In the event that any one of these cases comes down in favor of same-sex marriage, it will drag states along in which the particular state's ban on same-sex marriage has not yet been struck down. Furthermore, if the ruling is stayed pending resolution at the Supreme Court, that will leave states like KS, NC, WY, etc. in a position where
There is a state constitutional ban (or statute) which has not been directly struck down
There is an appellate court ruling which has struck down a similar ban and is thus binding on the state
There is a judicial stay in place which allows the state to continue to enforce its ban
Options:
Go with Gold for all these states (assuming a stay)
Striping to indicate the State ban has not been fully adjudicated, but is challenged by the precedent of the (stayed) appellate ruling (red/gold)
There already is, hidden for now, coding for two lighter shades of gold to cover stays on marriage on states that either ban marriage only (like Colorado) or have only statue bans (like Wyoming). If, for example, the Kitchen/Bishop ruling is issued and not stayed, the whole 10th District goes blue, but the likelier immediate stay has the stay colors on the district. Likewise for the 4th (Virginia). Here is the map with both districts stayed. Dralwik|Have a Chat13:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dralwik - appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think your map distinguishes between, e.g., TX in which a state ban has been adjudicated to completion and is stayed pending appeal at the 5th Circuit, and KS, where a state ban has not been adjudicated but would be subject to a stayed binding precedent. Perhaps this is a distinction without a difference, I admit... Davidmac2003 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There won't need to be a distinction; once the 10th Circuit rules, every state in the circuit will be in the same position. It won't matter what state the case originated in at that point. Tinmanic (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Tinmanic. Another possibility is that if the courts uphold the district rulings, SCOTUS simply doesn't grant cert on the cases and lets the appellate courts sort the issue out while they wait for a court split, meaning the circuits go right to marriage. I'm hoping that is what happens, as it would result in a much simpler map: this. A quicker resolution in those states, and a much less busy map. If the court will grant cert to a pro-SSM ruling, we'll find out quickly since Utah especially seems intent to appeal as far as they can. Dralwik|Have a Chat15:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it would be political suicide for Gary Herbert and AG Reyes *not* to appeal, I fully agree. And I'm not truly convinced that even a defeat at the US Supreme Court on this issue would truly be the legal end of the issue in Utah. (for example, I could either the entire state or some counties (ie every county except SL County) deliberately keeping the marital form as Husband and Wife rather than Spouse 1 & Spouse 2).Naraht (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, it doesn't necessary go District -> Appellate -> SCOTUS. The anti-SSM defendants can request the appellate court to review the case en banc to stall the situation. That is what happened in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will depend on how narrowly or broadly the decision is crafted; whether the decision applies to the state in question, or the whole circuit. But even in the case of a narrow decision at the Appeals level, people in the rest of the circuit could head to district court with a copy of the ruling, and have a reasonable chance of getting a preliminary injunction. Also, remember that Texas has parallel state and federal cases going on. Mw843 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, I wonder if this is right. This is an unusual scenario: a state where (1) there is no stay yet, but (2) the decision is not yet in effect, and on top of that (3) the state allows domestic partnerships. Looks like we've already decided what to do if there's a stay (dark gold + light blue striping), but what about now? Am I overthinking this? Tinmanic (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain either. Without an actual stay (yet) I'm hesitant to go to the gold + sky blue striping, and lean towards treating it as analogous to a state where a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has passed but is not in effect yet: i.e. marriage blue with the footnote. Dralwik|Have a Chat21:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The District Court has declined to stay its order, and more counties are performing marriages: I suggest that Wisconsin be removed from the footnote. Mw843 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or does the cream color seem too close to the light yellow color? In this test map [2], you can hardly distinguish between West Virginia and Ohio. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The judge considering whether to stay his preliminary injunction that the state recognize one out-of-state marriage is taking his own sweet time about it (five weeks, and counting), leading to speculation in legal circles that he's readying a state-side ruling. Mw843 (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As well, keep in mind both the Fourth (VA) and especially Tenth (UT/OK) Circuits could issue their rulings any day now, and a circuit court ruling would be circuit-wide (so NC/SC/WV and/or WY/CO/KS). But with the flurry of rulings pending, trying to guess which one will be next likely falls out of the scope of this page. Dralwik|Have a Chat02:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Would the Indiana ruling only be a partial ruling (like OH, KY) or could the judge strike down the entire ban..? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct is another OH/KY partial ruling, but the judge could toss the ban outright. As well, Colorado will have a hearing in state court on its ban Monday, and the Colorado Supreme Court is expected to uphold a pro-marriage ruling. Dralwik|Have a Chat16:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Colorado case did not go well for the state ... AP reports that the judge repeatedly mentioned the recent 0 for 15 run of rulings, and "mocked" the state AG's argument about procreation: never a good sign. NOM is holding a rally in Washington on Thursday ... any betting that one or more outstanding rulings drop Wednesday or Thursday? Mw843 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Imo I believe that Indiana,Florida and Colorado are the next bans to be strike down(without counting the circuits ban) btw the judge in Indiana is suppose to strike down all the ban if its a positive ruling.--Allan120102 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ACLU sent a letter to the Wisconsin Attorney General reminding him that he has thirty days after the June 13 judgement to appeal. If neither he nor the Governor appeal by July 13, iirc the judgement would stand and Wisconsin is back to blue. Both AG Van Hollern and Walker look like they're willing to delay and just run the clock out. Dralwik|Have a Chat15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Walker has been feigning indifference but Van Hollern looks like he's still gung-ho ... maybe the delay is his staff telling him "We got nothing." Mw843 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know if the 4th and 10th circuits operate anything like the Supremes: big dump of rulings now, and then go away for the summer? Mw843 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tinmanic is right. Whereas SCOTUS has fixed terms and set times of year for issuing major opinions, the Circuit Courts operate continuously, with no ruling dumps. So the 4th/10th Circuit rulings could come this week, or in July, or August... Dralwik|Have a Chat17:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 9th Circuit will not revisit SmithKline-Beecham, so "heightened scrutiny" is now the precedent for sexual orientation and gender identity decisions in 9 states. Mw843 (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 10th Circuit has struck down Utah's ban. The court has stayed the ruling. The decision doesn't explicitly mention the other states in the circuit, but the decision is controlling throughout the circuit, so I've updated the map with @Dralwik:'s stay colors. I think this is the correct approach but I'm open to being wrong about that. I've also un-hid the stay colors in the main legend, and I also bolded some words to make it easier to differentiate them. Tinmanic (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The decision does set a controlling precedent for the 10th, but since no other state is mentioned, I don't think it automatically applies to any other state. Someone still has to get in front of a Federal judge in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming, and, based on this ruling, request relief. Mw843 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing coloration is good ... it would be a nightmare to try and differentiate Kansas (state ban at risk from stayed Appeals court ruling) from Utah (state ban struck by District Court ruling, but stayed), and keep the map and legend visible on one screen. Mw843 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what effect this ruling has on Oklahoma's ongoing appeal to Tenth Circuit court. If this does nothing to it until the ruling of the Oklahoma appeal finally comes out, this might suggest that while all states within Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction may be affected, they are not YET affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.10.161 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How come Wyoming is yellow and not orange? Seems to me it falls under the category "Judicial ruling against a state constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage and similar unions stayed pending appeal", same as all the other 10th Circuit states. — Athelwulf[T]/[C]17:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why isn't there a separate key for that in the legend? As I noted in my last comment, there's a single category, "Judicial ruling against a state constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage and similar unions stayed pending appeal". — Athelwulf[T]/[C]17:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, the new keys were still hidden on the map page. They were already unhidden on the template that contains the map. I've unhidden them all now.Tinmanic (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now! That resolves that, but now I have a new question: How come the keys that apply to states with constitutional bans say "state constitutional and statutory ban" instead of just "state constitutional ban"? — Athelwulf[T]/[C]17:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, the map in its current state seems completely unreadable. The four shades of gold are very hard to distinguish from each other, and a lot of new legend wording seems very verbose and unnecessary. My suggestion would be to consolidate the first three shades of gold listed in the legend into one color on the map. The one where it the rules only require the states to recognize same-sex marriage can stay separate though, because that is an important distinction. Other information such as that about whether the ban was statutory or constitutional seems decidedly less so. I would then recommend the updated caption for this consolidated color on the legend to be something like: "Judicial ruling against a state ban on same-sex marriage stayed pending appeal." Which is still completely accurate, but much more straightforward and to the point, while allowing us to consolidate like categories and improve map readability. Thoughts? Artichoker[talk]04:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the map has gotten a little out of hand. I would be in favor of the proposed consolidating of the 3 gold colors as state above. In practical terms, it doesn't really seem to be an important distinction for the purposes of this map, and two of the gold colors I can't even really distinguish between on the map anyways. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean we'll have to go back to striping? I don't like that idea. It seems impossible to have one stay color like we used to without striping. I do agree however that the readability is over the top, which is why I proposed having a separate marriage map (which failed) [4]. But since this map covers not only different types of unions- but different kind of bans, it is hard not to have a map that is either unreadable or cluttered with stripes. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need more than one color for stays? The map has too many colors. If someone wants more info, they can click on the state's article and read more info. CTF83!05:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't. But since we differentiate between the different type of bans.. we have to IMO. The stayed ruling doesn't change the current status of same-sex marriage bans; there are still different types of bans. However, I don't think it's that important to differentiate between a statue ban and a constitutional/statue ban for the same reason @CTF83!: had. If someone wants to know more information what type of ban each state has they can read the articles for more information. But since this isn't the case, and since we do differentiate between the different kind of bans, I don't think we can ignore the current status of same-sex marriage bans for the stayed states. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with condensing the stay colors but if and only if we condensed the red colors (to only differentiate between a ban on ssm and a ban on ssm/other unions) too. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with consolidating most of the golds as suggested. On the other hand I think it's important to somehow preserve the information about the different types of ban, in the event an appeals court overturns a lower court decision and they need to be restored to the map. But if that were necessary, there are older versions of the map in the file history that contain that information. So on balance I'm OK with consolidating. Tinmanic (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with down to two shades of gold, and, could we collapse the two darkest reds (red and brown?) into one? If a state hasn't banned "similar same-sex unions", but hasn't accommodated them either, is it an important distinction? I'd keep red and ditch brown, just for viewability with the blue striping in Nevada, and change the label to "Constitution bans same-sex marriage" ... "and statute" is redundant ... if some states had a third way to ban same-sex marriage, they'd have done it. Mw843 (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second one, but have we lost too much information on Wyoming? Do we need to three golds for stays: one for Constitution, one for Statute, and one for recognition? Indiana could soon be joining Wyoming in that category. Mw843 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second one (maybe with the darkest red though to match the dark marriage blue, so this). I don't think it loses too much information. A reader could click to an article like Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state (which we could stick in the legend) to see if a state bans just marriage or civil unions too. A couple of years ago when civil unions looked like the compromise for the foreseeable future that distinction was important but as the push shifts to full marriage, the relevance of whether a state constitution bans civil unions as well is fading quickly. Dralwik|Have a Chat16:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose both maps. If the number of gold colors is too much (it probably is), I would support going back to striping with three shades of red. The type of ban that is present in each state is very important information. I am slightly more amenable to merging the two darker shades of red with three shades of gold (OoS, statute, constitution), but I still concerned about that Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, with the darkest red. Wyoming is different from Utah, which is important, and Tennessee looks like Florida, where I don't think the difference matters. Mw843 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a footnote re: CU/DPs? I don't see a big difference between a state that bans something, and one that doesn't, but opts not to do anything. I think the stripping for Nevada and Colorado is sufficient. Especially that given the general direction of events, more CU/DP states are unlikely. Mw843 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a footnote would be acceptable, since it would permit the map to retain reference to the distinction even as it becomes visually clearer. Dralwik|Have a Chat18:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The template should probably go as such:
State laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States1
Same-sex marriage allowed2
Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex domestic partners3
Limited/enumerated privileges granted by state3
No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriage or unions in territory law
Judicial ruling against a ban on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages stayed pending appeal
Judicial ruling against a statutory ban on same-sex marriage stayed pending appeal
Judicial ruling against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage stayed pending appeal4
Statute bans same-sex marriage
Constitution bans same-sex marriage4
1 The federal government recognizes all legally performed same-sex marriages, regardless of the current state of residence. 2Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions also allow same-sex marriage. Some states in this category also allow other same-sex unions. 3 Not recognized by federal government. 4 Many states in this category also ban unions similar to marriage.
