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.

Endgame discussion of this map (if applicable)

Hi. So it is possible and likely that SCOTUS will nationalize the freedom to marry for same-sex couples and I'd like to have a discussion about this and what to do with this map. I am also aware that some discussion is under "Question of SCOTUS Scope." Consider this a continued discussion.

When I was a kid looking at this map, I would get SO excited seeing a state turn dark blue for equality. I'd like every kid in every state to have the joy of seeing the whole nation dark blue, especially for kids in red/yellow/pink states/territories.

Perhaps after a little while, when all the celebrating is done, all the legal things are settled, and is clearly the law of the land, we could remove the map or something when the dust settles, if we end up choosing that route (which I almost don't want to take).

In the future, I'd like to see a timelapse map of the History of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States.

(Pardon my bias, but I felt I had to, as this is an emotional map for me) Tenor12 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's probably good for us to go ahead and have a preliminary discussion now, as I'm sure emotions will be running high on the day the actual decision comes down. Strictly speaking, if the Supreme Court overturns the marriage bans in Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision will technically only apply to the 6th Circuit states (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee). And there is a delay between the time the decision is released and when the decision goes into full effect (I think it's like 30 or 60 days, or something like that). So, on the day of the decision (assuming the decision strikes down the bans) we should automatically turn those 4 states light blue. Now, as a practical matter, state officials in those 4 states might not wait the full waiting period and may begin issuing licenses that same day, or shortly thereafter. If that happens, then we should turn each state dark blue on a state-by-state basis. Also, outside the 4 states that the decision strictly applies to, officials in other states might also just start issuing licenses. If that happens, then we should probably just start turning those states dark blue one by one, as conditions on the ground warrant. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

U.S. sodomy laws by the year when they were repealed or struck down.

  Laws repealed or struck down before 1970.

  Laws repealed or struck down from 1970 to 1979.

  Laws repealed or struck down from 1980 to 1989.

  Laws repealed or struck down from 1990 to 1999.

  Laws repealed or struck down from 2000 to 2002.

  Laws struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003.

I know that pre-emptively locking images shouldn't happen, but we should be prepared for well meaning users to want to change the entire map to dark blue. (and what do we do with Georgia and Texas where regardless of the State Law, there are more liberal counties of Georgia and Texas that will start Marriage if Obergefell is overturned?)Naraht (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure people will come along and instantly try to change the map to all blue. That should be reverted quickly. Asside from the fact that an all-blue map is pretty useless from an information-conveying standpoint, it also won't be a completely accurate representation until every state begins issuing marriage licenses, which will take time. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

My position is that if (as expected) SCOTUS reverses the bans, that we lock this image as is to show the state of marriage in the country before SCOTUS nullified the remaining bans. That way we won't have to try and sort out what to do with immediate issuers (both Travis County, Texas and Fulton County, Georgia for instance plan to issue as soon as the ruling comes out), and we get an easy future reference of what the last state hold outs were. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 13:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of locking this map as is. If you want to preserve the map as is at the time of the decision for historical reasons, you simply have to copy the map to a new location. But this map is widely looked at to see the current legal status of same-sex marriage as it currently exists. I want to at least attempt to keep updating it after the SCOTUS ruling. Perhaps it will prove impossible as a practical matter, but we'll have to wait until it actually happens to see if it is possible to continue on successfully. I do think that maybe a new footnote referencing the SCOTUS case and how it will eventually be applied to every state could be useful though. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

A time-lapse map sounds like a good idea. A map that colour-codes states in a similar way the "sodomy laws overturned" map codes the states? Using different colours, of course. But it would give a very overseeable view of how the state laws changed over time. I'd prefer that over locking this map and leaving it as is, as this would only highlight the stragglers, and not be representative of the fight for equality that went on in the states. Kumorifox (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of a timelapse, but whether that should be at this filename, I'm not sure. And I have *no* idea how long it is going to be before the Kansas or Louisiana State governments truly are going to get on board even after a Supreme Court decision and that should be reflected in the map.Naraht (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably not long for Louisiana. The Fifth Circuit has a decision written, but is waiting on the Supreme Court. S51438 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I think a map exists that involved when each state removed their bans on interracial marriage through the years up till the day that "Loving v. Virginia" was decided. Perhaps that could be done for this map as well. Ghal416 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Simple, we make a map like the one on the right. S51438 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yeah...the Lawrence map. Exactly. :) Ghal416 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• 

  Provinces and territories with same-sex marriage before its nationwide legalization on July 20, 2005.

    Permitted

    Did not permit

  In the event of a pro-ssm ruling, I say color the 6th circuit light blue and the other states that ban ssm should be colored light red for precedent. The states with stayed rulings should remain yellow since lifting those stays should make things quite easy. If counties/parishes prematurely comply with the scotus ruling- I'd say purple would be the appropriate color and the footnote would be necessary to explain things. Many governors will probably issue executive orders legalizing ssm in response to the ruling so per West Virginia those states would immediately turn dark blue. If scotus issues a pro-ssm recognition/anti-ssm performance ruling, I'd be for consolidating the medium blue & red stripes into one color (solid dark gray- which is what we used to use for same-sex marriage recognition). As for this map after ssm has become legal nationwide... I'd prefer we have two colors: one for states that legalized same-sex marriage before the scotus ruling and one for states that legalized it after the scotus ruling. This would be similar to Canada's same-sex marriage map. The years it was legalized are almost irrelevant imo because same-sex marriage in the united states ran on a much shorter time table than interracial marriage and anti-sodomy laws. Prcc27 (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with just about all of that, except for having a separate color for pre-SCOTUS ruling and post-SCOTUS ruling. I see no value in such a distinction, as there is no distinction in law between them, and it gives the impression that the pre-SCOTUS states were somehow more "progressive" or "enlightened" than the post, when most of them were dragged kicking and screaming by the circuit courts of appeals very recently. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rreagan007: That's definitely not the kind of impression I want to give with my proposed map. But keep in mind that even the more "progressive" states didn't legalize same-sex marriage on their own because they needed a court ruling to overturn their bans i.e. California, Nevada, and Oregon. The reason why the distinction between pre-SCOTUS and post-SCOTUS is important is to show the readers how many states were impacted by the supreme court ruling, not to show which states are more progressive on the issue. Just like many people want to know which states didn't legalize interracial marriage until Loving, many people are going to want to know which states didn't legalize same-sex marriage until Obergefell. If readers care about how same-sex marriage was legalized in each state whether it be on their own initiative or if the courts forced them to; there is already a map for that! Prcc27 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• It might be appropriate to do on other maps, but on this map I see no benefit for 2 separate colors indicating where same-sex marriage is legal. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well then what do you propose we do with this map after it's legal nationwide..? Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest we do what we've always done, just use the same color we have always used for SSM legalization until marriages are performed statewide in every state. Once every state has it legalized statewide, then we just retire this map, as it will have no more use. People are perfectly free to create other maps as they like, but I see no need to try to repurpose this map for a function it was never designed for. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Alright, I will definitely make my proposed two color map. As for the other maps that were proposed... there's kinda already a map for that ([1]). In case you're wondering- this is what I'd expect the map to look like in the event of a pro scotus ruling. Prcc27 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of a time-based map, but rather than color-coding it by years, I would use certain milestones along the way to nationwide equality, something like this:

• 2004 (Massachusetts) to 2009
• 2009 up to Nov. 2012 election (when WA, MD and ME legalized it thru popular vote)
• Dec. 2012 up to June 2013 (Windsor & Perry)
• June 2013 (post-Windsor landslide of federal court decisions, plus HI, NJ, NM, IL, etc.) to Oct. 2014 (SCOTUS denial of review in 4th, 7th, 10th Circuits)
• Oct. 2014 to June/July 2015 (Obergefell decision)

