associated Press, published in LGBTQ Nation:

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

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

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

• @Mw843: I don't see any indication of the ruling being broad in the state's application for a stay... but as long as there's a source backing up that same-sex marriage is fully legal- I'm okay with Alabama being dark blue and removing the footnote. But if Alabama starts being difficult like Kansas then we're going to have to do something. Prcc27 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt the 11th circuit would stay the ruling but Scotus might do it as they are hearing the cases of Michigan etc, but we will see what they do.--Allan120102 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• @Kwamikagami and Kumorifox: The difference between Kansas and Alabama is that in Kansas there were county clerks listed as defendants which meant same-sex marriage was at least legal at the local level. But we don't know the implications in Alabama, is this just a recognition only case? It's just as CRYSTAL to assume that same-sex marriage is fully legal in Alabama than to assume that it's only slightly legal. Light blue seems more fitting since things are still pending and the implications are still being worked out. With Kansas, we at least know that same-sex marriage is legal in at least two counties so a footnote explains that same-sex marriage licenses aren't available everywhere, but it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that counties in Alabama will issue same-sex marriages when none of them were ordered to do so and because the plaintiffs weren't even seeking the right to marry. Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Any sources for this being a recognition-only decision/order? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I will chime in here and point out that the closest thing I can see to that was on Equality on Trial, when it said that the plaintiffs had sued for recognition, however the judge decided to strike down the entire ban instead. Since then, I've not seen any source say this is a recognition case, but several call it a marriage case. The ruling did enjoin the AG from enforcing THE ENTIRE BAN though. That you can see black and white in the ruling. Swifty819 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) EDIT FOR SOURCE: [5] Also, most states are not like KS. County clerks are directly controlled by the AG in most cases.

The plaintiffs are already married and sought recognition of their out-of-state marriage for adoption purposes. Btw, when a judge rules that a law is unconstitutional that doesn't necessarily throw out the law entirely as this was a summary judgement case. We've seen individual rulings several times in the past: Illinois, Indiana, Florida, etc. The Probate Judges Association said "Judge Granade's ruling in this case only applies to the parties in the case and has no effect on anybody that is not a named party. The probate judges were not parties in this matter. The legal effect of this decision is to allow one person in one same sex marriage that was performed in another state to adopt their partner's child. There is nothing in the judge's order that requires probate judges in Alabama to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. As probate judges, our duty is to issue marriage licenses in accordance with Alabama law and that means we can not legally issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. The recent federal ruling does not change that." I'm going to revert the map back since the implications are still unknown, but I wouldn't be opposed to someone adding a footnote for Alabama. I think it would be best if we didn't rush to update the map, especially when it's done before reliable sources say it's legal! [6] Prcc27 (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• You should watch your tone because that didn't seem WP:CIVIL at all! The head of PJA is a probate judge with authority and not following a ruling that they aren't bound by isn't "ignoring" it. Prcc27 (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Who posted the above comment about "pulling this shit"? That was frankly unnecessary, and even worse, the comment was unsigned! Swifty819 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Found it. To IP 104.159.163.24, even if you think a commenter is out of line or "pulling shit", even if you think that a person is being unnecessarily hardheaded, it's not necessary to react like that. Swifty819 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And you should watch your tone. Smugly correcting a gay commenter for deigning to suggest that homophobia might exist is itself homophobic. Keeping Alabama red is patently absurd and smacks of massive resistance. As in Texas and Mississippi, a federal judge has invalidated the state law, but licenses aren't yet issuing. There, it is because of stays. Here, the state is in basically the same position as a big-picture matter. The difference is that licenses aren't yet issuing because of grumbling over who the order technically covers. Alabama is actually in a more pro-marriage equality position because the prospects for any stay seem low.Jstephenclark (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Although at the very least, they are attempting to enforce a provision that has been ruled unconstitutional (the ban on marriages). hopefully this judge will be like Florida and clear up the situation within days, and not the two month clusterscrew of Kansas. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. Baltimatt (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I also think Alabama should be blue unless the judge says otherwise. Swifty819 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is de jure legal in at least some sub-jurisdictions in Kansas, Missouri, Florida, South Carolina, etc. but same-sex marriage would only be de facto legal in Alabamian counties that issue same-sex marriages. Alabama almost seems to qualify as dark blue, but dark blue has always been reserved for states with de jure legality. Prcc27 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A US District Court judge striking down the ban is pretty much the definition of "de jure" ... "I don't violate federal court rulings." -Jefferson county Probate Judge Sherri Coleman. About a million Alabamans live in the two counties that will issue licences, barring a stay. Mw843 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ruling that a ban is unconstitutional ≠ legality. Same-sex marriage bans have been ruled unconstitutional only applying to one same-sex couple in the past but that doesn't mean same-sex marriage was legalized. Until the judge explains the scope of their ruling, clerks acting on their own initiative = de facto. Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