I removed the word "state" from the "Judicial ruling ..." lines. If the order was shuffled so that the "Judicial" line followed the corresponding "Ban" line the bolding could be dropped. Mw843 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So Even though I oppose changing the current map because it demonstrate how crazy the situation right now is,I see the majority vote for changing it so which map we will use the one with the dark or bright red?--Allan120102 (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The dark red. It'll still be crazy; the actual change will be losing the cherry red of Mississippi et al. and merging Colorado's stay into the beige. Dralwik|Have a Chat19:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The revised map looks great. One thing though: it's very hard to distinguish the two yellows (WY vs. OH/KY). Can they be differentiated more? Tinmanic (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll try darkening Wyoming. (Once the Fourth Circuit rules, which is any day now, we'll have West Virginia in the Wyoming yellow.) Dralwik|Have a Chat20:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More likely that the 7th Circuit will stay Indiana ... agree that it would be easier to tell the colors apart if they were next to each other ... and that the map looks great. Mw843 (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the map is much better now, but I do have a request. Would everyone be okay if we change the statutory ban color (which I think only currently is being used for West Virginia) to the darker (I think it was) orange color we used to use for the constitutional amendment ban? It would help provide greater contrast for the colorblind people like myself. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with switching West Virginia to medium red. Wow, if West Virginia goes yellow we can get rid of the statue color! --Prcc27 (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The swap is in. (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are also statute bans. There's a case in Puerto Rico, not sure about the Virgin Islands.) Dralwik|Have a Chat14:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for reminding me. If West Virginia goes gold or blue we'll probably have to add "in territory law." so people don't accidentally overlook them like I did! --Prcc27 (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good job in improving readability; two-reds and two-golds is better in this case, while preserving statutory-ban-only and recognition-only information. MarkGT (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize in advance, but the Legend and Footnotes are not what was discussed yesterday.
Currently, the description for Gold, and the associated Footnote are:
"Judicial ruling against constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage stayed pending appeal <footnote 4>".
4 Most states in this category also have judicial rulings against bans on unions similar to marriage.
I think this description is misleading, and the footnote is just plain wrong.
I suggest that the footnote be removed, and the description of Gold be changed to:
"Judicial ruling against constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and any existing statutory ban, stayed pending appeal"
Existing Footnote 5 should be renumbered to 4, and I think the other uses of strong - /strong in the Legend should be removed as well. Mw843 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose removing footnote 4. Can you be more specific on how it is "just plain wrong"? I support the rewording of gold. Since I'm the the one who added "and statutory" I'll fix it right now. Also, since we don't have the "strong" marks on any of the red words, and since we got rid of a yellow (which makes it easier to distinguish between the different type of bans), I support removing them. --Prcc27 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unions similar to marriage are Civil Unions and Domestic Parterships. Most states that are appealing their ban on SSM being overturned don't have CU/DP's for anyone, so they can't have judicial rulings involving them. Mw843 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They have bans on same-sexunions that are being challenged by judicial rulings. The bans that are being overturned not only mention same-sex marriage, but other unions similar to marriage as well. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, for most states, their marriage bans are being challenged, they don't have any other type of legal union to be challenged: Texas, for instance doesn't have Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships for anybody, but they do have marriage that is restricted to opposite-sex partners. Same-sex couples can challenge being denied access to marriage, but they can't challenge not being given access to something that opposite-sex couples don't have access to either. Mw843 (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but if the entire ban is being struck down, and the ban makes a reference to similar unions; then not only is the ban on same-sex marriage being struck down, but the ban on other unions as well. Same-sex couples are challenging the ban in general not just the same-sex marriage part of it. This has already been discussed here:[7] --Prcc27 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the footnote says "Most states in this category also have judicial rulings against bans on unions similar to marriage.": This is incorrect because most states in the category *do not have* unions similar to marriage in the first place. Mw843 (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being deliberately obtuse? If there is no union similar to marriage available to opposite sex couples, no judge can make them available to same-sex couples. The judge in Texas, for example, could overturn the ban on same-sex couples marrying, but he could not overturn a ban on same-sex couples entering into Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions because Texas law does not allow DP/CU's for anyone. That is the case in most states. The footnote is factually incorrect. Mw843 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this is a problem now.. The wording used to say "Judicial ruling against a ban on same-sex marriage and similar unions stayed pending appeal." Now that we consolidated some of the colors the footnote is necessary. Because the judge overturned a ban on same-sex couples entering similar unions to marriage, one day if Texas decides they want to create unions similar to marriage for opposite-sex relationships (possibly a substitute for polygamous relationships) the ban being overturned would not allow Texas to deny people in same-sex relationships these similar unions. Overturning a ban doesn't necessarily make something legal, it removes discriminatory and unconstitutional language from the constitution/statue. Outlawing unions similar to marriage for same-sex partners but not outlawing them for opposite-sex partners renders same-sex partners as unequal. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote says "Most states in this category also have judicial rulings against bans on unions similar to marriage." This statement is demonstrably false: most states in the category *do not have* judicial rulings against bans on unions similar to marriage, because most states in the category *do not have* unions similar to marriage in the first place. A judge can strike down a ban against same-sex marriage because marriage exists, he cannot strike down a ban on same-sex Domestic Partnerships or same-sex Civil Unions if there are no Domestic Partnership or Civil Unions. Mw843 (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're kinda going in circles now. In short, a judge can strike down a ban on similar same-sex unions because it targets a certain class. If similar same-sex unions are illegal but not similar opposite sex unions (even if they aren't actually available) that is unequal. You don't have to have similar unions in order for the ban on them to be struck down. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships are constructs of the state: a judge cannot strike down a limitation on what a state has elected not to erect. Mw843 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is getting nowhere. The entire bans were struck down and the bans included similar same-sex unions. Do you have a reliable source that says that even though bans on same-sex marriage and similar unions were struck down, only the same-sex marriage aspect of the ban is affected? If not, maybe you can make a suggestion on rewording the footnote..? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you're wrong: If there are no Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions recognized by the state, there is no ban to strike down. I don't think any of the solid-gold states have Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions: the footnote should be deleted. Mw843 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done arguing with you because I've already said countless times that there doesn't have to be any. If I'm wrong, proof me wrong with a reliable source. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mw843:@Prcc27: So, I went back and looked at a few of the written court decisions, from Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, and Idaho. The "Order" heading at the end of each decision specifies exactly which sections of the state constitution and state code are being struck down, and if you look at those struck-down sections, they include a ban on similar unions for same-sex couples alongside the marriage ban. So, technically, the court decisions do strike down "bans on unions similar to marriage." However, the written court decisions themselves are only about marriage; they refer extensively to marriage; they don't discuss similar unions at all. It's a moot issue, because nobody is asking for civil unions or domestic partnerships anymore. So I would support removing it from the footnote because it unnecessarily complicates the chart. There is precedent, since we already removed the distinction between the previous dark red and lighter red. (Finally, remember Sayre's law. Some things are not worth getting angry over.) Tinmanic (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So does this mean we have to remove the stay color from the File:Same-sex unions in the United States.svg map..? Also, concerning the precedent... there is a footnote for the darker red to address that many states ban other unions. The distinction wasn't "removed" it was just made into a footnote. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this map? [8] I'll be honest, I don't particularly care about that map because I don't see the point of a map that doesn't include marriage. Nobody really cares about CUs/DPs anymore - they have been irrelevant since Windsor was decided. As for the footnotes, ultimately I'm non-committal; I'm not sure why they have to mention bans on CUs/DPs at all; but I do support indicating on the map the states allow them (NV, CO, WI) because they are existing unions as opposed to theoretical. Tinmanic (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out, the map is looking increasingly busy and unreadable as more states with their own issues get caught up in the tug-of-court of decisions and stays. I propose splitting the map in a very similar way as illustrated in the "Other versions" section of the image page. One map shows what is legal, one map shows what is banned. This results in two very efficient maps that together display even more information than the previous one, with a fraction of the unreadability. Wisconsin, in particular, gets by without quadruple striping. Advantages over the current map include reintroduction of whether state constitutions also ban unions similar to marriage, and whether same-sex marriage has been performed in the past. Here are the maps:
This map illustrates those states in the USA that routinely offer same-sex marriage, similar unions, or have done so in the past.This map illustrates those states in the USA that ban same-sex marriage and/or similar unions, whether constitutionally or by statute, and if these bans have been overturned but stayed.