Tinmanic (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking surrounding it around events as such would be the best manner to set up the map. The only thing that I feel should be made clear in such a new map is that two of the categories should deal with those states that got their bans invalidated through the SCOTUS refusal in October 2014, and of course the Obergefell decision about to come if it does end with such an outcome. Ghal416 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If the Supreme Court rules against same-sex marriage, wouldn't every state that has a stayed ruling (with the exception of Arkansas since their ruling was made by a state court and the state supreme court could still legalize it regardless of what SCOTUS does) go from yellow to red..? And wouldn't the light red precedent territories go to dark red..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, if the Supreme Court only rules that states have to recognize same-sex marriages, but doesn't have to perform them, wouldn't the yellow states (again, with the exception of Arkansas) go to the cream color we use for stayed rulings that only strike the states bans on recognition..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So if I got everything right, these are the three possible maps: pro-ssm ruling, pro-ssm recognition/anti-ssm performance ruling, and anti-ssm ruling. Prcc27 (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay so you've got a lot going on here. Obviously, if SCOTUS rules against the bans, then eventually the states that currently have a stay will get lifted eventually, but it will probably take at least a few days for the courts that issued the stays to actually lift them. But once they do formally lift them, they will turn to light blue, and then eventually dark blue once marriage licenses are actually being issued. So for the actual day of the pro-gay marriage SCOTUS ruling, your map looks essentially correct. I will say that I would prefer that instead of using the light red, we just stick with using the dark red and just redefining the meaning of the dark red to be "Same-sex marriage banned, despite Supreme Court ruling ban unconstitutional". We will obviously have to keep a watchful eye on what is actually happening in the states, as some state officials might just decide to comply with the Supreme Court ruling and begin issuing marriage licenses, even though it doesn't technically apply to them (yet). Rreagan007 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Rreagan007: When a stay is lifted, the ruling goes into effect immediately and the state goes from gold to dark blue because the law is already in effect. We don't have to wait for licenses to be issued before turning the state dark blue because light blue is only used when a ruling or law doesn't go into effect until a specific day. I think we should use light red because it wouldn't make sense for the Virgin Islands (or whatever that is) to go from light red to dark red when SCOTUS is actually weakening the bans- not making them stronger! Prcc27 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• The colors mean what we define them to mean. We have changed colors around many times on this map, redefining colors as things change and for aesthetic reasons. If we only have 1 red color left on the map, I'd like it to be the dark red. It gives much better contrast and is easier for us colorblind folk to distinguish. Plus, it would help define the boarders or the island territories better. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It is good to have good contrast on the map, but if the states stay the same color- readers aren't likely to read what the color says because they'll expect it to say the same thing as what it said before the ruling. But if readers see that many states changed from dark red to light red- they will be more likely to read what light red means. I guess there's gonna be problems no matter what we do with red, but light red makes more sense to me! Prcc27 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Selecting milestones rather than calendar dates is by nature an arbitrary decision. Sticking to year-based coloration avoids the appearance that someone is arbitrarily dictating which SSM "moments" are more important than others. Shereth 17:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand such a sentiment, but I don't think noting the SCOTUS "refusal" in Oct 2014 or if the Obergefell decision goes the way of striking down the final bans in the nation are arbitrary. Those would be the most consequential decisions with regard to same-sex marriage (Windsor didn't invalidate any state bans of course). Picking the cutoffs concerning dates personally seems more arbitrary, since the historical width concerning bans being invalidated is very recent time-wise. Ghal416 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that picking and choosing milestones is arbitrary. But making a map based on calendar years when the timeline for same-sex marriage in the United States is very short isn't that effective. Besides, there is already a same-sex marriage map based on calendar years that was made. Pre-SCOTUS vs. Post-SCOTUS is the most effective kind of map, but like a user already stated- we don't need to do anything to this map after same-sex marriage is legal in the entire nation. What we can do is make our proposed maps as separate maps (one of them is already made) and then propose adding the maps to the articles on the articles' talk pages. Prcc27 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Doing it by calendar years could still work...the spacing would just have to be different than other maps. Maybe 2 year intervals instead of the usual 5 or 10 cutoffs. Then the final color would be the states that were invalidated in the Obergefell court decision date if that happens. Ghal416 (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you can propose that at the talk page for this map. Prcc27 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks :) Ghal416 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Date of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States.

Method of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States.

This is a good place to mention the maps at the right: Date and method of ssm legalization. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Pro SSM ruling from SCOTUS

Looks like SCOTUS has ruled both for performance and recognition. Quick work by @Prcc27 in updating the map. Let's keep an eye on this map and be ready for more changes as I anticipate things to develop pretty quickly in several of the states. Shereth 14:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Light Blue is *not* in the descriptions that go with the image as far as I can tell.Naraht (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it had been changed in the infoboxes where this map appears but not in the map description itself. The light blue description has been restored. Shereth 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

From SCOTUSBLOG: "A few people are asking when the Obergefell decision takes effect. The opinion doesn't speak to this, and so we should expect it to take effect basically immediately--which is the norm in Supreme court cases. It doesn't look like there's anything for the lower courts to do on remand except issue an injunction saying that these marriage bans are unlawful. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2015#sthash.v5fa1QRE.dpuf". Does this mean same-sex marriage is legal in the Sixth Circuit? Nationwide? Prcc27 (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Another comment says "The Court normally issues a final order after 25 days but the decision is operable now. Its enforcement may depend upon further lower court orders. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2015#sthash.v5fa1QRE.IDJk44Dj.dpuf" Prcc27 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I expect to see a lot of action prior to the Court's final order being issued. AFAIK clerks in at least Bexar and Dallas counties in Texas indicated that they would begin issuing licences as soon as the decision came down from the court. If I remember correctly I believe I've read that there were similar statements from clerks in Georgia and Michigan. I'd hold off on making any changes immediately but I do expect it to happen sooner rather than later. Shereth 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Question - under what circumstances do we want to flip a state to dark blue, and under which do we want to make use of the purple 'confusion' color? Comments on SCOTUSblog indicate that same-sex marriage licenses are already being issued in counties in at least Michigan and Ohio, and probably other states as well. In any event I'd wait for more reliable/specific information (such as a news source specifically stating that SSM is taking place in X county) but where do we draw the line between saying a state should be purple because some clerks have jumped the gun and begun issuing, and just saying blue because clerks are isssuing? Shereth 15:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The current descriptions are wrong, SSM is legal everywhere regardless whether things have been cleaned up yet or not. There is no waiting for lower courts before the ruling takes effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.209.99 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Michigan has accepted the ruling[2], and I suggest the state be dark blue. Also, to previous comment, SSM is not legal everywhere ... i's have to be dotted and t's have to be crossed. Mw843 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nebraska: [3]. And to answer Shereth's question, if the AG or governor issues an executive order then per West Virginia that state has same-sex marriage. Otherwise, the state would be purple for partial compliance... Prcc27 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a statement from the state's executive department qualifies for solid blue. I think the second case needs a little more thought however; purple isn't "partial compliance", it's "situation is complicated". There can certainly be cases where the state tacitly concedes without making an official statement one way or the other, however. I just think we need something a little more clear on what to do in those kinds of cases. Shereth 15:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe leave the map as is and add a footnote saying "some jurisdictions are already complying with the Supreme Court ruling ahead of implementation"...? Prcc27 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, on second thought I wouldn't mind resurrecting medium blue as "partial compliance" as a temporary measure. It could be applied to states where some counties have begun issuing SSM licenses without waiting for official word from the state. If the state then pushes back, we can switch that state to purple. If the state makes an official statement of concession, or if a reasonable amount of time (a day?) passes without the state objecting to the issuing counties, switch to dark blue? This way we can avoid having to create and maintain a lot of temporary footnotes. Shereth 15:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• But then Missouri would be partial compliance too per St. Louis, plus footnotes would still be necessary to explain whether the ruling directly affects the state (Ohio), indirectly affects the state (precedent: Georgia), whether state has a stayed ruling (Texas). Maybe just having one footnote state that jurisdictions across the country are complying ahead of implementation. I'd add it to footnote 1. Prcc27 (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but then there still needs to be a point where a state with licenses being issued and no official objection from the state should go dark blue. I could see places like Alabama refusing to ever officially concede while SSM happens regardless. Shereth 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• If same-sex marriage starts happening in Alabama de facto, then I don't think it should matter if the state doesn't "officially" concede. That would be silly. The map should be colored based on the de facto status. Dustin (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Alabama would still be "complicated" purple because if the state doesn't concede, chances are same-sex couples will be denied recognition! Prcc27 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: I would not classify same-sex couples being denied recognition as de facto recognition/licensing. Dustin (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Once there's an appropriate footnote, I suggest holding off on any map changes for a couple of hours, responding to every bit of news will look like thrashing. Mw843 (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Georgia, at the next change.[4] Mw843 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Missouri is asking the 8th Circuit to lift its stay: [5] Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

North Dakota "will comply". [6] Mw843 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not simply colour the whole map blue? The Supreme Court's decision means that same-sex marriage is now legal nationwide and has been since the moment the decision was handed down. The states don't have a choice about complying - if they didn't, they would be in violation of national law, and the national government would have legal grounds for declaring them to be in rebellion and sending in the troops to enforce the decision (although this is unlikely to happen, because the state governments aren't suicidal). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Because the Supreme Court's decision is not technically in effect until the final order is issued next month, therefore there are states where, for the time being, SSM is not fully legal. Shereth 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tennessee as well. From http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/what-is-happening-now-in-the-15-states-without-statewide-mar#.bo78YjOV , which is being updated continually (which sucks for us being able to reference things), "Likewise, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam said in a statement, “The people of Tennessee have recently voted clearly on this issue. The Supreme Court has overturned that vote. We will comply with the decision and will ensure that our departments are able to do so as quickly as possible.".Naraht (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Which in turn gets rid of the light blue.Naraht (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arkansas now - http://www.4029tv.com/news/the-latest-arkansas-counties-begin-to-issue-samesex-marriage-licenses/33790702?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=4029news Tkpeacock27

• Oppose updating Arkansas as it is unclear whether or not they will recognize ssms. Prcc27 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Arkansas is in the gray area of "some counties issuing" but nothing clear from the state, I'd agree on waiting before updating it. Shereth 16:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the proper color to use where some counties comply? Travis County, Texas. Dustin (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd asked this question and didn't get much response. Right now it seems to be maintain the status quo, though personally I'd prefer to see it go dark blue after a brief waiting period to see if the state will respond. Shereth 16:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico moves forward: [7] 146.201.209.99 (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• This ruling should apply to all U.S. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa) right? - I didn't include Guam since they already struck down the law a few weeks ago. Tkpeacock27
  • Virgin Islands - http://viconsortium.com/featured/same-sex-marriage-now-legal-in-u-s-virgin-islands-as-u-s-supreme-court-hands-down-historic-ruling/ Tkpeacock27 — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Remaining

Kansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxlhyX-4qKI) are left plus a *few* of the non-state islands that may take much more to track down.Naraht (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico, Guam and VI should be blue, what are the other two?Naraht (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands. I haven't seen anything official on them yet. In terms of population they are largely insignificant, so it might be hard to find reliable sources for them. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the decision came down at basically 12:05 AM Saturday in he NMI and 3:05 AM Friday on AS. So if the NMI doesn't give an answer until 8:30 AM on a workday on the NMI, we've still got a couple of days.Naraht (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I will be reverting Virgin Islands since the source doesn't provide a concession from a state official! Prcc27 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not foresee any of these territories resisting this ruling, only a matter of time Tkpeacock27

We can be patient so that we get it right. We've waited this long, there's nothing wrong with waiting a little longer. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how long the last 3 states take to come around. Louisiana's Jindal is running for president, so he probably doesn't want to appear too eager to embrace it. Brownback in Kansas is a hardliner, so he's probably going to be dragging it out too. I don't know much about the Mississippi state officials, but they're probably still ticked off about the Confederate Flag drama from last week, so this is kind of like rubbing salt in the wound for them. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not to be WP:CRYSTAL but Mississippi will probably be resolved fairly soon once the Fifth Circuit lifts the district court's stay, the plaintiffs in the Louisiana case already petitioned the Fifth Circuit to reverse and remand the district court ruling, but Kansas has been complicated for several months and probably will remain that way for a while, then there's territories and Native American tribes. My guess is Kansas will be the last state to legalize same-sex marriage! Prcc27 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• O, Kansas. What's the Matter with Kansas? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana's AG says no marriages until SCOTUS issues the mandate[8]. Mw843 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if we should look at that as intent to legalize and make Louisiana light blue. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I believe we should make Louisiana light blue. What day does SCOTUS issue their mandate..? Prcc27 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is extensive enough of a complication to warrant purple, but Governor Abbott in Texas is still fighting as well via a quite vague religious freedom order. [9]. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm... we'll have to see how that plays out. But since the district court ruling is in effect, for now I think it should be dark blue. And I think many same-sex marriage states like Maryland allow religious exemptions? Prcc27 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Since neither Governor Abbott nor AG Paxton have actually conceded to the Supreme Court ruling, it's worth keeping an eye on how quickly the state will be recognizing the marriages, or if they'll try some sort of delay tactic like Louisiana is doing. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• If they do try to do a delay tactic they would be breaking the law since same-sex marriage isn't legal in Texas because of SCOTUS' ruling- it's legal because of the federal district court ruling which is no longer stayed! The reason why Kansas being purple is appropriate is because technically not all counties were bound by it, and because the ruling didn't say anything about same-sex marriage recognition. Prcc27 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example of a Texas county deciding to not follow the federal court ruling until the Supreme Court mandate is out. I am going offline for a while, but Texas is not going to be as smooth as the legal status would suggest. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mississippi's AG has issued a statement, in part: "When the 5th Circuit lifts the stay of Judge Reeves’ order, it will become effective in Mississippi and circuit clerks will be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses."[10] Mw843 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on that statement, I think charging Mississippi to light blue immediately would be appropriate, and then dark blue once the stay is lifted. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Shereth 19:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

But the ruling is still stayed and who knows when or if the 5th Circuit will lift it. I mean, look how long it took them to rule on the same-sex marriage cases that they heard in January (they still haven't ruled on the cases). Yellow is appropriate until the stay is actually lifted. Prcc27 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

They didn't rule because of the upcoming SCOTUS ruling. As long as they say they will implement when the local ruling comes down, then azure seems appropriate IMO. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Every state is supposed to implement when their state's stay is lifted. Light blue has been traditionally used for when a specific date is given for same-sex marriage to become legal. For Louisiana it's 25 days from now when the mandate is issued. But Mississippi has an indefinite stay, not an expiry one. Remember when people colored the entire ninth circuit blue due to the circuit court's precedent? That was disastrous and we eventually reverted it. Just because same-sex marriage will soon become legal eventually when the precedent is used to strike down a ban or lift a stay doesn't mean same-sex marriage has been legalized. Just look at the Virgin Islands; they were in the Ninth Circuit and that precedent was never used to strike down their ban! Prcc27 (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The VI are under the 3rd circuit, which never made a SSM ruling. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I meant American Samoa or Northern Mariana Islands; whichever one is in the ninth circuit. Prcc27 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The indefinite stay color is no longer appropriate to use. It can't be "stayed indefinitely pending appeal" as there are no more appeals left. The stay must therefore be lifted in due course. Light blue is therefore the most appropriate color, as "legalization is pending". Full legalization will happen, not at a definite date, but at a definite event, the inevitable lifting of the stay which now must occur. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• It is stayed pending appeal of the Fifth Circuit which could decide to issue their own ruling concurring with what SCOTUS ruled today instead of lifting the stay. If the Fifth Circuit goes this route then same-sex marriage won't be legalized (light blue) until they issue their own ruling and it won't be legal (dark blue) until their mandate (not SCOTUS' mandate) goes into effect. Prcc27 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Even assuming that is technically correct, it is not possible for the 5th Circuit to issue a ruling contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling today, therefore legalization is still pending and light blue is the appropriate color to use, in my opinion. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• In that case why not color every state that isn't dark blue- light blue since same-sex marriage will eventually become legal due to the Supreme Court's ruling? We still don't know on what day same-sex marriage will be legal, or how it will be legalized. We've never used light blue when we didn't know the date of when same-sex marriage will be legal AFAIK. Prcc27 (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• @Rreagan007: The AG said "The Supreme Court's decision is not immediately effective in Mississippi, It will become effective in Mississippi and circuit clerks will be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses when the 5th Circuit lifts the stay of Judge Reeves' order. This could come quickly or may take several days. The 5th Circuit might also choose not to lift the stay and instead issue an order which could take considerably longer before it becomes effective." Everyone already knows same-sex marriage will eventually become legal in every single state and territory. But it's only appropriate to use light blue when there is an effective date for implementation. [11] Prcc27 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mississippi tells Fifth Circuit they're against the stay being lifted. [12] Prcc27 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico might need to be change to light blue. [13] Prcc27 (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with @Prcc27:'s interpretation of light blue vs mustard. I believe light blue is appropriate here for Mississippi because the legalization of SSM there is pending and nothing will stop that from happening. In practice we used the existence, or lack thereof, of a date of implementation as a sort of metric to determine whether or not to use light blue or mustard because "stayed indefinitely pending appeal" implied that there existed some possibility that an appeal to a higher court would succeed and that the SSM ban would ultimately be upheld, leaving the final status of SSM in that state uncertain. There can no longer be any uncertainty as to the legality of SSM in Mississippi; even the staunchly anti-SSM officials in the state have conceded this fact and are only dragging their heels to delay it as long as they possibly can. With the SCOTUS ruling there can be no uncertainty and there no longer exists the rationale for using the mustard color just because we aren't sure of the exact date when it's going to go into effect. Shereth 14:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

After the Supreme Court decision, this map does not make sense

SCOTUS made their decisions. SSM is now legal nationwide. If states or other localities are not recognizing the decision, the map could show this, but there is no longer anything complicated about the legality of the issue, just about compliance. Shouldn't the map should make this much clearer? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You know what, I don't give a shit. I don't give a shit what makes sense, or if this is an encyclopedia where no opinions are permitted. A lot of people have worked very hard to make this map accurate and reflect what is the legal status in each state. Let people enjoy the dark blue map for a few days. You can wiki-lawyer later.68.199.96.18 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment at all. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what he was (inartfully) trying to say is that once the map goes all blue, we will essentially retire it and remove it from all articles that use it, as it will no longer have any real use. So by having a couple states and territories still holding out, you get to enjoy a sea of blue across almost the entire country, if only for a few more days or weeks. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I have no problem with this map being here, what doesn't make sense to me is to have a caption that says "Current legal status of same-sex marriage is disputed" or "Decision overturning same-sex marriage ban, stayed indefinitely pending appeal". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The legend descriptions have been changed to be more clear. The following line has been added: "Same-sex marriage is de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges" Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The light blue makes sense, but I don't understand the pink and purple. What distinctions make more than one non-yet-complying color necessary? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The territories still colored pink (or light red) are that way basically because we don't yet have any official word about them from any reliable sources about when same-sex marriage licenses will begin being issued. The time difference is probably one reason for this. Kansas is purple because, last I have heard, the state government is still refusing to recognize the legality of same-sex marriages. Things are happening very quickly and I think we've been doing a good job of keeping up with the latest developments to keep this map as up to date as possible based on the information we have available to us. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So then the purple means "the state government has not yet recognized the decision" and pink means "the status of the state governments recognition is unknown"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Purple is more like "some marriage licenses have been, and are being issued in the state, but the state government refuses to recognize same-sex marriage, despite the SCOTUS decision" and pink is more like "no marriage licenses are known to have ever been issued in the territory, and the last official word we have is that the government does not recognize it, but that could change soon in light of the recent decision...maybe?" So, in other words, "it's complicated". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You are making my case. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The light blue color means that the state government officials have expressed the intent to begin issuing marriage licenses and recognizing their legality at a definite date or event in the future. That doesn't apply to Kansas or the territories (yet). Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(outdenting)