*Would someone explain why a self-described young adult with no apparent legal degree--i.e. Prcc27--is in any position to even have an opinion on the weight to be given a decision of a United States District Court ruling a state law unconstitutional? Jstephenclark (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• • You need to watch your tone and follow WP:CIVIL. Until the judge clarifies their ruling the implications aren't fully known. Prcc27 (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is Kansas all over again some counties might other might not depending if the judge clarifies her ruling like the Florida judge. If she doesn't clarify her ruling which I doubt we will have the same problem we had in Kansas and if that happen I want to discuss a new color for those two states.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• A new color is way overdue! Prcc27 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Then why wasn't same-sex marriage legalized in cases that only applied to one same-sex couple even though the ban was struck down (Ohio: death certificate for one couple, Indiana one couple recognized only, etc.) Prcc27 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between an order that is limited, and an order that is not. Alabama's is not. The law and the relevant section of the constitution have been struck. Period. Full stop. They are void, and have no legal effect. And the orders you cited above, were, in fact, broad, but stayed for everyone but the plaintiffs. Alabama's order did not include a stay, and went into full effect immediately. Mw843 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mw843 is exactly right. The plaintiffs in the Ohio and Indiana cases were already married out-of-state and only sought recognition of their out-of-state marriages. This ruling has declared Alabama's law banning in-state same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Keeping Alabama red is as absurd as deferring to a dilettante--i.e. Prcc27. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Jstephenclark: The plaintiffs in Alabama were already married out-of-state and only sought recognition for adoption purposes. Please stop being rude to me. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Those plaintiffs only sought recognition and that's all the courts in those cases ruled on. This court went beyond the recognition issue and declared the state laws unconstitutional. Please stop practicing law without a license, Prcc27. No one commenting here agrees with you. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I completely agree. The map needs to be consistent. Either Kansas needs to be changed or Alabama needs to be changed. The current situation is unacceptable. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Alabama doesn't fall into Kansas's precedent because in Kansas same-sex marriage is de jure legal in two counties but in Alabama same-sex marriage is de jure legal in none of the counties. This map has generally been a de jure one. I would like to see KS, MO, & AL colored something other than solid dark blue (and SC could only be colored something else if there are sufficient reliable sources to back it up.) Should we give the partial legality proposal another go..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be curious to know what you think "de jure" and "de facto" mean, since you don't seem to understand what they mean. A decision of a United States District Court declaring a statute unconstitutional is not "de facto." Jstephenclark (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• The implications of the ruling aren't clear since this was a summary judgement case and I don't believe it was a class action lawsuit (a lawsuit on behalf of an entire class i.e. all same-sex couples in Alabama). The AG is bound from enforcing the same-sex marriage ban, everyone else who complies isn't bound which qualifies as de facto. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Unlike you, I have a law degree, Prcc. Please tell me what you think "summary judgment" means and how that has anything to do with the question. A number of the other decisions also were not class-actions. Nor do you understand what "de jure" and "de facto" means. By your standard--to the extent I can even tell what it is--private, consensual, same-sex sodomy is still a crime in a dozen states because there's nothing equivalent on that issue in those states to what you seem to think "de jure" means. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the implications of the ruling are perfectly clear: Alabama's legal and constitutional bars to same-sex marriage are null and void, and at least two Probate Judges agree, and will issue licences to same-sex couples when they open for business tomorrow. And when it comes to your use of legal terms, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean." Mw843 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mw843 is correct again. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• I don't care if you have a law degree, and I don't need rude users i.e. Jstephenclark explaining to me what "de jure" and "de facto" mean. You are not the judge so trying to interpret their intent or the implications of the ruling violates WP:Original Research regardless of whether you're an expert in law or not! Prcc27 (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, you are the one being rude by trying to dominate the decision of this question and throwing around terms that you don't even understand. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Reading the judge's order declaring the state laws unconstitutional is not WP:Original Research. What you're doing is trying to rewrite the judge's order to make it say less than it actually says. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jstephenclark: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Many reliable sources have stopped short of saying that same-sex marriage is legal in Alabama. Prcc27 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• It takes no interpretation: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is enjoined from enforcing those laws." You are trying to erase language from the orders. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• You're treating the law like a formalistic computer program. It doesn't work that way. You're dismissing the import of an order of United States District Court declaring state laws invalid. As I said, by your standards, you'd have to claim that consensual sodomy is still a crime in a dozen states even though the Supreme Court ruled on the question a decade ago. Legal guidance is binding without certifying a class and having every official in a state put under an order. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Baltimatt is right. Alabama should revert to blue. Jstephenclark (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I also support dark blue, Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I prefer a partial legality color, and btw Alabama is different from the other states because none of the counties were ordered to issue same-sex marriages! Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• 3 votes for blue, 1 vote for some unspecified alternative. Two clerks have already announced that they are following the court order and issuing licenses tomorrow. Dark blue is appropriate. Prcc can add a pedantic footnote for Alabama. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, Allan120102 appears to support a partial legality color. BTW, this is not a democracy per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Furthermore, you need to provide a source that says same-sex marriage is legal before coloring Alabama dark blue. I don't care if you have 100 votes- you can't change Alabama unless a reliable source is provided per WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Prcc27 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• It is also not your personal dictatorship. The court order of the U.S. District Court is *the* definitive source. Your problem is that you want to interpret it to mean something other than what it says. The color should be changed until you convince anyone to agree with you. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither you or I can interpret the order ourselves, that violates WP:Original Research. I did also admit that until the judge clarifies their ruling, the implications aren't fully known. Like I said, some people on this talk do seem open to a partial legality color. Prcc27 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not interpreting the order. "ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are unconstitutional." You are refusing to acknowledge it, you are throwing up one makeweight argument after another, and you are refusing to deal with the inconsistencies of those arguments with the coloring of multiple other states. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge what the order says does not mean anyone else is "interpreting" the order. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, many counties will not follow the ruling because they weren't parties in the ruling. If the judge clears up the scope of their ruling and does what the judge in Florida did then we can color Alabama solid dark blue. Until then, we just have to wait for things to be cleared up instead of trying to decide whether we want to interpret this ruling as having broad implications or limited implications. I think a partial legality color of some sort for Alabama, Kansas, Missouri would be a good idea, especially since it's too early to even know to what extent same-sex marriage is legal in Alabama. Prcc27 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Your condescension is quite rude. "We" understand what the current status of the law is in Alabama because the United States District Court has told us that the law is unconstitutional. Until that decision is reversed on appeal, the law is unconstitutional. The fact that some of the local bureaucrats are choosing to violate the Constitution does not make the Alabama laws constitutional. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Yes, Alabama should be yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstephenclark (talk • contribs) 00:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, light blue. The stay is temporary. Kumorifox (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oops, right. Sorry. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. (Thank you for the switch back to dark blue first, Jstephenclark.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• The judge said that they will clarify the ruling prior to the stay expiring. I think we should wait for that clarification about whether this has broad implications before coloring the state light blue. However, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to light blue since things are "pending" so unless anyone else feels that Alabama shouldn't be light blue I think light blue with a footnote would be fine, not confusing, and consistent for the most part. Prcc27 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• In cases like these, I find simplest is best. In this case, that's light blue with a note of expiry. Also, in regards to the fights above, I do not like it. This forum should be cordial. I know I'm just a member, but...just because one person disagrees with something doesn't mean there is no consensus. Secondly, if this is a de jure map, not a de facto, I believe we have to do precisely what the law says, which, in this case is an unconstitutional ban with a 14 day stay. I feel that the whole fight of "some clerk may not issue a license because they were not explicitly named" belongs on a de facto map. I generally do not like speaking up on this site. I dislike fighting even less, so now I'm on a soapbox, which I will now step off of. Swifty819 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I re-added the parts of the footnote that said the scope of the ruling isn't entirely known so I'm content with light blue now. I also fixed the expiration date of the ruling. Prcc27 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with Swifty819. I am sorry, Swify, if I made you uncomfortable with my own assertiveness. As I saw it, this discussion was being dominated by one person, who does not understand either the legal terminology he is using or the import of an unqualified judicial declaration as to the invalidity of a state law. And you're quite right, Switfy, that "consensus" does not mean "unanimity." The dissenter here, in fact, previously took it upon himself to revert the map over the objections of a number of commenters. Jstephenclark (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jstephenclark: Please don't remove my comment! Prcc27 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you're blathering about. Jstephenclark (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• • @Jstephenclark: @Prcc27: I'm not sure if the comment removal was intentional, as I've accidentally had that happen on a double comment, but either way, it shouldn't be removed. And to be clear, I believe that by the meaning of "de jure", AL should be dark blue when the stay expires unless the judge issues an order restricting it to one couple or recognition. I think we should ask 3 questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Jstephenclark: It was not a "new order" it was a separate order that had broader implications. "The first ruling addressed the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state, while this new ruling addressed a couple who attempted to marry in Alabama. Though in both cases, Granade ruled that the ban was unconstitutional, the fact that this case addressed the issuing of licenses in Alabama changed the scope of her injunction... The new injunction eliminates any confusion" (not the old one) [9]. So please, tell me how I'm beating a dead horse! This source seems to imply that the first ruling's scope wasn't as broad as the second ruling's. Also, I'd appreciate it if you would stop making snide comments. Prcc27 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The second order just makes explicit what the first order did not. The AG doesn't handle adoptions personally, yet he was well aware of the reach of the first order extended to his subordinates and all enforcement of the state's marriage ban. His request for a stay makes that clear. It's hardly likely that it was the case that changed the language of her ruling -- note I say the language not the scope, since I believe the scope is the same -- and more likely the recent request that she clarify her order. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Either way, the second ruling makes it harder for the clerks to claim that they don't have to issue same-sex marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on SCOTUS scope