Extremely, strongly oppose - this map is supposed to be a "one-stop-shop". People have proposed similar things before, this map is to depict both positive and negative laws. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose splitting this map into two, too. On most pages we'd probably end up having to use both maps, and the maps don't seem any less chaotic (especially the one with a bunch of stripes). --Prcc27 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could put these maps in the "Other versions" section but I don't necessarily think we should use them in the Wikipedia articles... Maybe we could replace the "Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States.svg" map with your proposed recognition map but that should probably be discussed on that map's talk page. In the first map you left out Kentucky. In Kentucky, same-sex marriage recognition was previously legal before the stay, but no recognition was given to same-sex marriages performed outside of Kentucky. The second map has way too much striping. I would be less likely to support adding the "States with same-sex marriage bans.svg" map than the "States with same-sex marriage.svg" map to the "Other versions" section. The "States with same-sex marriage bans.svg" map seems just as busy as the same-sex partnership (Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg) map. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably add that "States with same-sex marriage.svg" doesn't appear to be accessible for people who are colorblind. --Prcc27 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(But since there isn't red, it might be fine. All the different shades of purple might be an issue though. I'm actually not sure whether it is accessible for people who are colorblind). --Prcc27 (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused about Kentucky. Same-sex marriage was not recognized there but recognition of same-sex marriage was de jure legal. There should be four shades of green.
"Foreign same-sex marriages previously recognized before stay pending appeal" should be one shade (which doesn't apply to any states yet). and "Foreign same-sex marriages previously legal but not recognized before stay pending appeal" should be another (which applies to Kentucky). --Prcc27 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very strongly oppose splitting the map. For starters, the map is not increasingly "busy and unreadable", in fact: 42 of the 50 states fall into one of three categories ... and of the other 8 states: 3 involve stripping because the states offer something less than marriage, 3 only have statutory bans, not constitutional, and 2 have had only part of their bans struck down. AFAIC, the map is more readable now than it has been in some time.
And the map can't be all things to all people: otherwise Oregon and Pennsylvania should be a different color than California and New York because there are still attempts to appeal the relevant rulings ... and Kansas should be a different color than Michigan, because technically their ban is only covered by a Circuit court precedent, and not a ruling against their own laws and constitution ... the same for Wyoming and Indiana ... and Arkansas should be a different color than Oklahoma because it's a state court decision that has been stayed, not a federal court ruling ... and Texas should be stripped with the Arkansas and Oklahoma colors because both federal and state rulings that have been stayed, except that Texas federal case was a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling, so it can't use the Oklahoma color. And Tennessee is a special case as well, because one couple had a preliminary injunction, and that's being appealed to the 6th Circuit. And I could go on. I say leave it alone for a while, rather that diving in again less that 48 hours after a major re-do. Mw843 (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That hasn't stopped someone from trying ... and until the 3rd Circuit rejects her, as they're expected to, it's not final. Mw843 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"busy and unreadable" has most to do with the fact that the color scheme isn't parallel. The three main color categories (blue-red-gold::legal-ban-stayed overturned ban) differ only in hue yet are not gradations of one variable. The current map is being optimized for minimal striping and not for logical coherence of the color scheme, which is of course not intrinsically a bad thing. That's the reason the distinction between constitutional bans on marriage vs marriage+more got tossed, because it was difficult to convey without striping. At any rate, conveying all of the information of the map from before the last big readjustment is basically impossible with all the ongoing overturnstays. Since the point of this map is to have ONE map conveying all the info, I have no further objections to offer about this map, and will redirect my attention to those "split" maps. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there was recently a ruing in Tennessee that struck down their marriage ban, or part of it? and was stayed pending appeal. I noticed in the map history we put Tennessee in the "stayed pending appeal" category, but removed it because "An injunction is stayed pending appeal, not the ban itself." I am a little unclear as to the situation in TN, and was looking for a little clarification. Thanks. Aharris206 (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee had issued a preliminary injunction in Tanco v. Haslam that the state recognize the same-sex marriages of the plaintiffs. The order has been stayed, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the case on August 6, 2014
Somebody changed a bunch (but not all) of the light red (banned by statute) states over to dark red (banned by constitutional amendment) without fixing the key. 75.179.42.181 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previously same-sex marriages in Wyoming and Indiana were banned by state statute but were struck down and currently being stayed by pending appeal(s). JayJayWhat did I do?18:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant somebody changed the medium red states over to dark red. I don't understand what they mean about the key not being fixed... --Prcc27 (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, anonymous user, we decided to bunch all the states with a constitutional ban into one color (dark red), the old color for JUST the ban constitutional ban and not the ban on civil unions (medium red) is now being used for a statute ban (instead of light red), since it is a more distinct color and is better for those who are colorblind). When a statute ban is struck down, and stayed pending appeal, it turns (yellow) instead of (gold), since it was just a state statute and not the state's constitution. You can see all of this in the new updated key.Aharris206 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that with all of the state boundary points already collected, it might be fairly straightforward to aggregate those points into bold-line Circuit Court boundaries (not "drawing lines"). Because Circuit Court decisions are so important in the SSM issue (witness Colorado's county clerks' current actions), Circuit Court boundaries and labels could be a valuable addition to this map. PS: I'm a newbie to Wikipedia Talk, so please excuse any etiquette faux pas. Peterpqa (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Circuit Court boundaries are important. Yet on the map, the boundary points are in list form. For instance, this is Colorado, one of the simplest states:
<clipPath id="clipPathCO">
<path id="pathCO" d="M 378.621,256.796 L 380.061,235.515 L 347.966,232.45 L 323.503,229.751 L 286.238,225.635 L 265.547,223.121 L 262.918,245.297 L 259.717,267.702 L 255.965,295.689 L 254.459,306.797 L 254.208,309.56 L 288.135,313.354 L 325.875,317.621 L 357.836,320.786 L 374.444,321.633"/>
</clipPath>
To outline the circuit courts, one would have to combine the lists for each state to determine which points fall on the circuit boundary. I'd rather not wade through that when a link in a footnote could provide the same information. Dralwik|Have a Chat14:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I've gone ahead and done this, but I can't overwrite Test.svg because "my account is too new". So I put it here. If you like, please feel free to edit/replace. Davidmac2003 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your labelled version, and this is a version without labels. Having text on the image can be hard on visibility on top of an already busy map (keep in mind most people see this in the template thumbnail), so I could support the label-less version, with the key for the court boundary linking to the main Circuit Court article or map. Dralwik|Have a Chat17:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In theory I like this idea, but in practice I just think it makes the map too busy. If there needs to be a change, I'd prefer a link to the circuit court map, which already appears in the Presently in litigation section of the main article, or we could put a copy of the circuit court map right beneath the current map. (My ideal would be the current map with a button that could toggle the circuit boundaries on and off, but I doubt that'll happen.) Tinmanic (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the advantage of outlining the circuits, versus just changing the colours on all the states in the circuit if a circuit court hands down a non-stayed ruling? - htonl (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen: Thank you all so very much for taking this newbie's suggestion so seriously. My only comment on Davidmac2003's excellent map is that the Circuit Court borders could be "fat white," versus the state borders' "thin white," and that the labels could include "Circuit" (or "Cir" or "Cct" - what is the correct abbreviation for "Circuit"?) underneath the ordinal designation. Of course, I am asking for things that I know nothing about how to implement. Anything you all can do is most appreciated. Peterpqa (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A county judge has ruled that the Boulder County clerk can continue to issue marriage licenses (CBS Denver story), and now the Denver County clerk has joined in issuing licenses (NBC Denver). With multiple counties issuing licenses under protection of a court order, should we add a third, marriage stripe to Colorado? (The situation also involves an impending state court ruling on the ban.) Dralwik|Have a Chat18:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling denying the injunction specified that same-sex marriage still isn't legal, so I'd say no change for the moment. But that's at 16:36 EDT ... check back in an hour ... Mw843 (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key currently says "Same-sex marriage allowed" and since the judge gave the okay it would seem that clerks are allowed to issue same-sex marriage licenses even though they aren't legal and/or can be invalidated. I support striping and adding a footnote as well (which is what we did for New Mexico). Otherwise, we are going to have to change the key to "Same-sex marriage legal" which in my opinion would just be an unnecessary change.. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the AG is going to the State Supreme Court. Either he's successful, and the Clerks have to stop, or, it's New Jersey all over again ... either way, I think we should wait for a decision. Mw843 (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:Some counties are issuing licenses, but even the judge who didn't put a stop to it wrote that people should be told that the licenses may not amount to anything, and the ban remains in effect ... until the law is struck, they're just pieces of paper. So for the moment, the map reflects the legal situation on the ground. Now, if there was a color for "fluid and confusing" ... Mw843 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mw843: The blue striping represents that county clerks are allowed to issue same-sex licenses; thus the wording "Same-sex marriage allowed." The gold striping represents that even though licenses are being issued, the ban is still in effect but has been struck down pending appeal. The medium blue striping represents civil unions. Having the marriage striping would be helpful because currently the Colorado footnote is on the gold stay color when it would make more sense if it was on the blue marriage color. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:Sorry ... blue and gold are mutually exclusive, and no legal authority (at the moment) is recognizing the licenses. Ergo, no change required. Yet. Mw843 (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mw843: Which is why the recognition color isn't used.. I believe we striped New Mexico blue even though the licenses weren't recognized yet. A *legal authority* said the county clerk in Boulder County was allowed to issue the marriage licenses. Same-sex marriage is banned and licenses are allowed to be issued to same-sex couples; so both should be reflected. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: So it's not even footnote worthy..? When exactly are we supposed to stripe Colorado; when the supreme court of Colorado hears it? A state district court ruling is still a valid one. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote was factually incorrect. The state has a state-wide, currently enforced ban on SSM. Two or three counties not following it and a judge allowing civil disobedience does not mean SSM "is administered at the county level" Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the New Mexico case, a judge did strike down the ban, at least in certain counties. I haven't actually read the judge's ruling in this case, but if the above is true that the judge said the ban is still legally in effect, then the judge hasn't struck down anything at all, so striping Colorado blue seems inappropriate to me at this point. There needs to be a judicial ruling that the marriage ban is unconstitutional, and we just don't have that yet in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, we should probably change the wording from "same-sex marriage allowed" to "same-sex marriage legal." --Prcc27 (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rreagan007: We do have such a ruling, but by a different court and stayed. There are no fewer than four separate rulings issued and imminent in Colorado right now:
1. The 10th Circuit ruling (Kitchen v. Herbert) on June 25 establishing precedent that the marriage bans in the Circuit are unconstitutional. This is when Boulder started issuing licenses, although she lacked the protection of a specific court order at the time.