• Light blue is labeled "Same-sex marriage legalization pending, but not yet in effect; Same-sex marriage will be de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges2" This would be more accurate if it read "Same-sex marriage is legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges2, but is not yet in effect".
• Purple is labeled "Current legal status of same-sex marriage is disputed; Same-sex marriage will be de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges3" This would be more accurate if it read " "Same-sex marriage is legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges2, but is not yet totally in effect state-wide"
• Gray is labeled "Same-sex marriage banned; applicability of Obergefell v. Hodges unknown", which sounds very much like Pink.
• Pink is labeled "Same-sex marriage banned, despite the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional; Same-sex marriage is de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges", perhaps this should read "Same-sex marriage is legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges2, but it is unknown if it is in effect"

--☑ SamuelWantman 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The difference of grey and pink is that in pink, the SCOTUS ruling applies (we have precedent in Guam and PR), whereas it grey we don't know if it applies. — kwami (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I admittedly have disappeared for a good while, so I don't know if this has been discussed, but perhaps we could freeze this map as it was immediately before the ruling? The information this map shows in its current state is not very useful as within a few weeks every hold-out will be legally obligated to perform SSM. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That was discussed at least a little, and I (and I think a few others maybe) thought that freezing the map would be even less helpful. You can always recreate another map to be exactly how this map was immediately prior to the decision if you want, but I actually think having this map still be current is far more helpful to readers, as there are still a couple of states that are holding out. Once the last state turns blue, this map should just be retired, and its file history will serve as a record of how it changed and evolved over time. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this map is going to be here for a while because Kansas has been a holdout for several months and will likely remain that way for several more, it will probably be more difficult for the territories to legalize it, and who knows when the Fifth Circuit will legalize it for Mississippi..? But I am in favor of keeping this map until same-sex marriage is legal in every state, district (D.C.), and territory. Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, SSM is legal in every state and territory (possibly to the exclusion of AM Samoa). You are looking for some standard that does not exist. Any official not offering licenses or recognition at this point is in violation of the constitution and their oath of office. Louisiana is now offering licenses. Could we change them dark blue at least? Difbobatl (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

American Samoa

AM is currently pink, meaning that SSM is de jure legal. But we don't know that: American Samoans do not enjoy the full protection of the 14th Amendment. I think it should be grey for status unknown. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Pink doesn't mean same-sex marriage is legal... it means same-sex marriage is banned with a SCOTUS precedent against the ban. Prcc27 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It says "de jure legal". But regardless, does the SCOTUS precedent apply to American Samoa? or does it only apply to citizens? We don't know, so coloring it pink is OR. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• The template says "will be de jure legal". The precedent is binding on all federal courts and AFAIK American Samoa has one. It's up to America Samoa's federal court to decide if SCOTUS' ruling applies to them; not us. Regardless, there is still a SCOTUS precedent against it. Prcc27 (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it says "same-sex marriage is de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling". We do not know that is true, so saying it is OR. It also says "same-sex marriage banned, despite the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional". Again, we don't know that's true.

There's the High Court of American Samoa. But the question is, if SSM was legalized per the guarantees of the 14th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment does not fully apply to American Samoa, does the precedent apply to American Samoa? We simply don't know. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Commons map legend might need to be fixed, but the template on Wikipedia says "will be". Do you have a source that says the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to American Samoa..? Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Read our article on AM, or do a web search for citizenship. The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US, but AM is not in the US. A number of concomitant rights do not apply to AM either. For all we know, SSM is one of them. We have a precedent for the territories subject to circuit courts, whose people are citizens, but AM is uncharted territory. — kwami (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If American Samoa is not in the United States for our intents or otherwise, it should be removed from the map. Dustin (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That would also be OR. The situation is a bit like the Netherlands, Denmark, the UK, or New Zealand. — kwami (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not including American Samoa would not be original research. I don't know what you are talking about. Plus, if it is not guaranteed now that same-sex marriage will be legalized in American Samoa, that would mean that it will be the last thing on the entire map for what could be a long time and would be of no benefit to viewers in that it would result in viewers needing this map just for a territory that isn't even incorporated. Dustin (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And if we remove Northern Ireland from the map, SSM is legal in all of the UK. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. If it is not incorporated and is not part of the United States and they are not even citizens, there is no reason good reason to include the territory of American Samoa which in the end would remain a stain on the otherwise consistent map. Plus, Northern Ireland is an entire country! That is not a good comparison. Dustin (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

American Samoa is an entire country. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is not a country. It is made up of four different countries. The United States, however, is a country. If American Samoa is a country other than the United States, it has no business being on this map! Dustin (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what definition of "country" you are looking at. One definition of "country" is a sovereign state. Under that definition, the UK is a "country". Calling the 4 political divisions of the UK "countries" is really a matter of historical use. The constituent states that make up the U.S. used to sometimes be referred to as "countries" also, but that usage has fallen out of use. What is labeled a "country" or "state" or "nation" is somewhat arbitrary. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but the constituent countries of the United Kingdom are not equivalent to states in the United States, and the United Kingdom is not a federation while the United States is. Dustin (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That's true. The federal system of the U.S. in which state legislatures retain some sovereignty independent from the federal government is different from the unitary state system of the U.K. where all sovereignty is vested with the parliament and any powers the constituent country parliaments exercise are subject to the will of the British parliament. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

[14]. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Gonzalez-Pagan doesn't appear to be aware that they're not citizens. There was just a case at the DC circuit court that refused to grant them citizenship, saying that they have no right to it. — kwami (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Including Curacao, Sint Maarten, and Aruba on a map of the Netherlands would probably be a more comparable situation than Northern Ireland and the UK, both geographically and politically. And SSM isn't legal in any of those, although they do have to recognize marriages performed in the Netherlands proper, same-sex or not. As mentioned above, special laws concern American Samoa even compared to other territories, yet alone the United States proper. If it turns out they (and possibly the USVI and NMI) are not going to legalize it, and don't even have to, we put a note saying "United States proper" followed by all the territories where it is also legal, similar to what is done for the Netherlands. Also, the Equal Protection clause only applies to states, not territories (or the District of Columbia) which is why Brown v. Board had a companion case for those which struck down segregation laws on other grounds. Considering that the Supreme Court has recently been interpreting the word "state" in a broader sense, that could potentially change, or they could just do like in the companion case to Brown and find anti-SSM laws also violate other parts of the constitution that do apply to the territories and DC, but it could take years of court fights. Smartyllama (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

American Samoa should have its own color. Pink could be re-used, since all the other territories either recognized, or announced they will. Difbobatl (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If AS is not recognizing because they aren't "really" part of the US, then they shouldn't "really" even be on this map at all then, should they. Erase it from the map. Njsustain (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please either BE BOLD and remove AS (which I'm sure will get reverted by the "owner" of this map) or give AS its own color. Lumping them and Kansas in one color makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Apparently we now have to have a 30-day debate to change anything on this map. So much for Wikipedia being group-editable... Difbobatl (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Virgin Islands

According to this report, the implementation of the SCOTUS ruling in the U.S. Virgin Islands would be problematic... Ron 1987 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Updated [15], USVI now recognizing SSM. Someone please color them dark blue. Difbobatl (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Update 7/3/15: Gov. Kenneth Mapp has yet to issue his executive order, no marriage for now. The pink color is appropriate, possible change to light blue or dark blue once the order is issued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 18:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Texas

Why is it blue? It should be purple, since several counties have yet to issue marriage licenses. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20150626-interactive-map-how-texas-counties-are-handling-same-sex-marriage-licenses.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.44.138 (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• If a county in California all of the sudden decided to stop issuing same-sex marriages would California be colored purple? The reason Texas is blue is because they stay was lifted from the federal district court ruling. Prcc27 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad premise. The stay was lifted in Kansas but several counties are still not issuing, hence purple. It would be different if counties suddenly stopped issing in Texas, but since they have never issued as of yet, it should be purple for the time being. Kumorifox (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Kansas is still different because the ruling didn't require the state to recognize same-sex marriages and thus even if you do get married in Kansas you won't receive recognition from the state. Also, I'm pretty sure Texas isn't the only state with counties refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, but we shouldn't color every single state with rogue counties purple. This map deals with same-sex marriage legality, and same-sex marriage is fully legal in Texas, but only partially legal in Kansas! Prcc27 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Texas law makes a marriage license issued in one county valid statewide, thus Texas is properly all blue. Texas Marriage Code, Title I, Ch. 2. Section 2.001. Argos'Dad 14:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Texas AG Paxton says that clerks can deny licenses to LGBT persons http://www.statesman.com/news/news/texas-ag-county-clerks-can-refuse-gay-couples/nmnRZ Ghal416 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kansas map

I am sorry I know this have nothing to be in here,but can someone turn pink the 20th judicial district of Kansas, as they are not issuing same sex marriage licenses.They are blue right now, we need to change it to pink.--Allan120102 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Which counties are in the 20th? And what source said they aren't issuing, just to be sure? All sources so far have mentioned issuing by all the blue counties so far. Kumorifox (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Allan120102 isn't talking about changing this map. This definitely shouldn't be discussed here.. Prcc27 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it shouldn't be here, but I am not sure if someone sees when I post links like for example in the Kansas page.http://www.salina.com/news/local/first-same-sex-marriage-license-issued-in-saline-county/article_d01974c3-159f-5d15-8336-fde4b0af7522.html the 20th judicial district haven't been issuing so far which include Rice , Ellsworth , Russell , Barton and Stafford. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Allan120102 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Kansas has recognized the legality of same-sex marriage under Obergefell v. Hodges[[16]]. Can we please change them to dark blue and get rid of their footnote? Difbobatl (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana