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

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

• If SCOTUS flatly holds that the Constitution prohibits states from excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the ruling itself will apply only to the four states in the 6th Circuit. What will probably technically happen is that the original district court orders take effect in those four states more or less immediately, although there could be some small amount of administrative time for the SCOTUS ruling to be formally transmitted to the district courts. Or if SCOTUS believes that the district courts need to revise their orders in some way, it can remand the cases back down the chain and have the district courts make any necessary revisions to the orders. We're still talking about only the four states covered by the appeal.
  But the ruling itself would be a nationally binding precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court and the final and ultimate answer to the constitutional question. From that moment on, whatever SCOTUS said in its opinion IS the law, de jure. Every court in the land and every state in the land would be bound by it as the authoritative statement of what the law is. Now, that doesn't mean that any particular county bureaucrat could be immediately held in contempt of court for not issuing licenses. To get them technically on the hook for contempt would require use of the other lawsuits that are pending or new lawsuits to get orders in those cases. But that would be extraordinary. Once the Court rules, the states should comply voluntarily. Every official of every state has a legal obligation to comply with the Constitution, as authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court. Running from county to county and getting court orders is never necessary because officials realize that they're just fighting a losing battle once the Supreme Court has ruled, and they have a legal obligation to voluntarily follow the Constitution. For comparison, SCOTUS clearly ruled in 2003 that criminal sodomy statutes were unconstitutional as applied to private, consensual, non-commercial oral and anal sex. The states have voluntarily complied and are not prosecuting people. But there are about a dozen states where no one has ever actually obtained a court order, so a local prosecutor couldn't actually be held in contempt of court without additional proceedings, but we don't say consensual sodomy is still a crime in those states. It isn't. The expectation of commenters like Prcc that the law doesn't change until every last public official is put under a court order and subjected to contempt of court is just absolutely inconsistent with how the law actually works. He has "de jure" and "de facto" exactly backwards. When a court with jurisdiction tells us what the law is, the question is answered "de jure." If some officials refuse to honor it, they're flouting their duty to voluntarily comply with the Constitution and are following some "de facto" principle that is not law. Jstephenclark (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very helpful to know. I wasn't certain whether the binding power of SCOTUS is a direct effect. So after SCOTUS, we'd still have to wait for the remaining court cases in the remaining ban states to be settled, though the end result will have to fall in line with the SCOTUS decision, correct? Sorry for taking up so much time on this. Kumorifox (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Sorry, it depends on what you mean by binding power and direct effect. A SCOTUS ruling will not put every state and local official in the country under a court order to issue licenses, recognize marriages, and extend spousal benefits. That means if any official refuses, he can't be held in contempt of court and sent to jail yet. To take care of resistors like that, yes, you'd have use the other cases that are now pending or file a new lawsuit. Then, once a court order issued, the official could be held in contempt if he continues to refuse to comply. BUT that is only necessary IF certain state or local officials refuse to implement the SCOTUS decision voluntarily. That is NOT how these things normally work because refusal to implement the SCOTUS decision will amount to a violation of the Constitution, as definitively and finally interpreted. There will be no more room for arguing about whether the state ban is still valid. The moment SCOTUS rules, the Constitution will definitively prohibit states from withholding marriage from gay couples. Because state and local officials have a paramount duty to abide by the U.S. Constitution--in fact, that duty is in their oaths, and it's in the Constitution itself--almost all will just immediately fall into line, probably on the advice of attorneys general and other legal advisers. Somehow this myth has arisen that the Constitution doesn't count and that state and local officials just routinely ignore it unless hit with a court order. Not true at all. You only need a court order when they refuse to follow the Constitution. So if they voluntarily comply, as almost all will, the other pending cases become irrelevant. They can just be dismissed as moot. In fact, the courts will probably be obliged in many instances to dismiss them as moot because federal courts generally aren't permitted to adjudicate cases that have become moot. It's only if some state or local official tries to hold out that a live dispute would exist and a court order would be necessary to force them into compliance. This has been my point all along. If somebody like Prcc is waiting for courts to impose orders on every state and local official everywhere in the country, that is never going to happen because that's not how the system works. That is the remedy only when state or local officials refuse to follow the Constitution. Frankly, I'd be surprised if there are any holdouts once SCOTUS rules, because the state and local officials would be knowingly and intentionally violating the Constitution and don't want to be held liable for it. In other words, victory in other places is not going to come from a court order of any court at all; it's going to come from state and local officials conceding defeat and voluntarily complying. That's how the system works. Jstephenclark (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• Great observation! Notice a couple of things. First, as controversial as interracial marriage was, that case illustrates how the holdouts were extremely isolated and were dealt with in a matter of weeks. Second, keep in mind that there were something like 16 states that still banned interracial marriage when Loving was decided. Most everyone just voluntarily complied without court orders. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So does that mean in the event of a pro-marriage equality ruling by SCOTUS that we would color all the other states medium red for precedent since we use the precedent color for circuit court rulings? Otherwise, if we're going to view precedents as "de jure" legal we should color every state with a circuit court precedent for marriage equality dark blue. We used to treat circuit court rulings as applying for the entire circuit but then we decided that precedent ≠ legality. Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• You could note that other states are under SCOTUS precedent but not under court order, but that result will likely endure permanently. The same is true today with sodomy laws. A number of states still have those laws, are under the Lawrence precedent, don't enforce them, but are not bound by any court order. The map really does lose most of its significance if SCOTUS rules for the gay couples. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Precedent is not legality in a circuit court precisely BECAUSE it's possible that a higher court (namely SCOTUS) could reverse this precedent...just like the 6C precedent of "bans are constitutional" can be reversed. However, once SCOTUS sends out precedent, it immediately goes into effect nationwide. The de jure implications of that are immediate. To oppose the precedent is unconstitutional, period. And that is so strong, that states immediately comply and do things "BECAUSE SCOTUS". (Think like what WV did when they said they have to follow 4C precedent and therefore won't enforce the ban) @Jstephenclark:, am I even close to the correct answer? Swifty819 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly, @Swifty819:! When SCOTUS definitively interprets the Constitution (assuming it actually resolves the question), its interpretation of the Constitution is authoritative and final. It becomes *the* meaning of the Constitution and an integral part of the supreme law of the land, trumping any other source of law or interpretation of the Constitution in our system. At that point, it makes no sense for states to keep resisting because the issue is no longer an open question, short of the possibility of a future SCOTUS overruling itself. A state or local official can resist but will just end up having a lower court impose a court order and mandate compliance on pain of being jailed or fined for contempt of court for further resistance. But at the circuit level, the interpretation of the Constitution isn't conclusive because there is still the possibility of an appeal to SCOTUS either in that same case or in a later case. Other states in that circuit can try to resist because there remains some argument about the ultimate meaning of the Constitution until SCOTUS speaks, but a federal district court and that circuit court will rule against those states, as happened in the 4th and 9th circuits. But they still have the opportunity to appeal to SCOTUS. Even if another state in that circuit has already appealed to SCOTUS and had its appeal denied, other states in the circuit can still ask SCOTUS to hear their appeal. So if all you have is a circuit court decision, its interpretation of the Constitution is only the law in that circuit and only until contradicted by SCOTUS. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Hmm... usually we think of SCOTUS as having the "last word" but is it possible that some states will immediately comply with the precedent (i.e. what West Virginia did) while others decide to be difficult? If those states are difficult is same-sex marriage still technically legal due to SCOTUS precedent..? And how would we color the map? The Sixth Circuit would most likely be light blue between the time the ruling is issued and the time it actually goes into effect, but would the other ban states be light blue as well or would they be medium red for precedent? Prcc27 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly, if SCOTUS rules for that the gay couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry, there's not much point in continuing the map. Everyone or virtually everyone will comply, more or less immediately, because at that point it's "game over." When they don't comply, you have a constitutional crisis--like a few segregationist governors claiming they wouldn't comply with Brown v. Board of Education. They found themselves surrounded by federalized national guard troops and U.S. military paratroopers. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jstephenclark: It isn't game over until same-sex marriage is legal nationwide. I think we should continue the map in the event of a pro-ssm ruling to distinguish between states that have same-sex marriage and states that will have same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Another interesting question is what if the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiffs and says there is no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. All the rulings in the appeals courts ruling state laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional would be in question. Those state constitutional bans are still there, just waiting to come back to life if they can ever be legally enforced again. If state officials refuse to grant marriage licenses or recognition to same-sex couples, they could no longer successfully challenge that in court after an adverse Supreme Court ruling. Many of the states we now have colored dark blue might start to revert back to red. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• That is an excellent observation. Someone on a legal blog has probably addressed it, but I can't give you a firm take on it because it would be such an oddity in the history of SCOTUS. I do not believe that a SCOTUS decision against the plaintiffs in the 6th circuit would automatically release all those states from existing court orders. Most of those judgments have become final. Reopening a case that has become final is not very easy. I assume there would eventually be a way for those states to get out from under those court orders, but I'm not sure exactly how that would go down. SCOTUS would look SO bad if it created that chaos that I'd be surprised if it ruled against the plaintiffs now after letting things go so far in so many states. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