2. A ruling (Brinkman v. Long) by the State 17th District Court in Adams County here that Colorado's ban is specifically unconstitutional, issued on July 9. However, it was immediately stayed pending appeal to the state Supreme Court.
3. This ruling (Colorado ex rel. Suthers) from July 10 that the clerk can continue to issue licenses, giving her the protection of a court order. This is when I feel Colorado earns the marriage stripe, due to a legal recognition of the clerk's licenses.
4. A filed case by the Governor and AG (Burns v. Hickenlooper) in US District Court asking that the state's marriage ban be ruled unconstitutional but the ruling stayed from enforcement as a tactic to stop the Boulder Clerk until SCOTUS weighs in.
So that's the situation in Colorado: two, and potentially, three separate rulings against the marriage ban, both stayed, and at least three county clerks issuing licenses. Is the stayed rulings the distinction with New Mexico's lack of legal precision permitting clerks to go their own way? Dralwik|Have a Chat14:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in New Mexico is that there was no law, just de facto discrimination, so there was nothing to stay. In Colorado, there is an amendment with de jure discrimination, so there are laws to be stayed and enforced pending litigation. I am not really sure how to handle Colorado, so I would probably leave it as is. That sai,d #2 seems like it could bring down the amendment the soonest. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The judge in #3 said that the law stands, and people should be warned that the licenses may not amount to anything. But #3 could bring the quickest resolution, if the AG goes to the State Supreme Court, as threatened, and they tell him "you got nothin'". That said, I agree with the 'leave it and wait for the universe to unfold' thinking. Mw843 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The state supreme court could rule the same way the state district court did (clerks can issue licenses but ban still in effect). Then where would we be? We'd still be in the same situation as we are now. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As of July 11th, the current counties for Colorado which allow Same Sex couples to also get marriage licenses are Boulder, Denver and Pueblo.Naraht (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colorado now has 2 judicial rulings against the ban, so should we change the wording in the key to "judicial ruling(s)" instead of "judicial ruling"..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a colorblind person myself, I have to agree with Prcc27. One of the benefits of the recent consolidation of colors was that it made the map much easier for me, as a colorblind person, to read. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There's no functional difference between a state with a constitutional ban and a state with constitutional and statute bans. And some of the striping combination would be brutal. The map can't be all things to all people. Mw843 (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - A long, long, long, long, long time ago (yes, all those longs were necessary) we had a similar coloring scheme. The map was supposed to be rainbow, but as noted in the previous comments - Rainbows are not very colorblind accessible, and we made a very early prototype of the current color scheme see this. This looks like a snowball reject. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rulings from Indiana and Wisconsin will be handled together and go straight to en banc. The jump straight to en banc ruling means that there is one less stage to stall in.
[10]. If the en banc ruling concurs with the district courts and the SCOTUS denies cert, then all of the 7th would have SSM (but since the 7th is only those two states plus IL, which already has it, the combined-ness isn't all that special). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The request for en banc has been denied. The 7th Circuit will hear both cases on August 26. This makes it possible, if unlikely, that there will be a decision before SCOTUS considers whether or not to take the 10th Circuit cases. Mw843 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the ruling is linked. It applies only within the county, but to all "similarly situated" couples. The judge also refused to rule for foreign recognition.
@Mw843: Tennessee was an injunction. Florida's ban was actually struck down in this case. There may not be a state-wide ruling but the red color doesn't apply to the entire state either. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read a couple of points
Marriages may start Tuesday
No stay, but with things not starting until Tuesday, enough time for the state to get one
Only applies to Monroe County (which is the Keys plus a large chunk of almost uninhabited Everglades National Park)
This is the appetizer, Miami Dade County is coming
I think we should stripe it blue (with footnote saying same-sex marriage law not yet in effect) and red (since it only applies to 1 county; per New Mexico). Prcc27 (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:No. You are in the wrong. The difference in New Mexico is that there was no law, just de facto discrimination, so there was nothing to stay. In Florida, there is an amendment with de jure discrimination, so there are laws to be stayed and enforced pending litigation. Let things play out a bit before doing anything. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: but the law wasn't stayed so same-sex marriage was legalized (but not yet in effect) in 1 county. The state's ban currently applies to every county in the state except one. At the very least there should be a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not footnote-worthy. The Illinois situation was very different as SSM was legalized but not in effect and the courts just sped up the effective date. If you add a footnote, it will be reverted. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
World map has a ring, but this map should probably stay unchanged for now until we see if this decision gets appealed, in which case the Florida Supreme Court could make this a state-wide decision. If marriages start being carried out in Monroe County, then we should have a footnote, but maybe wait on the footnote to see if this gets stayed by a higher court. Dralwik|Have a Chat18:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now does Florida go gold? Has the state elevated it to a state-wide situation by going to the Appeals Court? Mw843 (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, since that court hasn't issued any sort of state-wide ruling. If anything, Monroe County might be gold since this appeal stops any same-sex marriages there, but there's no effect outside Monroe County yet. As well, even the Appeals Court only covers two counties; it'd take either the state Supreme Court or a US District Court ruling to turn the state gold (or blue). Dralwik|Have a Chat19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the Florida District Courts of Appeal page: "...the decisions and case law precedent of each District Court of Appeal are binding upon all of the circuit and county courts within the State of Florida. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1992)." So Huntsman v. Heavilin is now before a court that will establish statewide precedent on same-sex marriage, although there's no statewide precedent yet. But there is now a favorable ruling in Florida for same-sex marriage (or worded differently, a finding that the state ban is unconstitutional), and it has been stayed. So Florida as dark-red is out in my opinion. The Huntsman decision can be persuasive on other state circuit courts, for example on Pareto v. Ruvin, the Miami same-sex marriage case where a ruling is expected at any time. If the map cannot have an individual county marked gold, I would strongly support striping Florida's red with gold. MarkGT (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mw843: But since there is an exception to Florida's same-sex marriage ban, there should be a footnote. The red color doesn't apply to the entire state anymore so that's why I feel there should be a footnote at the very least. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:Is it worth adding a footnote for a one-county-ruling that has already been stayed? It definitely rates a mention on various detail pages, List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions, for example, but at the moment it's barely more relevant than Tennessee, and the map can't be all things for all people. Mw843 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not merit a footnote. It is a very minor distinction. Remember this is a map, not an article. Also @Mw843:, just so you know, Prcc loves footnotes even when they are without merit. Don't try to convince them, just oppose them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Florida saw a second ruling three days ago out of Miami-Dade county that, as far as I understand, applies across the entire state and not just Monroe County, like the first decision. Here's the story on Bloomberg. The ruling, like so many others, was stayed pending appeal, so doesn't that mean Florida's now in the same company as Texas, Michigan, et al., and should be colored gold? I freely admit I may be mistaken, but if I am, let me know where! Hooray for Wikipedia legal experts. :) Chadley99 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that ruling applies only to Miami-Dade for now. However, both it and the Monroe case are headed next to the Third State Court of Appeals, and that would be a state-wide precedent. Dralwik|Have a Chat19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court will next meet in conference to consider pending petitions for writs of certiorari in September just before the October Term 2014 begins. The "long conference", as it is called, will encompass all of the petitions submitted since the last conference in June, including any filed this summer from the Utah and Oklahoma cases. Until then, the only actions the Court will normally take are to deal with petitions to individual justices (as circuit justice) for stays, which may be submitted to the full court for a ruling or acted upon by the individual justice. A stay was recently rejected by Justice Kagan (as circuit justice for the 7th Circuit), and another was granted by the full court in the other Utah marriage case after it was referred to the full Court by Justice Sotomayor. Imzadi 1979→04:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure but it looks like Nebraska is the only state that has a constitutional ban but not a statutory ban. So far this has been reflected with a footnote that states "Most states in this category also have statutory bans" (Nebraska being the exception). I have a few suggestions for clarity...