Louisiana should not be colored purple for "legally complicated" - the situation there is not complex. That the AG and the Governor disagree on when SSM will become legal in the state is immaterial; the important fact is that they both agree that SSM is coming and there is nothing they can do to stop it. The purple "complicated" color is for places where there is genuine confusion as to whether or not SSM is legal, such as Kansas where some counties are issuing licenses but the state is refusing to recognize them. No one is issuing SSM licenses in Louisiana, the state is quite clear about not currently recognizing SSM. There is no confusion. Shereth 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana has started issuing same-sex marriage licenses - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisiana-starts-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses/. - htonl (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Now Louisiana should be purple: Jindal and the AG are opposed to immediate licensing, but at least one parish is ignoring their opinions, and going with their own lawyer's view. Mw843 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana is complicated because according to the AG same-sex marriage has been legalized and will be in effect soon, but the governor claims that the Fifth Circuit has to legalize it which could take several days or months. When the mandate is issued, there will be confusion as to whether SSM is legal or not because according to the AG the answer would be "yes", but according to the governor the answer would be "no". Prcc27 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that reasoning but given that parishes in LA are now issuing in spite of the executive government's resistance I am now content to leave it purple. Shereth 20:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana is not complicated. SSM is legal. Please see [17]. Various politicians are using various arguments that are not legally correct to try and encourage individual officials to not offer licenses, but the state admits that it is the law. There is no such thing as a "25 day waiting period" for SCOTUS decisions. This is a misunderstanding. Difbobatl (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be time to change Louisiana to dark blue. The govornor has said the state will comply with the ruling and it seems that all but one of Louisiana's parish clerks are now issuing same-sex marriage licenses.[18] Rreagan007 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please change Louisiana. The notes should also be changed to fit a) legal facts, and b) accompanying articles. They are a mess as is... Difbobatl (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the state is arguing that same-sex marriage will be legal, but is not currently legal. As a result, the state still does not recognize same-sex marriages as of today so purple is an appropriate color! Prcc27 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If the state government does not recognise the marriages, then purple is the appropriate colour, as per Kansas. Kumorifox (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, the only question at this point is recognition (around which point there is some evidence that Louisiana IS now recognizing). Could we please label everything to match that? 72.162.1.252 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't Kansas blue?

Why isn't Kansas blue? I don't see a news source about any county in Kansas defying the Supreme Court. In the absence of such, we should assume all counties are complying with a binding decision of the United States Supreme Court. Tinmanic (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see something that says the state is recognizing before the color changes. Mw843 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Why though? Governor Brownback's assent isn't required for county courts to start following federal law. Tinmanic (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you can get married, but the state government refuses to acknowledge it, and grant you the associated rights and benefits, you have something less than a marriage. Mw843 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kansas should be blue. Difbobatl (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Kansas recognising its same-sex marriage licenses yet? If not, purple is the proper colour. I have not seen any source that says KS is recognising thus far, even though they are bound to by SCOTUS. They wouldn't be the first state to defy the ruling. Kumorifox (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

From Equality Kansas, the state government is still refusing to recognize same-sex couples' marriages and will continue to do so unless specifically ordered to recognize. Definitely still purple. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

All counties in Kansas received orders from their judicial district judges to issue, [19], but I don't know if the Brownback regime is recognising them yet. Kumorifox (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC) They are, please see[[20]]. Difbobatl (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Alabama and Texas defiant of SCOTUS order

Looks like AL and TX need to go purple. TX attorney general is telling clerks they don't have to issue licenses, and in Alabama: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/roy_moore_gay_marriage.html#incart_breaking I guess the south will keep the map from being all dark blue for a while longer. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with AL. Disagree with TX, at least until we see how much support the AG is getting. Mw843 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree on AL, based on analysis by one of the country's foremost marriage litigation experts. https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner Tinmanic (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Here are some more developments: Alabama has permanently stopped issuing marriage licenses in two counties. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

TX & AL should remain blue. Attorneys General are making non-binding statements about individual employees. This has no bearing on the legality of SSM. Difbobatl (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree on both accounts; there is a difference between an official saying that state employees do not have to issue licenses and telling them do not issue licenses. In neither case does it appear officials are intimating that SSM is not legal in their state. Shereth 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is legal in both states so they should remain dark blue. Prcc27 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• This may be useful as a reference for TX Al KS and LA... http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/29/418600672/in-some-states-defiance-over-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-ruling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.96.18 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think KS and LA purple, TX and AL blue. Mw843 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Some KY clerks are refusing to issue licenses. Perhaps the purpose of the map should be altered at this point. Rather than where it is "legal", it should be where it is performed without issue, or "available in practice statewide." Njsustain (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that as well. It places too high a burden on the editors of this map to try and stay on top of whether or not a state is at 100% statewide compliance. Furthermore in most states it tends to be a moot point - even if the clerks in one county refuse to issue licenses, it's usually no more than a short drive down the road to hit up another county courthouse and get your license which is recognized statewide, no matter what county you happen to live in. It is much simpler to maintain an accurate map that asks the question "can you obtain an SSM licence in this state" rather than "can you obtain an SSM license in every single jurisdiction within this state". Shereth 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Then at some point the decision should be made as to whether the map is moot. If only some territories are wholly defiant, that shouldn't warrant an entire map. Njsustain (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at some point the map will be retired and that's already been mentioned. Personally I am comfortable with retiring the map once all 50 states are dark blue - I don't see the point in maintaining the map just to wait for what could be a protracted and confusing wait on unincorporated territories. Shereth 21:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

AL should go back to purple. The Supreme Court of Alabama has issued an order effectively banning same-sex marriage licenses for 25 days, until SCOTUS issues its mandate. [21] The situation is exactly as before Obergefell with conflicting court orders, with some counties issuing and others refusing. Kumorifox (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Now I support Alabama going back to purple. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• The Alabama Chief Justice clarified that it doesn't ban same-sex marriages. [22] Prcc27 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Territories need correcting

Officials in the CNMI and USVI say they intend to comply with the ruling: Saipan Tribune Virgin Islands Daily News Those territories should be light blue, as their current color implies local officials are resisting implementation or ignoring the ruling -- it is evident that is not the case.

As for American Samoa, it appears the ruling does not affect it: American Samoa - MEUSA Again, the current color implies the territory is flouting the Supreme Court decision, despite the fact it is not expressly binding there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The first link talks about lawmakers but we only care about governors and attorney generals, the second link says that Virgin Islands' law has to be repealed first, but that hasn't happened yet. As for American Samoa... I guess it should either be dark red or purple. Prcc27 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Radio New Zealand story makes it clearer that the CNMI administration will respond to the ruling, but the color should stay for now.[23]. American Samoa is subject to SCOTUS precedent.[24] Mw843 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is still an open question as to whether the ruling applies to American Samoa [25]. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source Prcc27 (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Then maybe it should be purple. Prcc27 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Other sources are less circumspect on the Northern Marianas. Both the Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety make it clear that Inos intends to comply with the ruling: [26] [27] It should be represented on the map the same way that the USVI is: territorial officials have said they will put the ruling into effect in both. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The point may be moot, given the comment below, but I did find this, from The High Court of American Samoa decision in Craddick v. Territorial Register:[28]

"First, we note that the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection are fundamental rights which do apply in the Territory of American Samoa." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw843 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

USVI [29] is recognizing. They should be changed to dark blue. Difbobatl (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It makes no sense to give American Samoa the same color as Louisiana. Difbobatl (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Parting thoughts

So after some reflection on the subject over the course of the day I believe that this map has more or less run its course and reached the end of its useful life. The vast majority of the states have capitulated and are now issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples and have yet to be struck by meteors. It's already been removed from the Same-sex marriage page, and has been bumped down on the Same-sex marriage in the United States, and I expect to see other SSM related pages following suit in the near future. I've enjoyed the debate and discussion on the topic but, other than some minor hand-wringing over the fates of holdouts like Kansas and Louisiana, I don't foresee much more in the future for productive discussion on this particular page and think I'm going to move on, myself. That said, a few final opinions I thought I'd leave -

• The evolution of the map has left it more or less at a point where one of two statuses apply : dark blue states that offer and recognize SSM, and those who are holding their breath in protest until the order comes down from the Supreme Court before abiding by Obergefell v. Hodges. I don't even think it's necessary to resort to calling the situation "legally confusing", and if the map is to continue in the meantime, it would be sufficient to have just dark blue and a color for "Not yet in compliance with SCOUTS ruling". In three weeks it'll be a moot point anyway, even the most recalcitrant of states will not flaunt the order when it comes down and their stalling will come to a fruitless end.

• Most of the territories (outside of American Samoa) can probably be covered by the same "Not yet in compliance with SCOTUS ruling" label.

• American Samoa is a unique outlier and I think that all our fussing and hand-wringing about what to do with it borders on OR without a reliable source that breaks the situation down. The sources that have been presented thus far are all confused themselves; if they don't know what the current situation is there, it's a little disingenuous of us to try and claim that we do.