After Lawrence v. Texas did the other sodomy ban states need specific rulings to overturn their bans? If I recall correctly they did not and they just began complying with the ruling. SCOTUS is unique in once they rule there is no possibility of appeal and their word is absolutely binding throughout the US and territories, no wriggle room (unless SCOTUS reverses itself later) My plan upon a pro-equal marriage ruling is to just turn the US fully blue on the world maps, although we could maybe freeze this map to show the last holdouts. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Actually, I think the world marriage map should be colored yellow since the ruling doesn't go into effect right away. BTW, the defendants can still ask for a rehearing before the ruling goes into effect. As for this map... I would rather see the remaining states colored light blue than freezing the map since it would still be useful to distinguish between states with same-sex marriage and states that will eventually have same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• You want the remaining states colored blue to indicate "in process" because of your fixation on demanding a court order in every single state? Oh, for crying out loud. What is this agenda of massive resistance? Jstephenclark (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jstephenclark: No, I meant turn the sixth circuit and other states with ssm bans light blue up until the SCOTUS ruling goes into effect. The current consensus is that a state doesn't turn dark blue until the same-sex marriage law goes into effect. Prcc27 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• If you look at Supreme Court orders, once the Supreme Court hands down an opinion, the very next conference they hand out reversals of other related petitions based on what they just decided. That to me implies a SCOTUS decision goes right into effect. Another wrinkle is if we color the other states stayed yellow, when would we make them blue? Once they obey the ruling? We won't be getting specific post-SCOTUS rulings. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• CORRECT. The states acquiesced in Lawrence. There remain today a number of states where the sodomy laws are still on the books but are unenforced even though no court order was ever issued in those states. That's what I would expect to happen in the event gay couples prevail decisively at SCOTUS on marriage equality this year. What few local holdouts might exist can be handled with targeted lawsuits and court orders in a matter of weeks. If SCOTUS rules definitively for gay couples, I don't see much need to continue the map. Personally, I like the idea of preserving it as a record of the who the holdout states were going into the SCOTUS decision. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• It's really nothing mysterious. When a local official has to decide what his legal obligations are, he consults the law. If there is a state law that tells him to do X but SCOTUS has ruled those kinds of laws unconstitutional, the local official follows the SCOTUS decision, not the state statute. The state law that tells him to do X is not "law." It's null and void as though it doesn't exist. In our system, the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS) trumps everything else. The official is not somehow required to follow the state statute until a court orders him otherwise. He has a legal duty to follow the Constitution first and foremost. Jstephenclark (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• So if SCOTUS rings the wedding bells, we may as well replace the map with a date of legalization map? Swifty819 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, because immediately after a pro-ssm SCOTUS ruling we would still have two types of states: States with same-sex marriage (dark blue) and states that legalized same-sex marriage (light blue). Then, after same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, I would prefer we just distinguish between states that legalized it before SCOTUS and states that legalized it after SCOTUS. No other distinctions are important IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The distinction in your first sentence makes no sense. Jstephenclark (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jstephenclark: If the SCOTUS ruling doesn't go into effect right away, that means same-sex marriage would be legalized nationwide but not necessarily legal in the states that don't already have same-sex marriage. We have a color for states with a same-sex marriage law that is in effect (dark blue) and a color for states with a same-sex marriage law that is about to go into effect (light blue). Do you understand the difference between (currently) legal and legalized (not yet legal, but will be in the future)..? Prcc27 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think I see where he is coming from. After a positive SCOTUS ruling, there will still be states that will require some time to implement the ruling. Those states would be light blue until complete implementation, thereby giving the maximum information to people who view the map on whether or not they can marry in their state without some bureaucratic delays. The idea is sound, but I don't think it will matter as every state is capable of changing the procedures immediately (just look at some of the New England states that were ordered to allow marriage immediately). Also @Prcc27:, the before/after SCOTUS decision should not be required on this map in case of a positive ruling. This map in and of itself would be defunct, as it would be dark blue all over. Instead, we could use the date of legalisation map to show the history of marriage legality, just like the striking of sodomy bans map does. Just showing the before/after SCOTUS would give a very simplified and narrow view of the struggle for marriage equality, I believe. But we can debate that more thoroughly once SCOTUS has ruled, it's early days yet. Kumorifox (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kumorifox: That depends on when the ruling goes into effect.. If the ruling doesn't go into effect right away, each state would either be dark blue or light blue. Once same-sex marriage is legal nationwide then we could freeze the map and changing the wording of the two colors to distinction between before/after SCOTUS decision. Prcc27 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I think a better distinction to make would be states that still have same-sex marriage bans on the books that are unenforceable due to the Supreme Court's ruling, and those that don't. It is theoretically possible that some future Supreme Court could overturn a ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. Until states get around to amending their constitutions to remove the gay marriage bans, they will remain there, waiting to rise from the dead if given the chance. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rreagan007: Immediately following a pro-ssm ruling the distinction between same-sex marriage already being legal vs. same-sex marriage legalized is more important than a distinction on the basis that some future Supreme Court ruling might overturn same-sex marriage since this map deals with the current status of same-sex marriage. However, once same-sex marriage becomes legal nationwide then the distinction between states with and without bans on the books could be made on this map. But just like that distinction isn't made on the U.S. sodomy laws page, it shouldn't be made here IMO. Most people are going to want to know which states the SCOTUS ruling impacted, not which states are likely to have their bans enforceable again in the unlikely event that SCOTUS reverses their decision. Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd actually like to have a "date of legalisation" map as well, just like we have a "date of sodomy decriminalisation" map. Even though that took place over ~30 years, rather than the 11 years we're hoping for with marriage. On the sodomy map, we also don't distinguish just between pre- and post-Lawrence states, so why should we with marriages? Kumorifox (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• There's already a "date of legalization" map so it would just be a matter of adding it to the article or possibly replacing this map with that map. Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct BUT don't be surprised if there are outliers. Some will insist they don't fall under the precise decision and others will just be ignorant. A Louisiana sheriff was still enforcing an anti-sodomy statute in 2011-13. here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama footnote revisited