Although my first thought with this issue was "whatever you do, avoid striping" it seems a little inaccurate to portray the red states as only having constitutional bans and then using a footnote to wiggle our way out of striping every dark red state (except Nebraska) medium red and dark red. Maybe we could change the wording for dark red to "Constitution and any existing statute ban on same-sex marriage" (similar to the wording for the gold color). If we keep the footnote we could change the wording to "Nebraska is the only state in this category without a statutory ban." --Prcc27 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is another pointless proposal. Leave the text as is. This is a map, not an article. Every minute detail does not need to be portrayed. The important part about the dark red states is that they have constitutional bans. Making a big fuss to point out that one of those states does not have a completely redundant statute ban is too much detail. Many of the states that have SSM (e.g., Oregon) do not have statutes explicitly addressing SSM; by your logic the map should also point that out too. You are asking for too many details from this map and its legend. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My logic does not suggest we should point out the differences in legality of same-sex marriage. In fact, I personally don't think there should be a distinction between the two reds. But since there is... Furthermore, the "Nebraska footnote" has already been and is already in the legend. I'm guessing you didn't notice it..? --Prcc27 (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has no reason... There is no "Nebraska" foonote, there is footnote text saying "Most states in this category also have statutory bans," which is more than sufficient. Nothing needs to be changed, everything is factually accurate. Also, can you source your claims that Nebraska is the only state with a constitutional ban but no statute ban? Really without any sourcing this discussion is moot. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, Wikipedia is not a source. You cannot source a claim from one Wikipedia entry based on another Wikipedia entry. Second, I have added the link to the footnote. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nevada doesn't have a statutory ban either, at least according to Wikipedia.[13] I also don't think this discussion is important. Tinmanic (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The San Francisco Gate is reporting that the US Federal Court case on Colorado's marriage ban is expected to be ruled today. If the judge strikes down the ban but stays it, there is no change to the map, but if he strikes the ban down without a stay on 10th Circuit precedent we could have another marriage window in Colorado (until SCOTUS steps in). Dralwik|Have a Chat17:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I almost entirely agree with Knowledgekid87, except since Colorado does have civil union, that should be striped with the gold as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.122.154 (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: We did the same thing for Kentucky [15]. Since it is a temporary stay it is like a law that hasn't gone into effect yet.. Prcc27 (talk)
@Knowledgekid87: States are added to this map when same-sex marriage is legalized, not when the law goes into effect. It is not WP:CRYSTAL because the judge said the stay will expire on August 25 at 8:00 a.m. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit) The law was issued and the stay just sets a date for it to go into effect in the meantime just in case the Tenth Circuit steps in. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prcc27 did the same thing that was done with Idaho. The SSM may not be performed for a long time, but having Colorado blue at present conforms to the conventions of this map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The judge has stayed the order to give the state a chance to appeal. IMO, it should be back to striped until the stay expires. Mw843 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a permanent stay on appeal but merely a temporary stay, the situation in Colorado is akin to having a marriage equality act passed but not yet in effect. Idaho was blue in this situation, and Colorado should be blue as well. Dralwik|Have a Chat01:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colorado is the most nuanced situation yet. Boulder County remains the only one in the state issuing licenses, and going on legal theory alone. However, it is quite a strongly placed legal theory that the 10th Circuit stay did not apply to Colorado and several judges, including Judge Moore, have declined to stop it. Colorado is in a unique situation, but I would say that the state is currently issuing valid licenses made under good faith. So by all means, color it in blue. MKleid (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought what the ruling said was the clerks can still issue the licenses, but the court neither recognizes nor invalidates those licenses at this moment, and that the validity of those licenses still needs further clarification, depending on whether the clerks do have the authority to act that far or not.
Colorado being colored blue has nothing to do with Boulder County. I disagree with @MKleid:, the licenses being issued to same-sex couples are not valid (according to the attorney general). The only reason Colorado is colored blue is because a temporary stay was issued meaning that it is equivalent to a law that hasn't gone into effect yet and because we did the same thing with Idaho and Kentucky. Prcc27 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on Prcc27, if the Supreme Court grants a permanent stay pending final resolution on a Colorado decision like they did with Utah, Colorado will go back to stripes even if Boulder is still issuing (a state appeals court declined to stop her so it looks like Boulder won't be stopped anytime soon). Dralwik|Have a Chat19:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The attorney general does not make the law, but the judges whom have declined to stay Boulder County so far seem to agree that the 10th Circuit stay does not clearly apply to Colorado. Thus, the only thing to construe from that is that Colorado is issuing valid licenses, and that is one of the reasons it is blue. MKleid (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that Circuit Court decisions strike down same-sex marriage bans in every state within the circuit? I've heard that they set a precedence for the circuit but don't strike the ssm bans down (unless the state's ban is directly struck down). Prcc27 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sets a binding legal precedent that all lower courts in that circuit must follow, so effectively it does legalize it in every state in that circuit. Once the circuit court makes a ruling, many state and local officials, such as attorneys general and county clerks, will start following that ruling and begin handing out marriage licenses, even if it did not specifically apply to them. The ones that don't will quickly be slapped with a lawsuit and will lose very quickly, usually on summary judgment. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The circuit have struck the ban in Virginia,So it looks like all the states in that circuit lost there ban too.The decision was 2-1,and if there is no stay the ruling affects Virginia,West Virginia, North and South Carolina--Allan120102 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, didn't see your edit and turned the circuit the stay colors. I'm looking through the decision, and waiting to see if any news sources report a stay. Dralwik|Have a Chat17:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no stay. But there wasn't an Order either. Which means... nothing has changed until the 4CA issues their Mandate, which can't happen for 14 days. In the meantime, defendant-appellants will seek a stay from either/both 4CA and SCOTUS (Roberts is Circuit Justice for the 4th.) So there will very likely *be* a stay, but there isn't one yet. Davidmac2003 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dralwik - I saw you turned Virginia back to yellow; I'd think it should be blue, just like a state where a law has not yet gone into effect. Tinmanic (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either. Yes, the lower court stay is still in effect until the mandate issues, but we should assume it will issue, just as we would turn a state blue if it passed a marriage equality law that was not yet in effect. I wish these judges would take us Wikipedia editors into account when issuing their rulings. :) Tinmanic (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But it just feels extreme to me to turn NC, SC & WV blue. In several days there will probably be a stay anyway, so we'll be able to turn them all yellow & gold and it'll be moot. Tinmanic (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to think that the whole 4th should be turned blue until there is a stay. It may only be blue for a few days. We know this ruling is going into effect. We do not know that a stay is coming. (it may be highly likely, but it isn't here now and may not come)75.179.42.181 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - in both Kitchen and Bishop, the 10th issued an Order staying judgment pending a disposition of a yet-to-be-filed certiorari petition. So there was a stay from zero-hour. In this case, we don't know that there's a stay, but no Order has issued - just a statement that the Mandate will issue in 14 days in accordance with FRAP 41. Leave everything as it is. Time will sort it out. Davidmac2003 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the ruling is specific to Virginia, it would take a judge's ruling to strike down the other state bans, but there are stayed cases in all three states, awaiting the 4th Circuit ruling: if Bostic isn't stayed soon, someone will get in front of their judge and request a preliminary injunction, based on this ruling. Mw843 (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the order from the tenth in the Utah case wasn't specific to Utah when we changed Wyoming, and this ruling was specific to Virginia?75.179.42.181 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about that - the Fourth Circuit decision applies circuitwide, as did the Tenth Circuit decision. It's about the subjective feeling that it doesn't seem right to turn all of the Fourth Circuit blue just yet. In the Tenth Circuit, there was an immediate stay included in the opinion, so we didn't have to deal with turning the whole circuit blue. I realize this is not logically consistent, though, so I'm OK with either choice. Tinmanic (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are only 15 states remaining that have there ban in place, the others have been struck down or have marriage equality. I believe if the ruling only had apply to Virginia then ssm would had come to the state because the AG nor the governor were defending it just two clerks but as it apply to the whole circuit then it would be more difficult because the AG of other states in the circuit might intervene.--Allan120102 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the ruling affects the whole circuit, and we historically change the color as soon as the law is passed or the ruling is announced (with a footnote noting when it goes into effect) and there is no stay (it may be very likely, but isn't certain as is the case of the ruling going into effect) it should be blue across the 4th until a stay is issued.75.179.42.181 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the current circumstances and information we have, I concur with making the entire circuit blue until something else changes. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I would argue that while the Fourth Circuit ruling in Bostic is binding precedent on courts in North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia, that same-sex marriage is not yet legalized there. That is because there's no direct court ruling on point. Note that Bostic has two parts, the opinion, and a judgment ordering the Virginia decision affirmed. We do not have any judgments out of lower courts in NC, SC, or WV, much less any that are to be affirmed.
We do have cases pending U.S. district court affecting these other states, see Fisher-Borne v. Smith (M.D.N.C.), Bradacs v. Haley (D.S.C.), and McGee v. Cole (S.D.W. Va.). Each has had proceedings stayed until the outcome of Bostic. But until a direct judgment is entered that affects these states, for now same-sex marriage is still unlawful in the states that make up the Fourth Circuit, outside of Virginia and Maryland.