In any event, thanks to everyone who has participated in trying to keep this map up to date and informative! Shereth 03:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I STRONGLY AGREE with Shereth. There is no point in anything other than dark blue (with a possible general comment about those not in compliance with SCOTUS, and a possible footnote about AM Samoa). Difbobatl (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with many of the above sentiments that this map has (almost) run its course. Though as long as the map is still being actively used in articles, I think it is worth it to try to keep it maintained a little while longer. This map has been maintained and updated repeatedly over the last 7 years, I think maintaining it a few more days (or weeks) isn't too much of a burden before we finally put it out to pasture. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of just lumping American Samoa into the "not yet in compliance" category and letting that be a catch-all for any non-blue jurisdictions at this point. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 08:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If I may quote Jstephenclark from above: "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)". There is no more need for this map. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Jstephenclark: That's not what I said at all! If a state concedes and complies then obviously same-sex marriage is legal there per what we did with West Virginia. That's why almost every state is colored dark blue, because they conceded and complied! Prcc27 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27: Jstephenclark made that comment way back in January. It was just copied by an IP (72.162.1.252); notice the quotes? Dustin (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I see the map has been taken off the SSM in US page, so it doesn't have much practical relevance now. I'll however reply to Jstephenclark and say that how the system ACTUALLY works is that until a clerk actually gives you a license, you don't have a right to the license, whether it is legally valid for the clerk to do so or not. That's reality. That's the power of the state and local authorities. That is all that really needs to be mentioned now. Not what is legal, but what is happening on the ground. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I re-added the map to that page because there was no consensus to remove it in the first place! Prcc27 (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not the way the law works. Any official not following the SCOTUS decision is in violation of the constitution and their oath of office. If you want to have a separate map with a special color and footnote for that, go ahead, but a) it should read "some locations in violation of US Constitution" and b) it is pointless anyway. Also, even Louisiana is now offering, so this argument is about Kansas' not following the constitution. Difbobatl (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• We have discussed why SCOTUS' decision isn't currently binding on those states many times. The ruling is a nationwide precedent and the mandate hasn't even been issued yet. Please read through the talk page to figure out why we have the map set up the way it is! Also, some parishes in Louisiana may be licensing same-sex couples, but that doesn't mean those couples are receiving recognition from the state. Prcc27 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Prcc27: you do not understand how constitutional law works. It isn't an issue of binding. Supreme Court decisions are the law. If an official wants to defy the constitution, then yes it will take a mandate from a court to find them in contempt. This does not change the status of law. They are violating the constitution and their oath of office. It does not require a mandate to be issued. See argument by @Jstephenclark above. Difbobatl (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't want to give the impression that I think Jstephenclark knows everything, but if I can use their argument against you: "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." Well Kansas hasn't conceded and complied yet! Louisiana conceded but they are waiting for either the SCOTUS mandate to be issued or the Fifth Circuit to rule. Remember, Louisiana still has a district court ruling in favor of their same-sex marriage ban and the ruling hasn't been directly reversed yet, but will soon be reversed. But I have a question, if SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage bans are constitutional, would that have automatically made same-sex marriage illegal in every state that didn't repeal their same-sex marriage bans? Does that mean same-sex marriage would have been illegal in California, Oregon, Nevada, etc. again immediately following the SCOTUS ruling? Just wondering what you think! Prcc27 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to have the bit about Native American jurisdiction any longer. It's been completely subsumed by the SCOTUS decision. Okay if I remove it? 68.199.96.18 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, please don't remove it! the SCOTUS ruling likely doesn't affect Native American tribal jurisdictions. Prcc27 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, but I really don't see the point. It seemed relevant when they were able to perform marriages when others couldn't, but it seems an extremely minor point that's not relevant to the current state of marriage in the country at this point. Can be in the history part of the article, but in this template it certainly seems superfluous. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There are Native American tribes that ban it despite it being legal in the state they're located in. Prcc27 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
      • At least with regards to United States law, aren't Native American tribal jurisdictions considered separate countries with their own laws? Dustin (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
        • No. While they do have their own laws, just like states do, they are still subject to U.S. federal law. However, whether or not the legal precedent in the Obergefell decision specifically applies to them would likely take another lawsuit to settle conclusively. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Time for Some Major Restructuring

Please join the conversation at Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States#Time for Some Major Restructuring. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana to recognize SSM immediately

Louisiana will recognize SSM immediately per Governor Jindal. Smartyllama (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Originally they were going to wait until the mandate, but the article says that with some counties issuing, they want to make it statewide now to avoid different implementation dates. Louisiana should be blue. Smartyllama (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• But other sources say differently, and the memo he issued seemed to imply that he is waiting for the Fifth Circuit to rule. Prcc27 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• This appears to supersede that as it was more recent and acknowledges the contradiction. In other words, he's given in, which he hadn't earlier. Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another source, again more recent than Jindal's memo and again quoting Jindal and his counsel. What Jindal said on June 29 may have been the case at that time, but it no longer is. Smartyllama (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Louisiana Clerks of Court Association wants all parishes to issue to avoid confusion; the state doesn't recognize ssm AFAIK. There's an article from the same day that was posted that says otherwise. Your's is an outlier. I don't see anything in your second article that indicates same-sex marriage is recognized, can you quote what I missed? And even if the governor is complying, that doesn't mean the AG is, so purple would still be appropriate. [30] Prcc27 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Please give up this obsession you have with the color purple. Louisiana has given up and so should you. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Can you provide another source that says that Louisiana is recognizing same-sex marriages? We shouldn't change the map based on an outlier article. Prcc27 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Note per WP:PRIMARY that this news article would take precedence over Jindal's own press release, regardless of the sources' timing. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is a legal matter, so why on Earth should a secondary news sources take precedence over a release by an actual official? While secondary sources can help to back up claims, they should only take precedence to an extent. (edit conflict) I suppose if a secondary source is more recent and provides information proving that the state government's stance is different from the actual goings on, then it may be used, but all that aside, there is a limit to which you can apply WP:PRIMARY. Dustin (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

1. The politician is going to be biased and present only his side of the view. 2. The news source is going to be more current; Jindal's memo is frozen on July 26. If you have an issue, take it up on the policy page; this is not the place. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment probably is outdated; I edited it only to see an edit conflict because you responded too quickly. Dustin (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My comment still stands. We are not a legal journal nor a news source ourselves so it is not our place to interpret the governor's statements ourselves. We can merely follow the actual statements in the memo along with the more up-to-date interpretation in third party sources. We cannot let the memo be the dictating authority. Also there is no time limit on how quickly one can respond here so please avoid an accusatory tone. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The text is incorrect. It seems to be referring to both LA and KS not recognizing SSM, when I belive only KS still has their heels dug in. BTW my favorite movie is the Color Purple so I will never let it go. ;) P.S. How about giving up on the Native American Tribal jurisdiction? It's not the point of this map... at all... Let it go. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We have contradicting secondary sources, but most of them say the state does not recognize same-sex marriages (even the ones posted on the same day as the outlier). Prcc27 (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Then we go with the majority and keep Louisiana purple for now. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, to make the map a little more clearer, maybe the continental US could be shrunk a bit and the territories made larger so it could more easily be seen where there are holdouts and where their status is. This is definitely beyond my abilities, but I think it would be a good idea to do so at this point. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In response the 5th Circuit reversing the District Court that upheld Louisiana's ban, and remanding the case for the District Court to enter a judgement, the Governor's office said ""Our agencies will follow the Louisiana Constitution until the District Court orders us otherwise".[31] So Louisiana stays purple. Mw843 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you find other sources to back up your assertion that LA will not follow the ruling from the 5th either? I have a source that says otherwise. Not counting the fact that previously (as is stated in the footnote) Jindal had said that he was awaiting a ruling from the 5th. Of course, if he ignores SCOTUS why would he care about the 5th... Difbobatl (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Same info from the Times-Picayune article [32] ... Jindal's not actually defying or ignoring any ruling ... he's just putting off implementing the ruling for as long as he possibly can. Mw843 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana better be in purple as Kansas as none of them are recognizing same sex marriages. None are going to comply unless their district court acts. So I find it ironic that Louisiana is blue and not Kansas. both are going to comply probably this week or the next but it need to show what is happening right now .http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/bobby_jindal_says_state_govern.html .--Allan120102 (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Better be"???? <sarcasm> That's the spirit of Wikipedia! <\sarcasm> The 5th distract has acted! Difbobatl (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Here [[33]] is the reference that all Parishes are offering SSM licenses. Difbobatl (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Correcting Language of the Map

The legend and notes on this map do not follow correct legal terminology, nor do they follow the accompanying Wikipedia pages. Please see legality, United_States_constitutional_law, Supremacy_Clause, Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States, and the state pages. Also, "complicated" is not legal terminology, and does not help this map. SSM is legal nation-wide. We are doing Wikipedia users a disservice if we imply (or outright say) otherwise. Also, the notes contain detailed arguments that really don't belong in a legend and should be in an article somewhere. I have tried to make these changes, but one wikipedian seems to think this is their personal domain and will not let the legend and notes be corrected. Difbobatl (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

