This page is not a forum for general discussion about same-sex unions. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about same-sex unions at the Reference desk.
This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Guide to editing this map
People have often asked how to edit this map, so I am making this guide. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Step 1: Get an Editor
Any XML editor will work. I use EditiX-Free-XML Editor2009. Opening the file with Notepad or WordPad works as well.
Step 2: Determine what you need to change
Generally, most of the changes you will need to make involve changing striping (or lack of striping). Most logical striping combinations already exist; creating new two- and three-stripe combinations is easy, though creating a new four-stripe pattern would require some familarity with SVG creation.
Step 3: Editing the map
The legal status of same-sex marriages and unions in each state is indicated by a fill pattern selected by one of the following codes.
marriage: Same-sex marriages
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:
The transformation may include scaling or rotation to enhance the appearance of small, striped regions without fear of disturbing the region's outline:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
U.S. sodomy laws by the year when they were repealed or struck down.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Simple, we make a map like the one on the right. S51438 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah...the Lawrence map. Exactly. :) Ghal416 (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well then what do you propose we do with this map after it's legal nationwide..? Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, you can propose that at the talk page for this map. Prcc27 (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks :) Ghal416 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Prcc27: I would not classify same-sex couples being denied recognition as de facto recognition/licensing. Dustin(talk) 15:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Georgia, at the next change.[4]Mw843 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Missouri is asking the 8th Circuit to lift its stay: [5]Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
North Dakota "will comply". [6]Mw843 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 upBitching Betty | Averted crashes 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which in turn gets rid of the light blue.Naraht (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose updating Arkansas as it is unclear whether or not they will recognize ssms. Prcc27 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
Puerto Rico, Guam and VI should be blue, what are the other two?Naraht (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Louisiana's AG says no marriages until SCOTUS issues the mandate[8]. Mw843 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I believe we should make Louisiana light blue. What day does SCOTUS issue their mandate..? Prcc27 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The VI are under the 3rd circuit, which never made a SSM ruling. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant American Samoa or Northern Mariana Islands; whichever one is in the ninth circuit. Prcc27 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Mississippi tells Fifth Circuit they're against the stay being lifted. [12]Prcc27 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Puerto Rico might need to be change to light blue. [13]Prcc27 (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't understand this comment at all. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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"
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
American Samoa is an entire country. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
FYI, Allan120102 isn't talking about changing this map. This definitely shouldn't be discussed here.. Prcc27 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Louisiana is not complicated. SSM is legal. Please see [15]. 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)[reply]
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.[16]Rreagan007 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd like to see something that says the state is recognizing before the color changes. Mw843 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kansas should be blue. Difbobatl (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Same-sex marriage is legal in both states so they should remain dark blue. Prcc27 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think KS and LA purple, TX and AL blue. Mw843 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [17] 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)[reply]
Now I support Alabama going back to purple. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Alabama Chief Justice clarified that it doesn't ban same-sex marriages. [18]Prcc27 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Territories need correcting
Officials in the CNMI and USVI say they intend to comply with the ruling: Saipan TribuneVirgin 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Radio New Zealand story makes it clearer that the CNMI administration will respond to the ruling, but the color should stay for now.[19]. American Samoa is subject to SCOTUS precedent.[20]Mw843 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is still an open question as to whether the ruling applies to American Samoa [21]. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe it should be purple. Prcc27 (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:[22]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Date_of_same-sex_marriage_legalization_in_the_United_States.svg){kind=link}