My conclusion is that, regarding the map, having VA as blue is OK. I also do not mind whether NC, SC, and WV are left red or turned gold. But I oppose NC, SC, and WV being blue. MarkGT (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Virginia is blue based on this decision, then the rest of the 4th Circuit must be blue as well, as there is no way bans in the other 4th circuit states can stand now as long as the Virginia ruling is in force. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to say it, but there is no map color or combination that adequately describes the current situation in NC, SC and WV: for the moment, their bans stand, but unless and until Bostic is stayed, they have life-expectancy of a mayfly. Mw843 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes people sleep better at night then okay but it is very likely that the ruling will be stayed pending appeal to the US Supreme court, I do not see states such as WV that has a very strong anti-SSM base to just go with the flow here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re Rreagan007 "If Virginia is blue based on this decision, then the rest of the 4th Circuit must be blue as well": 1. We aren't certain of the Virginia situation yet, 2. and you're predicting the results of NC, SC, and WV U.S. district courts, when 3. following precedent is a court rule, but it's not 100% certain and it can be overcome, see Baker v. Nelson, and 4. you're not even waiting for NC, SC, and WV U.S. district courts to vacate their stay of proceedings that are in place. It's about the rule of law: court precedent alone does not make same-sex marriage legal, the legal channel of a judgment being affirmed, with a mandate sent back down to the lower court does. Of the relevant Fourth Circuit cases, only the VA case has a affirmed judgment and a specific date for a mandate to be issued. A specific date for SSM in Virginia to start, and that's our policy for turning a state blue. When the NC, SC, and WV cases make it that far, then we can color them blue. Until then, they should simply be red. We've got to end this nonsense that circuit-wide precedent means something's legal.
Look at it from a criminal aspect: If, for example, the Fourth Circuit affirmed that marijuana was legal, you would still get arrested for possession of marijuana until the mandate issued. The criminal laws would stand from the time the case is brought, through the original judgment, up through when the judgment affirming the decision below is ordered, through the time available to petition for rehearing is up, and until the mandate issues. And that's with no stays. Once the mandate issues, the appeal is effectively closed and the ruling can be applied.
Same-sex marriage had a big mess in California with the courts not waiting for the time to appeal to expire after the Supreme Court ruling. The Ninth Circuit effectively took it upon itself, sua sponte to issue a mandate before the expiration of time so SSM could begin (again) in California; the defenders of the ban basically said that the rule of law was abrogated in that case. See this June 29, 2013 article alleging that the rule of law wasn't followed in issuing the mandate. MarkGT (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The update by Prcc27 further proves my point. Litigation in the SC case of Bradacs v. Haley (D.S.C.) will continue with SC defending the ban, once the stay of proceedings is vacated in that district. No SSM in SC yet. Litigation in the NC case of Fisher-Borne v. Smith (M.D.N.C.) will also continue, after the stay of proceedings there is lifted, though with NC not defending it, first a judgment must issue and then after expiration of appeals period, a mandate, for NC to have SSM. So no SSM in NC yet either. We only have a definite date in the case of VA. MarkGT (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur, but see below on whether Colorado and Virginia should be blue or gold, and whether the other Fourth and Tenth circuit states should be gold or red. MarkGT (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we wait until laws actually go into effect before adding them on the map..? Like I said above.. "When a law is passed and hasn't gone into effect nothing changes and neither should the map." And it isn't WP:CRYSTAL to wait until the law actually goes into effect. If anything it's an inference based on what's happened in the past that it's possible (more or less) for something to change and delay the law. But when I suggested this in the first place it had nothing to do with the possibility of things changing but rather that the fact of the matter is same-sex marriage isn't legal immediately after legalization (at least not in all cases). Prcc27 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Historically the maps have changed the color of a state as soon as there's a future date for the ruling or law to take effect. I'm sure you've heard this. A law can be 'on the books' i.e. the bill as signed by the governor says "This act takes effect the 1st day of January, 2015" and not have effect. Legally, it gives people notice.
However, court decisions are murkier. The map used to change as soon as a court issued an opinion, never mind handed down a judgment order, order, or whatever the local terminology is. With appeals you have to wait for a mandate, and we're dealing with it for the first time now as there's no stay. We know what the mandate will say (Virginia's decision is affirmed) and what it won't say (it won't say anything about NC, SC, or WV), and when it will go into effect barring further appeal (in 21 days).
What we don't know is whether a stay will issue. As we've seen with Oregon and Pennsylvania, even a single individual can file for a motion to intervene, and then file for a motion to stay, and if those are denied, appeal those motions. All this will stay the mandate, and takes a few months to resolve. Does it stop same-sex marriage? Sometimes, sometimes not. In Pennsylvania, that one clerk-proposed intervenor-appellant is still appealing the case despite the U.S. Supreme Court denying her a stay. We cannot say for 100% that she will fail, but Pennsylvania's been blue for months now.
Should we wait to see if Virginia's attorney general will pursue reconsideration, or reconsideration en banc? Or should we wait for the mandate to issue (that may never happen, and may be delayed until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the issue)? Remember that the Fourth Circuit can be petitioned to implement the mandate tomorrow, or hold it off indefinitely. If we do nothing, it seems like this decision has no effect, legal or real. On top of it, we must be consistent in our approach to what happened in the Tenth, and what will happen in the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth. MarkGT (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Respectfully, I am staying out of the map debate. I put forth my opinions yesterday, but then after stepping back I realized the mess I created, especially after viewing the on-and-on debate that this map causes. I think that there's enough argument and opinion here already, and enough people qualified to make appropriate changes. My time is better served updating pages and doing legal research. MarkGT (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what I don't understand is why "historically" we haven't waited for the law to take effect. Just because same-sex marriage is legalized doesn't mean it's legal. In fact, the ban is still in effect. Would we update the map the same way if there was a law banning ssm that hasn't gone into effect? Have we updated it that way? Prcc27 (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why it's important to wait until the law goes into effect. A state marked as blue with a footnote stating when the law goes into effect provides less information than a state marked as red (or yellow) with the same footnote. The red (or yellow) shows the current status and says that same-sex marriage will be legal while if we have a state colored as blue, it doesn't show the current status and only states that same-sex marriage will be legal. How are we supposed to know that Colorado currently has a constitutional ban (struck down pending appeal) and civil unions (which are currently the only unions a same-sex couple can enter into legally)? How are we supposed to know Virginia's current status? If we wait until the law goes into effect there's more information provided with the same amount of footnotes. This map is meant to inform. Prcc27 (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“
And it isn't WP:CRYSTAL to wait until the law actually goes into effect. If anything it's an inference based on what's happened in the past that it's possible (more or less) for something to change and delay the law.
Actually there aren't. If policy says you cannot do something, you cannot do it. You cannot ignore Wikipedia policy just because it suits you. Please stop making merit-less proposals. They are a massive waste of time. I am going to sleep now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Showing that ssm has been legalized while ignoring the current status is WP:POV and violates Wikioedia Policy. My suggestion is meritorious. I guess we'll deal with this later then..?
No it is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. A bill is signed into law, once a bill is signed it is the law regardless if it is in effect or not. For example, Obamacare was signed in 2010, parts of the bills are still not in effect, but the entirety of the two Obamacare bills are still entirely the law. By not updating the map when the bill becomes laws supposes that the bills might not be laws when the enforcement date comes around. That supposition is violation WP:CRYSTAL.