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

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

Support. Prcc27 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• From my understanding, the person in charge of the association is a probate judge themselves. Prcc27 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The judges are elected officials, not necessarily members of the bar. The Association has an attorney. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Electing judges is never a good idea IMO. Anyways, the association is accepting the ruling but idk if that even matters.. [11] Prcc27 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

OF COURSE IT MATTERS. Otherwise Alabama=Kansas. (There could still be a few resisters but the hot air has gone out of that balloon now.) This all demonstrates the brilliance of the SCOTUS strategy. By proceeding rather slowly, it allows many different states and groups to have their "day in court". A decision from SCOTUS 18 months ago would have met with scattered resistance that would have looked substantial and fed on itself. Instead those states and groups are getting picked off one at a time, and resistance is very very modest, like the chapel flap in Idaho or a few judges resigning in NC. Kansas is the only serious exception to date, no? In Alabama, we also see the brilliance of Judge Granade. She had two decisions ready to go. She releases one on a Friday night, knowing full well she'll be asked for clarification and for a stay. She shows respect to the AG with the 14-day stay. She gets the Probate Judges on record (and nutty Moore), and only then she produces the 2nd decision and clarifies that first order. And uses Florida as the model! The judges yield because at least they got to raise their little protest. The AG is respectful because she is allowing him to show he is doing all he can to support the popular view in his state. She's played a great game of chess and was three steps ahead of everyone else from the start. (Only too bad that now it's out of her hands.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Supreme Court learned from the mistakes of the Roe v. Wade debacle. Here we are 40 years later, and people are still fighting that decision. Thank goodness they decided to use a different strategy here. Gay marriage had just as much potential to become a polarizing social issue for decades after a decision if it had come too early before everyone felt like they had their say on the matter before the Supreme Court's ruling. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama update

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

Michigan complication

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

Oppose: Those same-sex marriages were grandfathered in. Furthermore, if we were going to add a footnote we should have done so immediately after the ruling was issued. Prcc27 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

They were not grandfathered in; the state refused recognition as soon as the stay on the original order was issued. Those that were married in the window went back to court after the 6th Circuit ruling, and got a ruling in their favour about three weeks ago; the state announced today that they will not appeal the decision. Mw843 (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I know, but now they are going to be grandfathered in because of the ruling that was just issued. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with your opposition on the grounds that "we should have done so immediately after the ruling was issued", as that doesn't seem like an actual reason to not do so now. Dustin (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• What I'm referring to is the discussion before this. We decided not to do anything about Michigan. The fact that Michigan isn't going to appeal doesn't change the fact that Michigan doesn't merit a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support footnote. At the time, I was more willing to do nothing because we had no idea if the decision would be stayed. That's why my original statement was a what if question. Now that they have not appealed, I believe the 323 folks (or was it couples) deserve recognition on here. Swifty819 (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• EDIT: @Kumorifox:, I believe you were in a "let's see what happens sort of mood, so I wanted to ping you. Swifty819 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Appeal or not, anytime there is a temporary stay we add a footnote; so that's why I said we should have done this earlier when the temporary stay was actually issued rather than wait for the state to not appeal. Furthermore, recognition of 323 same-sex marriages is limited recognition and we generally avoid noting limited recognition (i.e. recognition of previous marriages, divorce recognition only, joint tax recognition only, death certificate recognition only, etc.) to avoid having excess footnotes. Prcc27 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: Michigan is in a better position now that the ruling on the window marriages is definitive (though maybe not final, I'm not sure) and their main state case has been granted certiorari, rather than be in legal limbo with a counter-ruling from the Circuit. However, I think this issue is better suited to the SSM template than the map. The way things stand currently, we're looking at piling footnote upon footnote on the map, which defeats its purpose, as the map with accompanying legend alone should be self-explanatory. If there was a proviso for indicating individual cases on the map itself, like the world map or the old "rings" map, then I would agree to indicating them with an explanatory note. But with this particular map, I'm opposing a footnote on Michigan. Kumorifox (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - we don't need a footnote for stay marriages. That kind of information should be readily available in articles, but it is not needed here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Alabama - 9 Feb

@Nickd97: has boldly changed Alabama to Dark Blue.