De jure legal, yes. And that is stated in the footnotes. But in practice, SSM is still confusing in a few states. We'd be doing Wikipedia users a disservice by providing incomplete information, IMO. Kumorifox (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The de facto state of affairs is as or more important than the de jure state of affairs. Wikipedia should reflect the de facto state of affairs regardless of any legal conflicts. Dustin (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Legal MEANS de jure. It makes no sense to prioritize the "de facto" (ie - unconstitutional) state of affairs in some jurisdictions. Difbobatl (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO the important question is whether you can get married, not whether some court says you can. Legal rights don't mean much if they're not available. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree! And for that matter, if that is what we are really tracking, then the label should be "availability of SSM". Difbobatl (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There is confusion about what makes something legal. This quote should help: "Once the Court has ruled, its decisions have all the effect and permanency of law." [[34]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Tell that to the Kansans who still cannot get legal benefits in their state by being married. They may be legally married, but for all intents and purposes, that legality amounts to zilch if the state does not recognise their marriages. Same in LA. Kumorifox (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make a map (linked to an article) titled "Jurisdictions Unconstitutionally Denying Same-sex Marriage Recognition" and track that, you'd be fine. As it is, it has no place here as labeled. Also, LA is over... Difbobatl (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This whole template is getting ridiculous. It's a map, not an article. The footnotes are waaaayyyy out of hand. There really isn't that much going on now. Take these tomes to the relevant article pages. Njsustain (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Njsustain - I agree! I would love for someone to get rid of this joke of a map. Difbobatl (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Difbobatl: Please stop changing the legend wording without consensus! Prcc27 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• @Prcc27: Please stop using incorrect terminology in the legend that doesn't even match other wikipedia articles. Difbobatl (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This map has always dealt with laws and thus the term "legal" is quite appropriate. Prcc27 (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

SSM IS legal in US. We would just have a big dark blue map if that's all there was. You are misusing the term. Difbobatl (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• The de jure status of same-sex marriage is ambiguous so what we're left with is the de facto status. I'm usually for a de jure map, but as a wikipedia editor I can't say that same-sex marriage is legal nationwide per SCOTUS when a) it might not even apply to American Samoa, b) the state governments disagree with that assertion, and c) SCOTUS' mandate hasn't even been issued yet. Saying SSM is legal nationwide seems WP:OR to me. I'm getting tired of you reverting against consensus; please stop! Prcc27 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

These contentious comments are getting out of hand. The de jure state of affairs, as others have said, means zilch if a state is not recognizing same-sex marriages. The de facto state of affairs is what matters. Dustin (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have posted numerous sources, including [[35]], as well as the wikipedia pages themselves on the definition of legality and the way us constitutional law works. This is not WP:OR. It is not at all ambiguous (outside of American Samoa, which should be separated). The paper mandate is meaningless (see sources again). Difbobatl (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Animated GIF?

Is there a way to make this a animated GIF with a time stamp showing all the different versions from Massachusetts in 2005 to now? Or even going further back to show when each state passed laws to ban it up to the present? I hope some one is so talented out there at could do such a thing. Thanks. Moonraker0022 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be cool but they are still states that need to comply like Kansas and Louisiana.Also which was the order in which states comply after Obergefell. I believe Michigan and Nebraska were the first two.--Allan120102 (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana footnote

Since my footnote keeps getting reverted. Can we please add a footnote saying same-sex marriage should be fully legal by July 17? The Fifth Circuit ordered the district court to reverse their ruling that upheld the states' ban. The have until that date to do it. [36] Prcc27 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, because we don't have a crystal ball. [WP:NoCrystal] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 03:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The District Court has to comply with the Fifth Circuit so the even is almost certain to take place! Prcc27 (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Bobby Jindal, on the other hand, is not almost certain to do anything. There is no point in talking about this date like we previously talked about a ruling from the 5th which has now come and gone and the story has now changed. It probably will again... Difbobatl (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that the Fifth Circuit has spoken, which is what the governor was waiting for, he updated his statement "Our agencies will follow the Louisiana Constitution until the District Court orders us otherwise." It's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the governor will change his mind. We have to go with what the sources say instead of making assumptions without sources to back it up. Prcc27 (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That is twisted logic. First he was waiting for the 5th, now allegedly for the district. His quote isn't a source and wikipedia isn't a newspaper. There is absolutely no need to add that spurious contention into the footnote. Footnotes should be concise, not essays. For that matter the whole map should be in an essay instead of the thing it is now. Difbobatl (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A reliable source quoted him so we can use it. We always add footnotes when same-sex marriage is set to become legal on or by a certain date. For example Puerto Rico. Prcc27 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Complicated is not a legal status

Can we get consensus on removing the inaccurate word "complicated"? The only thing that is complicated is that we have lumped together American Samoa with states, even though they are very different circumstances. If I had the wherewithal to change the map, I would change the color scheme so that KS/LA could have a recognition note and AM S could have a note referring to its unusual status. Difbobatl (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe LA/KS should be medium blue and we could add a partial legality color. This has been proposed several times but always failed. I'd be open to it. Prcc27 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• It would make sense to have dark blue for the US, except a color for LA/KS saying not yet recognizing, then a color for the other territories that aren't yet offering licenses but will (which is all but AM Samoa), and then a color for AM Samoa with a note that they are a special case. Would you be OK with that? Similarly we could have a sublisting on the template for the territories. As few categories as possible and as precise language as possible. Difbobatl (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I want the map to stay exactly the same, but a medium blue color that says "same-sex marriage partially legal" would be fine with me. LA/KS would qualify as medium blue, and the footnotes would still be necessary. Prcc27 (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You say exactly the same, but then you discuss changes, so I'm not sure what you are suggesting. There is no partial legality. The issue with KS/LA is recognition. We don't need 4 colors at this point. Difbobatl (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Same-sex marriage performance is legal but recognition is not; so same-sex marriage is partially legal. Just like if same-sex marriage performance was illegal but recognition was legal- that would mean same-sex marriage is partially legal. Without a partial legality color I have to support the status quo which means keeping LA/KS colored purple for complicated legal status. Prcc27 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I actually prefer the status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I prefer the status quo as well. If marriage is legal but the state still refuses to recognize them, that sounds "complicated" to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • But why not be more precise and accurate and actually state that the issue is recognition? We were about to actually move forward on this. Trying to improve the map... Difbobatl (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana should be light red

The governor is actively resisting implementation and insists state agencies will not recognize or perform same-sex marriages until the lower court reverses its prior ruling: [37] Should be light red for now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what the governor says, are clerks issuing licenses or not? It doesn't matter what the governor says if that isn't the true state of affairs. Dustin (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If anything Louisiana should be light blue since same-sex marriage will be legal by July 17 [38]. I think Louisiana should stay the same with a footnote that says same-sex marriage will be fully legal by July 17 (as I proposed in one of the above sections). Prcc27 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think purple is the right color since there are licenses being issued in most parishes in Louisiana. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Rreagan007: It's being issued in all parishes now. Do you support my footnote proposal? Prcc27 (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think some kind of footnote about Louisiana is appropriate. Something like "Marriages are licensed and performed in Louisiana and will be fully recognized by the state government by July 17." Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to put a footnote with an exact date, then logic dictates that you have got to change LA to light blue. It doesn't make sense otherwise... Difbobatl (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• It should be purple because parishes are issuing before it's been fully legalized. Prcc27 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Nevermind it's already legal there. Prcc27 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Actually it has been legal there since June 26th! Difbobatl (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe, the situation is ambiguous. Prcc27 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• There is no ambiguity outside of American Samoa. Difbobatl (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of Map

Well, I think this map has run it's course. I realize many people have been following the issue a long time and would like to see the map all the way to when it becomes tangent with full marriage equality, but really it's beating a dead horse at this point. The whole issue has a couple of dangling asterisks. All that's really left to say is KS and LA state governments will be in full compliance within 25 days of Obergfeld and PR within 15. Whether that is purple or light blue, no one cares other than the people arguing the minutia here. American Samoa and Native tribes are true asterisks that can be mentioned in articles, but the inclusion serves no purpose on this map, though the territory can remain some other color... not than anyone will be using this map in its current state on any article much longer. (Animation would be great if someone can pull it off... though I shudder to think of the arguments which will ensue regarding the orders and colors.) Again, I understand the desire to see the map come to its end, recognizing it's own irrelevancy, waiting for the last sweeper to cross what was the finish line, but hey, let's just agree that the last nail is about to go in the coffin and there is no point in arguing this minutia. I'm sure there are other articles that can use our knowledge and expertise. Njsustain (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the map should be removed. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

See the other discussions above... other people are willing to update the map until the very end, so removing prematurely by a few weeks in unnecessary. Please have patience... this map has been updated for years, so a few weeks more will not hurt anyone. I do support the idea of an animation, though, if someone would be willing to work on such a task. Then is a few weeks or whenever, the map in its current form can be replaced. Is there not such a thing as an animated SVG? Or would that not work? If not, the usual GIF will do. Dustin (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be coming from the point of view of putting as many extra colors and disclaimers as possible, and as soon as the map correctly shows nation-wide legalization then removing it. Why the obsession with showing holdouts? Difbobatl (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There are fewer remaining colors on this map than there have been in a very long time, and the purpose of showing the remaining holdouts is for the sake of accuracy and completeness. Why the obsession with trying to pretend that the holdouts don't exist? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUS has the last word and same-sex marriage is the law of the land, but we can't safely say same-sex marriage is legal nationwide. Once a jurisdiction is under direct order or concedes then same-sex marriage is for sure legal. Otherwise, we can't assume that the non-compliance states are breaking the law. We don't need to lock this map until every jurisdiction, even American Samoa is dark blue. If it comes down to American Samoa being the only jurisdiction not colored dark blue, maybe then it will be removed from the articles. But that doesn't mean we have to do anything to this map. It should stay until same-sex marriage is settled nationwide. Prcc27 (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I certainly see no harm in continuing on with updating the map for at least a few more weeks. By then, all the territories (with the possible exception of American Samoa) and even Kansas will likely turn dark blue. At that point, if American Samoa is still a question mark, we can reassess. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

But you are mis-characterizing the issue. It has been legal everywhere (possibly excluding American Samoa) since June 26th. You are only talking about unconstitutional resistance. Let's label things honestly. Difbobatl (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana District Court Ruling Released

Bobby Jindal has run out of excuses.[39] I think Louisiana should go blue. Mw843 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is no excuse now to keep LA or KS purple. Dark blue all the way... Difbobatl (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Has the Kansas state government changed its mind on recognition? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to change Kansas. Dustin (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

KS is not denying recognition. Just being slow with clerical work on recognition in certain state offices. It should be dark blue.