”
The difference is that none of the marriage bill is in effect yet but the ban on ssm is in full force. It is misleading and WP:POV to color a state blue but leave out the red (or yellow). Prcc27 (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But we aren't talking about any marriage bills. All of the states that considered legalizing SSM legislatively have already done so. We are now only talking about court rulings, which is much more volatile. Once a bill is passed, it is passed; then it's WP:CRYSTAL to say it is not definitive yet as Thegreyanomaly explained. But as for court rulings, I agree with you in the sense that while it is clear that the Fourth Circuit ruling is a precedent, we cannot put ourselves in the place of the judges and "overturn the bans ourselves" (w.r.t. the Carolinas and West Virginia). We have to wait until a judge does so. Otherwise we might as well already color the entire US blue since there is unanimous agreement in all the court rulings since Windsor. SPQRobin (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting we remove the footnote so it would still be noted that ssm was legalized (on the legend rather than the map). Why have it blue on the map just to explain that it actually isn't blue ("same-sex marriage legal") yet..? It should show the current status with the footnote explaining that same-sex marriage has been legalized and will be legal (assuming nothing happens). Also, the possibility that a law won't go into effect like it was originally supposed isn't a reason to wait until the law goes into effect before updating, but it is a good example of why showing the current status helps maintain clarity. You just gotta "wait for things to play out." Even if it were impossible for anything to get in the way of a ssm "law" going into effect, the reader gets more information if we wait until it goes into effect as they see the current status on the map and are aware that same-sex marriage will eventually go into effect because of the footnote in the legend. Prcc27 (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think how I've explained things is visual enough for you guys, just keep in mind that if ssm is legalized, it's still banned until the law goes into effect. The reason I suggested this back when Hawaii was legalizing ssm, even though I was 90%+ sure same-sex marriage was going to be legal was simply because same-sex marriage was still banned at the time, period. We should give more weight to laws that are currently in effect (same-sex marriage bans, civil unions) than to laws that will be, but aren't yet in effect (same-sex marriage "laws"). Both should be represented (either on the map or in the legend). Am I clarifying things or am I just confusing you guys..? Prcc27 (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prcc27, you are grasping at straws. POV has nothing to do here. POV is about neutrality. Depicting laws about SSM on a map about SSRs has nothing to do with neutrality. Saying SSM is legal in a state whether the laws are already enforced or not has nothing to do with POV. You cannot violate WP:CRYSTAL just because you want to. If you are "90%+ sure" that is irrelevant to Wikipedia as Wikipedia deals with facts no speculations. If a judge says SSM will begin on date X assuming someone will delay that (no matter how likely that is) is still an assumption and still violates WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing about points of view here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what this has to do with WP:CRYSTAL or WP:POV. I think what @Prcc27: is suggesting is that the map should depict the answer to the question, "Can same-sex couples get married in this state right now?" I actually don't think that's a bad idea; it would make things a lot simpler. Of course, the map is never going to be all things to all people. I do wonder what all the "laypeople" who don't hang out on this Talk page think of the constantly changing map colors. Tinmanic (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tinmanic, it is crystal-balling, because it supposes that some change to the law will occur before it takes effect. As for the bad idea, yes it is a bad idea. We've tried it in June 2012 File_talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive_7#Proposal, but it did not work. Reliable sources indicate the law changing when it is enacted, not when it is enforced. When "laypeople" read/watch the news and it says SSM has been legalized in State X, but then they come here and see that state X is not blue they update the map to make it such. Also, that consensus to update when enforced died in less than a year. This discussion from June 2013 File_talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive_8#California makes note of its demise. Prcc27's suggestion is a bad idea. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the actual reasons for this proposal. a) More information is provided with the same amount of footnotes (see above) and b) a state shouldn't be colored blue if it still bans same-sex marriage, it makes no sense. I didn't initially propose this because I thought laws were going to change, I proposed it simply because the law wasn't in force yet. Prcc27 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the archive discussions I linked to. Your proposal is not new. People tried that before you started posting here. The proposal does not work. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, if reliable sources say same-sex marriage is legal in State X and this map has State X they will complain why isn't State X blue and/or they update State X on their own. Your proposal had its day in June 2012, and its day did not last too long. This proposal is pointless. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the reliable sources state that it isn't legal until the effective date. If not then those sources aren't very reliable are they? Prcc27 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. It is legal the second the governor signs the bill or the judge makes the order, the fact is it isn't enforced yet but it is still the law. This is a map about laws, so we depict the laws. The footnote could also very easily explain why it is blue. Your proposal had its day, and people didn't like it and didn't follow it. Napoleon marched into Russia in the winter and had bad results, which is why people don't do that anymore. Likewise with your proposal, it was tried and did not work, so we don't try it anymore. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that once same-sex marriage is legalized, same-sex marriage bans are no longer the law? "The footnote could also very easily explain why it is blue." Yeah, but we could just as easily provide more information with the same footnote (which I have said countless times). Prcc27 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A signed bill is the law. If a signed bill rewrites a previously existing ban, that ban is no longer the law. Example: parts of Obamacare are still not enforced, but Obamacare is still the law Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I already refuted this example.. parts of obamacare are enforced but none of the same-sex marriage law is enforced. Furthermore, the same-sex marriage ban is still enforced. Why? Because it's still the law. Prcc27 (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong once again. All of Obamacare was the law before any of it was enforced. It was the law the second it was signed. I don't know how many times I have to say this: a signed bill is a law. I am tired of this discussing this with you. You should stop wasting your time on failed proposals that have already been tried. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, it is the same thing as a judge staying their ruling to allow the state time to prepare the bureaucracy for SSM. When a bill is signed the jurisdiction's legal code is modified. A SSM bill would overwrite the existing law(s) banning SSM. Whatever iota of merit there is in your proposal, how many f**king times do I have to say, we have already tried it, and it has failed. You need to give up already. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's already been done. The proposal died a little over a year ago and it went nowhere when you re-proposed it a few months ago with Hawaii. Failed proposals shouldn't be replayed over and over. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it "went nowhere" when I proposed it for Hawai'i is because I thought that the footnote would suffice. Now I realize that the footnote should be added when same-sex marriage is legalized and the map should be updated when same-sex marriage goes into effect (per reasons I've stated above). Prcc27 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are rewriting history. It went nowhere because no one sided with you. And before that when we actually tried the proposal its implementation was a failure. When people don't agree with you, you have to let it go, each time you make a failed proposal, you propose it again later... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Someone did side with me actually. Also, when I said "Adding a footnote sounds like a great idea" I meant that I was fine with updating the map when it is legalized as long as there is a footnote. I'm not "rewriting history" you're just misinterpreting things.. Prcc27 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am as happy as anyone to see the states in this map go blue; I'd love to see it happen more and more often, and hope it's not long before the map becomes obsolete because it is all blue. I came here with the intention of defending the status quo of making the map change prior to a law going in effect, but the more I thought about it the more I realized there is also a good justification for waiting - at least in the case of these court decisions.
Ok, one person sided with you and multiple opposed you and noted how your proposal violates multiple policies. Also, making an effective date footnote was a common practice for a very long time. There was nothing special done for Hawaii after that discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can sympathize with the argument that, when talking about a pending law going in to effect, it is nothing more than speculation to ponder on the possibility of it being challenged before it goes in to effect. However, what we are talking about here are court decisions to overturn an existing law, not the creation of a new law. It is equally valid to say that until a legal decision reaches its effective date, that the law prohibiting SSM is still in force. Yes, it is purely speculative to worry about what may or may not happen in the intervening days, and yes, it is perfectly valid to say that, given the facts at hand, the anti-SSM law will be overturned. However, until the judge's ruling actually goes into effect, the anti-SSM law is still in force and thus the map should reflect that fact.
The situation is admittedly complicated in cases of a stayed decision that is overturned by a higher court, which I believe Virginia is an example of. However, my interpretation of the situation would be that the SSM prohibition remains intact and enforceable until such time that a ruling goes into effect overturning it. Shereth23:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Virginia is on murky legal grounds in multiple ways. How far the county clerks can appeal or have the will to appeal (if they could have appealed in the first place) is an open question in the en banc and/or SCOTUS rulings. Also, it equally speculation that the state will appeal when there is a temporary stay. Look at New Jersey and Pennsylvania, anti-SSM administrations refused to appeal. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall making any comments about appeals or the like? I thought what I was saying was pretty straightforward - it's not a case of a law that has yet to go in effect as much as a law whose overturning has yet to go in to effect. The potential for what may or may not happen before a judge's ruling goes into effect is irrelevant to me. It's just that the ban is not yet overturned until the date a judge's decision goes in to effect. Shereth00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, until an appeal is filed and a long term stay is placed, a temporary stay is no different than a law not going into enforcement right away. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Support the idea of making the change when the law goes into effect, the fact is that we are confusing editors and readers alike striping states blue when the law is not in effect yet. We should at the very least make a color for states that have legalized marriage but it has not taken effect yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last time we added more colors, people started to complain about there being too many colors and we had to dial them back. The map (including existing footnotes) is perfectly fine. The footnotes make it abundantly clear which states are not yet in effect. If a reader or editor who does not read the legend gets confused, there is nothing we can do about that. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the SSM in the United States talkpage? Why not replace a color we hardly ever use and replace it with one that is used more often? We can get rid of footnotes this way and still present the info. Also consensus can change, it looks like right now there are more than one editor here who wants to see some kind of change made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do really constantly reshuffling colors will create more and more confusion. If we try to promote stability in this map we will be able to avoid confusion. The two users who support this are you and Prcc27 (the same two users who supported it last time). @Shereth: am I reading you right, you support states like VA and CO being the existing color of gold, but not dark blue (not a changing the overall map color scheme) as you don't read a temporary stay as the same thing as a statute's enforcement date, right? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You read me correctly. I don't believe a temporary stay is equivalent to a delayed enforcement date. I would prefer they remain gold until the stay is lifted. Shereth00:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read what Shereth just said, they don't quite agree with you (nor do they quite agree with me). In order to get around WP:CRYSTAL or WP:RS, you would likely need to go with Knowledgekid87's color rearrangement suggestion (which it seems you do not support at the moment). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In what ways do they not agree with me..? I don't mind Knowledgekid87's color rearrangement suggestion, but I'd like to see how people feel about showing a state's current status (with a footnote explaining that same-sex marriage was legalized) first. Prcc27 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shereth said "when talking about a pending law going in to effect, it is nothing more than speculation to ponder on the possibility of it being challenged before it goes in to effect". They agree with me in the cases of statutes being passed but agree with you in terms of temporary stays from judges. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need solid colors for the following circumstances -- SSM Legal (ie CA), Ban struck & but stayed (UT), Subject to Circuit precedent (NC), No Law (Territories), and SSM Banned (ND) -- and stripes for Domestic Partnerships (CO and NV), Limited rights (WI) and Limited recognition (OH) - but Ohio could also be done by footnote, bringing total colors down to 7. I don't think it matters any more whether a ban is by statute or constitution, and, bonus, this also gets rid of Footnotes 4 & 5. Pending events should be reflected in footnotes, if at all: the map should reflect current situation, so CO should be striped, and VA is Ban struck but stayed. Mw843 (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: there is crystal-balling here. This proposal is premised on the assumption that something will change between a law being signed (or a temporary stay being issued) and the enforcement date.