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

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

  do we need a footnote?Naraht (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think a footnote is appropriate, at least for now. Kumorifox (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like someone else to write the footnote. I believe that I would have difficulty writing one that doesn't include an Non-NPOV statement on Alabama CJ Moore.Naraht (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I copied the first part of the Kansas footnote and changed the links. It now states that only select jurisdictions in Alabama are offering licenses. For the time being, I believe that that is good enough; the reasons can be found in the articles for Alabama or the US. Kumorifox (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Partial cases color?

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

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

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

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

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

Strongly support. It might be superfluous come June, but for the time being, I believe such a colour is warranted with the latest developments. Kumorifox (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly opposed - SSM is not "partially legal" in Alabama. SSM is 100% legal in Alabama. That some judges/administrators are choosing to disobey the law does not change the law. We did not alter the map for cases where "rogue" administrators offered SSM licenses in contravention to a standing ban, we should not alter the map for cases where "rogue" administrators are denying SSM licenses in contravention to a pro-SSM ruling. Kansas and Missouri are dissimilar situations and creating an "It's Complicated" color is not helpful. Shereth 18:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shereth: The new colour would not dispute the legality. It would just show the situation on the ground. We have 3 states where the law and its practice are in conflict in regards to SSM. Such cases are shown on the world map, so why not here? Kumorifox (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shereth: We have a table within the article that lists 3 states in this category. I just though the map could complement the table by offering a more visual description. SSM is 100% legal in 2 states (MO being the runt of the litter). If I go by the logic that SSM is 100% legal in AL and KS, then why are there footnotes to denote a situation? The medium blue color would indicate "Yes, SSM is legal, BUT...", and as each state is different, you'd need to go to the table to see the reasoning. As to why the map wasn't updated with rogue situations, it was because you had only two states with different situations and it was thought no other state would result in yet another unique position. Alas, it has happened. Rather than having a footnote for each state, group them all under a color and link the table. Einsteinboricua (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe a color is needed for "SSM legal but". Since the situations in the states where this hypothetical color would be applied are different, each would require a footnote indicating what the "but" is. That's already the purpose that the footnotes serve, to indicate "this is an exception to the rule". Footnotes are sufficient. Adding a color for "but" situations is a bad precedent because, what kind of "but" qualifies? Do we shade Alabama a different color when 50% of the counties are going against the law? 10%? One county? One judge? What if a news story pops up tomorrow saying that some county clerk in Utah refused to issue a license to a couple? Does Utah change to this alternate color because there was a "but"? No, that's silly. Use the dark blue color to accurately indicate that SSM is legal, and use footnotes to clarify if there is some kind of unusual situation going on. Shereth 19:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, even though I disagree. To run with your example, UT has had no reported refusals so far (at least not that I am aware of), whereas KS and AL have had difficulties from the very beginning. Once a state has full compliance, it should go dark blue and remain that way. If a single clerk or judge later tries to much things up, then I agree reverting the colour would be silly. But if a state remains contrary from the very beginning, and there will be considerable time involved before all the clerks or judges comply with a federal ruling, I would try to make that as clear as possible. MO is the clear exception here, as there is no state refusal to run with the laws; the injunctions are either highly local in scope or stayed. Kumorifox (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I still see problems with this setup. Would this mean we have to wait until there is 100% compliance with the law before a state goes dark blue? If not, how do we come up with a logical "transition point"? In either case, how do we determine that "minimum compliance" level has been met? Do we require a source to say that compliance has been reached, or do we assume a lack of evidence to the contrary is sufficient? What if a state goes blue for a couple days before a source is dug up stating that some wayward county is balking? There are, in my opinion, too many variables here. Too many ifs, ands and buts. The existing solution is logical, simple, and not subject to arbitrary cutoffs. The only question you have to ask is: Can people get SSM marriage licenses in [state]? If so, time for dark blue. Other solutions introduce an unnecessary level of complexity. Shereth 21:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Shereth: Now that is logic that I appreciate. To be honest, I hadn't thought that far ahead. And you are correct, from a practical point of view, we would need some sort of cut-off point and good sources for implementing this, and it is likely that not many more states would need it, as the majority of the remaining states are either holding off on the cases while SCOTUS is deciding, or else are at the CoA stage. So yes, come to think about it, the colour would likely remain with just 3 states for now. While I would like a clearer indication on the map for KS and MO, mainly for people just glancing at the map so they know something is off about these states, it would be impractical unless we have a cut-off. I'd be tempted to say a county basis, but with over 100 counties in KS alone it would be impractical to track them all. And I can only imagine what would happen if TX were to be difficult. I still support the notion, but only if people can think of making it practical (and I cannot really think of a way right now). Kumorifox (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Opposed per Shereth. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Support More same-sex couples are recognized as married in Michigan than in Kansas and same-sex marriage isn't even legal in Michigan! And looking at a state and seeing it fully dark blue insinuates that same-sex marriage is legal in the entire state and that you can easily obtain a same-sex marriage license. This is a statewide map, so when the law becomes inconsistent in a state, it is inappropriate to pretend that a color that used to be reserved for statewide cases only (NM, MO) is appropriate. If same-sex marriage is both legal and banned than why does "same-sex marriage legal" automatically trump "same-sex marriage banned"? Ignoring the ban part of the states' same-sex marriage laws goes against WP:NPOV. Prcc27 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Opposed for the reasons listed by Shereth. Let's say we do make this color. Then at what point do we go to dark blue? With that said, if we can come up with a reasonable condition for when we switch from the new color to dark blue, then I may support. Swifty819 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I would assume that they'd go to dark blue when:

• Alabama's probate judges stop refusing to issue licenses (or a majority of them start issuing them)
• Kansas's government recognizes the validity of the marriages
• Missouri's counties all start issuing. Missouri would be an exception as the federal ruling is stayed. This would be the ideal candidate for a different color since SSM is de facto legal, not de jure. I know it's already been discussed so I'm not gonna keep flogging a dead horse. Einsteinboricua (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Super-Strongly Oppose for reasons specified above. The footnotes are more than adequate to handle these issues. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Super-Ultra-Double Ply-with Sugar on it Support Having footnotes doesn't negate the fact that the map is misleading. The article has an entirely separate TABLE for KS, MO, AL, so why are they the same color here? It's nonsense. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What if instead of using a different color to mark these states as having SSM legal "but", we just put a number in the state to represent the footnote graphically.. or outline the state or something along those lines. The state would still be dark blue, but there would be a clear graphical distinction to alert the reader/viewer to check for footnotes.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example of outlined states. Keep in mind the color of the outline is easily changeable.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dudemanfellabra:Now this I would support. However, the outline should be of another color (maybe white?). Also, can we see a map with the numbered states? Einsteinboricua (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a version with numbers. I would support something like this. Shereth 14:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That would make the map an awful lot clearer! No ambiguity about what states are clearly not quite fit for their assigned colour, and an immediate direction to the footnotes. I support this motion for footnoted states for as long as there are footnotes assigned to such states. Kumorifox (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Support the numbered version. This guarantees everyone looks at the right footnote, provided we keep them updated. Finally! Swifty819 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I Support this numbered version. Einsteinboricua (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am okay with the numbered version but I think it's kind of weird to have the footnote numbers on the map and almost redundant since the numbers are already in the legend. I still think we should use medium blue for partial states. People are saying the criteria for when a state should be colored for partial legality is too complicated but it's actually quite simple: Does the state have a footnote because same-sex marriage isn't fully legal? For AL, MO, KS the answer is "yes". Prcc27 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Maybe we could make the footnotes color coded. Missouri's footnote would be gold (possibly medium blue as well), while Alabama and Kansas' would be red (KS would be medium red due to circuit court precedent). Prcc27 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea is nice, but I'd be worried that it would cause problems for colour-blind people. If we go with numbers, I'd say keep them white. Otherwise we might as well bring back the stripes. Kumorifox (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• AFAIK, the only way they'd cause problems for colorblind people is if we were using purple or green. I support striping but think that color coded footnotes would be better than nothing. Prcc27 (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No color coded footnotes. For one thing I would contend red for Kansas and, in particular, Alabama would be misleading, as the bans have been overturned - some officials refusing to issue licenses does not mean the ban is still in effect. Secondly, I don't think that most people would intuitively understand that the color of the footnote is supposed to correspond to some other status, and is an inefficient means of communicating information. Lastly, white on blue is a much easier color combination to read; have you ever tried to read red text on a blue background? Ouch. Shereth 14:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Shereth: Red is not misleading for Kansas.. the ban on recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages was never struck down (Section 23-2508). Prcc27 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Support The bottom line is that the bottom lines, i.e. the footnotes, don't change the fact that the map is misleading. It makes it appear that several more states have marriage equality than really do. If a state is "but, but, but" then marriage equality has not been achieved there, period. The struggle continues, yet looking at the map, it suggests otherwise. Please, someone shut the door on this already. Make those states medium blue or whatever, or add the numbers. I think the numbers are perfect: two birds with one stone. Do it! They can be changed to solid blue when/if there are no qualifiers to the state having "legal" same-sex marriage. Njsustain (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"defiance of Federal law"?

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

"Law" in the sense of legal authority, not a particular law, and defiant is then accurate in that the decisions of "the law", as in "the feds", is being ignored, and in fact, obtusely and intentionally defied. Njsustain (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Like Njustain says, a federal ruling is law even if it is not a law. If it rankles you that much go ahead and change law to ruling but it's pretty pointless nitpicking. Shereth 14:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Federal court ruling" would be more precise. In one sense, there is no "federal law" mandating same-sex marriage. There are Constitutional interpretations, which do have the force of law. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It may be more precise, but it is not more correct. "Law" refers to the legal effects of the law including legal court decisions, not just "a law", as Shereth points out. Njsustain (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that distinction, but all Wikipedia readers might not. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• That's one judge in one county. Also, whoever's removing the footnote without discussion needs to stop; especially since they're breaking the format! Prcc27 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would Alabama be considered defiant but not Kansas? Also, when did we decide we weren't going to have a footnote for Alabama anymore (it was removed again)? Prcc27 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that also. I guess someone figured we passed a "threshold" of counties issuing licenses. If you can get married in any county (I don't know the law there, but if), then a few renegade judges (only about 15 out of the 67 now) won't hinder anyone from getting married. They just need to drive to a nearby county. If this is the case, I would support dropping the footnote. Njsustain (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I remember a renegade county in SC that we didn't bother to note. Probably AL will be in a similar situation by the end of next week. MO is similar to AL, but with a longer drive if you live far from the major cities. KS, on the other hand, is truly defiant, as even when you get legally married they refuse to recognize it. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

On the other talk page someone noted that just because a few AL counties are not giving ANY marriage licenses that doesn't mean that there are only 49 states where opposite sex marriage is legal. Should there be an article "opposite sex marriage in the US" and a map with all 50 states dark blue, but with a footnote that in some counties in AL you can't get married? Of course not. The footnote needs to be gone permanently. KS on the other hand still needs to be changed to a different color. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)