No, Kansas continues to deny recognition: "Brownback on Thursday also defended the state's refusal so far to allow gay and lesbian spouses to change their last names on driver's licenses or to file joint income tax returns".[40] I think it's going to take an explicit court order before the state acts. Mw843 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is going to take a cattle prod to Brownback's rocky mountain oysters before the state acts.Naraht (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Last remaining holdouts

Feel free to amend or add information as needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Kansas: For the moment, the governor still appears to be defying the ruling by refusing to recognize same-sex marriages at the state level.[41]

The odd thing about KS is that their AG has admitted in court that Obergefell is law, and has told the court that they are following it now. The Gov seems to be going: well, we'll see about implementation, don't call us we'll call you... Difbobatl (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think in the near future the governor will finally concede. His language is getting weaker and weaker with each statement he makes on the issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like Jindal he is running out of lies to tell. Difbobatl (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

One story [42] seemed to intimate a legislative solution ... they're not back until 2016. Mw843 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If they keep dragging their feet, some judge will order them to do it way before we get to 2016. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The legislative "solution" has nothing to do with recognition, he just wants it to be easier for clerks to not offer licenses. Some judge will order them next week. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. Difbobatl (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Puerto Rico: Governor's executive order requires compliance with Obergefell ruling by mid-July.[43] Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• U.S. Virgin Islands: Governor has said he will issue an executive order requiring compliance with Obergefell decision.[44] No hard information on when.

• Northern Mariana Islands: Governor has said the territory will comply with the ruling.[45] No hard information on when.

• American Samoa: Still uncertainty as to whether the Obergefell ruling applies to the island and no information as to whether or not the island's government plans on complying.

If these territories are of such earth shattering importance that they justify having the whole map (KS notwithstanding), why has no one taken my suggestion to shrink the continental US [KS would still be seen clearly] and make the territories larger, so people can actually see what remains non-dark blue on this map? Maybe they could be enlarged and put the the right of the east coast? I don't have the software to do this myself, but it makes sense. Njsustain (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I created a version of the map that just contains the territories: File:Same-sex_marriage_in_US_territories.svg. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should remove the big map, and either use this territory map on the territory section or just go for a table. Difbobatl (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the territories in isolation begs the question - why not just present this data in tabular format? Currently they are just a few boxes with colored shapes in them, and aren't particularly useful to someone who does not know which shape corresponds to which territory (this is equally problematic when they are an inset in a larger map). Same goes for the mainland; now that only one state isn't dark blue, unless someone has the context of knowing that particular state is Kansas, the only thing it conveys is "one of these states is not like the others". I really think the map has now outlived its purpose and the information it is trying to convey would be better served in a simple table that named the states/territories not in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling. Shereth 21:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually like the territorial map. My only possible nitpick is that it says "US" instead of "United States", but that isn't really a super-major issue. Dustin (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the territorial map is few people know which image represents which territory (other than possibly PR). Give me one good reason articles shouldn't present the information for the few remaining holdouts in tabular format rather than a map of unrecognizable territories? Njsustain (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone has never heard of American Samoa/U.S. Virgin Islands etc., neither a map nor a table will help. Dustin (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say anything about providing information to someone who has never *heard* of them. I simply asked which would be the better way to convey the information. A heck of a lot more people have heard of the territories than can recognize their outlines, especially on a teeny tiny map. Njsustain (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Once the entire US is blue, I personally don't see any point to the map. Territories in little boxes are too difficult to recognize for a map to be useful. So, once Kansas goes, IMO we should retire the map and switch to tabular format.

Perhaps we could have a table with dates of implementation -- first licenses, official state acceptance, last hold-out county, etc. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• That might be a good argument for removing the map from the articles, but we don't have to retire the map when that happens. We should be able to look back at this map for historical purposes and shouldn't lock it until the entire country is dark blue. Prcc27 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with that. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

New information from American Samoa: AG of American Samoa reviewing decision, Territorial Government to provide comment soon: http://www.samoanews.com/content/en/ag-reviews-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-same-sex-marriage-ruling It appears that we might be able to change the color of American Samoa on the map in the very near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States

Please join discussion pertaining to whether or not this map should be removed from the Same-sex marriage in the United States article [46]. Prcc27 (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas is complying

According to Equality Kansas, the state is now recognizing same-sex couples' marriages, meaning only the territories are holding out. But the source does note that Governor Brownback is refusing to confirm the change in policy. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• The source doesn't say anything about joint tax filing and since the governor is being difficult it is likely that other forms of recognition are being denied while some forms aren't. Prcc27 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, well if the owner of this file doesn't approve, even if he has no evidence to back up his statement, obviously no one can make any changes. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Until you provide some evidence that the state fully recognizes same-sex marriage the the status quo should remain. Besides, some recognition isn't even in effect yet: "Effective immediately same sex marriage partners and eligible children CAN be added to SEHP coverage!! The coverage would go in to effect 8/1/15." [47] Prcc27 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • As Scalia would say, pure applesauce. You are grasping at straws, crystal-gazing, and spinning out original research. Stop wasting time and misleading Wikipedia's readers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • It isn't WP:CRYSTAL, the source clearly says that same-sex couples won't get SEHP coverage until August. And Dralwik's source notes that the governor is being difficult and the source doesn't say same-sex couples are fully being recognized. "same-sex couples can get their name changes processed on their drivers licenses, and that state employees can enroll their same-sex spouses in their state employee health plans" doesn't equal same-sex couples can file taxes jointly, visit their spouse in a hospital, be recognized on death certificates, etc. Prcc27 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I agree with Kudzu that this is blatantly misleading Wikipedia readers as to the state of affairs of SSM in the US. Kansas is no longer treating same sex couples differently than opposite sex couples now getting married. They would also have to wait until the beginning of next month to start receiving benefits. Your analysis demonstrates a misunderstanding of benefits, and you are clearly being totally obstructionist to the proper updating of this map. I feel administrative intervention is needed to address your obvious ownership of this map and the associated article. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but you need to provide a source for your claims. Where does the source say that same-sex couples are being treated the same way as different-sex couples? A) the source only references some forms of recognition, not all forms and B) the governor hasn't conceded yet. Also, I'm not the only one against Kansas being colored dark blue! Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
            • It's not an election. We don't need the governor to make a concession speech. One source whose job it is to find out this very thing in Kansas (see below) has indicated the state is providing all benefits. All counties and districts are providing licenses... that is not in question. Therefore unless you can provide a source that someone in KS is being denied benefits and it is state policy to do so, it would be inappropriate to revert the map again and, let me guess, claim you need "more reliable sources." 68.199.96.18 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas is medium complying but until I see Kansas being force by judge Crabtree or Sam Brownback saying he is going to comply I say to left Kansas purple as is not complying fully.--Allan120102 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Purple is okay for now, but I support Kansas going to dark blue as soon as Brownback concedes. The standard of all benefits going into effect has never been the standard on this map. The standard has been marriage and recognition, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Brownback has conceded, he's just moving slowly to implement: [48] [49] Nonetheless, state agencies are acting, as these articles show. Marriage is available in all Kansas counties to same-sex couples, and the state is providing marriage benefits. Do we really need to run down a checklist, applying a standard we have not applied anywhere else in the country, in order to turn Kansas blue and be done with this map? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

BREAKING: Kansas recognition http://eqks.org/breaking-news-state-of-kansas-recognizes-same-sex-marriages/ I agree with Kudzu, Kansas should be blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Last statement about income taxes was that couples still could not file jointly, but if they can adopt as married couples, that has presumably changed as well, or at least will by the time it comes to file. Still a bit purplish, but borderline. — kwami (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit purplish? Oh, for crying out loud. Unless there is evidence people are systematically having tax returns rejected (kind of difficult for that to happen in July) that is not a reason to pretend Kansas is some kind of rogue state. Newsflash, people have been denied and will be denied benefits due them all over the country. That doesn't mean it's up to this map or article to hem and haw about what states WE feel really have marriage equality and which don't. This is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, not a productive discussion that is improving WP. Really, can we move on now? Better territorial maps are needed to represent the current situation in the US. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)