Says who? Like Tinmanic said, people want to know if same-sex couples can get married in said state right now. I support@Mw843:'s proposal. Prcc27 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik:, @Tinmanic:, @Rreagan007:, @Naraht:, @Maxyboyz:, @Davidmac2003:, @Imzadi1979:, @MKleid:, @Allan120102:, @Habbit:, @Dudemanfellabra:, @Athelwulf:, @Artichoker:, @0nlyth3truth:, @Aharris206:, and @JayJay: - You all have posted on the current page and/or the last archives (I may have missed someone, I did this by hand), but your opinions are not known on this. Do you all think that we should continue current practices and update states when laws are signed (though there probably aren't going to any more legistlative statute changes) or when a judge issues an order overturning an SSM ban and only gives a temporary stay (i.e., the stay is not indefinite as it is in Utah and several other states) or should we go with the proposal to wait until laws reach their enforcement dates or stays are vacated? (If you think laws being passed and temporary stays being issued are different scenarios, please indicate such). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order to violate WP:CANVAS in my list of invited users, I would have to target certain users of others based on my presumptions of their opinions, but (unless I missed someone) I blanketly picked every registered user I saw on the page that hadn't chimed in already. I was thinking about starting an RfC, but I thought it wiser to get an "internal" opinion amongst recent talk page users (hence the current page and the last archive) then to cast the wide net. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of waiting until a law goes into effect to turn a state blue; however, that does not mean we should forego updating the map. I proposed above a solution involving striping states in the 4th and 10th circuits to show a precedent has been set and ignored the VA problem. There was mixed reception, but from what I could see, the general idea was supported, maybe just not the implementation. I have made a new map to try again. In this map, I took the suggestion by Mw843 and consolidated the ban colors. It doesn't really matter to the people in the state if SSM is banned by constitution or statute.. all that matters is they can't get married. This means that any state which bans SSM is colored dark red, the least permissive level. One step up, I made a solid color (to avoid stripes) for states in the 4th/10th circuits which still have a ban but fall under the precedent of the higher court rulings. These states are all shaded a lighter red. To account for VA (and any other future cases) where a SSM ban is overturned/repealed but delayed without a stay, I used a purple color--a mix of red and blue--to signify that the ban is still in place (red) so people can't get married yet, but as long as no one stays the ruling, the ban will be removed (blue) on some specific date, which can be handled in footnotes. Because the ban colors were consolidated, I consolidated the stay colors as well--all stays, be they for constitution or statue, are colored gold. Ohio with its stay on reconition of out-of-state marriages stays striped since the ban is in effect, and I left the out-of-state stay color as light yellow. If that ruling is ever affirmed by a higher court, out-of-state recognition will get a light blue color (though I would still leave it striped with the ban color). The limited recognition, unions, and marriage colors all stayed the same. The map I created is here. What do others think?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while I personally do not favor this, I do feel the need to point out, purple does not work well for colorblind folks. Due to accessibility policies, we tend to ignore this color. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colorado only needs to be double striped union blue and gold, since a federal judge has effectively followed the 10th's precedent. And how about light red and gold for Virginia? I don't like adding stripes to blue. Mw843 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to the idea of using the light red color to indicate states that fall under a precedent, and the idea of dropping the distinction between constitutional and statutory bans. I think Virginia should be it's own color that will apply to all states that have had a ban struck down, but has not started issuing licenses (not counting states under appeal). Any state that has a ban struck down will be immediately placed in this category until an appeal is filed or the law goes into effect. This way, people reading the map will be able to see what states they can marry in right now, and which states have just had bans struck down without confusing striping or foot notes and people won't jump the gun and immediately turn a state blue. If the NC,AZ, and LA rulings lift the ban, these states would also be under this new color. It may seem busy, but it takes care of a lot of striping, what to do with newly un-banned states, and I think merging constitutional and statutory bans makes up for the added color. CRM28 (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think these proposed maps are way too confusing. The map should be as reader-friendly as possible while still conveying accurate information. We don't need to make all these changes. This seems to be snowballing out of Prcc27's suggestion that dark blue be reserved for states where same-sex couples can actually get married. I still think that is not WP:CRYSTAL. It is not presuming there will be changes; it is merely a statement of present fact. People can't get married in Virginia right now. I think it can stay gold and the relevant information can be footnoted. (I say this as someone who looks forward to the day when the whole map is dark blue.) Tinmanic (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for my input, I am for changing colors only when a couple can walk into a clerk's office and come out with a certificate. I'd like to consolidate some categories too: Get rid of the special category for WI, and combine it with CO and NV, with a footnote that says WI's rights are more limited. Get rid of the special category for OH, and combine solemnization and recognition with stay into the same group, with a footnote that says OH's is recognition-only. Create a new special category for VA, that will only exist for about two weeks. I see the following as conveying the most information in the most compact format, with minimal striping (OH, WI, NV, and CO only):
Legal Marriage
State recognizes some same-sex partnership rights
Ban on same-sex marriage (solemnization or recognition) ruled unconstitutional, but stayed
Marriage ban has been struck down, but order has not executed
Binding precedent for overturning ban exists, but ban has not been ruled unconstitutional
Ban on same-sex marriage in force and no binding precedent for overturning exists
Virginia and Colorado are probably going to be completely stay in the next few day, the AG of Colorado would probably prefer the Colorado SC to give the right to same sex couple to marry than of a federal judge, Meanwhile for Virginia even though the Governor nor the AG are defending the law two clerks are doing it. I am not even sure how can they do it when the clerk in Pennsylvania couldn't. If for some reason they ask for the stay and I hope is not given then Virginia would become blue. The next few days are going to be interesting with decisions in NC,AZ, and LA coming at any moment. --Allan120102 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CRM28:I don't like the idea of adding a color for a transitory situation. Either a stay will be issued pending appeal, in which case Virginia will be gold, or it won't, and Virginia will be blue. If we want to indicate that Virginia is different on the map, light red and gold would do it ... otherwise, leave gold, and add a footnote. Mw843 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pop in to stay that I like the idea of changing a state to blue only when a couple can actually get a marriage license, and making this map de facto rather than the previous standard of de jure. The current map is my preferred map, while I feel that a transitory color is a good idea in theory yet would make the map too busy in practice. So I oppose a transitory color, and support the current map as of this posting. Dralwik|Have a Chat19:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the idea of considering this kind of transitory situations in the map. First, because it makes it confusing and we'll eventually need to consult lawyers on the actual applicable law. As User:Thegreyanomaly said, a law is law from the moment it is signed and enacted, even if its own terms state that certain (or all) provisions will have delayed enforcement. I view the judicial decisions in the same way: the moment the 4th Circuit order was officially entered with no stay, the VA ban was officially no longer the law of the land, even if the enforcement of the new law is delayed by its own terms or, as in this case, by the rules of appellate procedure.
Note that The law in VA is, right now, that given by Bostic v. Rainey, affirmed by Bostic v. Schaefer, although it will enter into force in a few days. That does not preclude other mechanisms from operating which could stay the decision, effectively re-instating the previous law until an appeal is decided. This would be equivalent to the Washington SSM law: it was signed by the governor and enacted (thus state -> blue at that point), but then it was suspended by petition pending a referendum (analogous to a judicial stay pending appeal, thus state -> golden), and it was finally upheld (thus state -> blue again). Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the same-sex marriage bans are no longer the law even though they're being enforced and are still in force..? Prcc27 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. It is very common for laws to have delayed enforcement clauses, sunrise/sunset clauses, "grandfather" exceptions, etc. As an example, when Prop 8 passed in California, no new marriages were accepted in California but those already existing were recognised (grandfathered in) even though the constitution was amended to read Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The current state in VA is very similar to what happened in Illinois or the UK, both which enacted same-sex marriage laws that had delayed enforcement dates. However, they were "on the books" from the moment they were signed into law. I already mentioned the Washington case, too: what difference do you find between any of these cases and the Washington one? Law is passed, signed into law (aka, judgement handed down), later suspended by petition (aka stayed upon appeal), and finally upheld or not. I reiterate my opposition to the proposed changes in the map. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 21:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the proposed changes. I think the map is just fine the way we do it now, changing to blue when a law is signed or when a court decision is delivered and having a color for stayed decisions. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with Davidmac2003's proposal, but since there seems to be no consensus on a "transition" color, what about merging the constitutional and statutory ban categories? CRM28 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should also discuss my proposal on other same-sex marriage map talk pages. (World ssm, World homosexuality, Europe, North America, and possibly more). I already made a proposal on the World same-sex marriage map. Prcc27 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, due to a family emergency, I cannot be all that active in this discussion, but I do not see anywhere near a consensus on anything thus far (this is only a preliminary observation, I am not saying anything is final). I oppose any changes to the map, both the change in changing time and the change in color scheme. Let the map be stable, we need to stop poking and prodding. Many of the legend entries have not even been updated since the last time we changed the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can we please table the re-coloring proposal while we address the Prcc27's proposal first. Let's please make a conscientious to avoid chaos. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: I saw your map edit; please give this discussion time. Consensus is not a simple majority vote, and it does not form overnight. I have reverted your edit. Please do not repeat it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: The reason I perceived it as consensus is because we refuted your WP:Crystal claim, we explained how it would add more information to the map while keeping the footnotes the same length, we explained how readers want to know the current status of same-sex marriage, and that same-sex couples can't get married in those states like they can in other blue states. Might I add that since the stay wasn't lifted in Colorado (and maybe Virginia) Colorado qualifies as "Judicial rulings against constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and any existing statutory bans, stayed pending appeal." I'll mention this below as well. Prcc27 (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: that is debatable about crystal. The footnote length stuff is nonsense as we can have a them either way and the footnotes would be roughly the same length. "we explained how readers want to know the current status of same-sex marriage" No you didn't you just speculated they did. As I have noted multiple times, we tried this proposal before, and people really didn't like it and the consensus fell apart. Really, there is evidence that readers do not want this and no evidence that they do want it. This discussion is too much of a muck of numerous counter proposals, anyone who thinks they can read a clear consensus is full of bullshit, especially since this discussion is really young. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Let me try to explain the footnote thing again.. Which one provides more information, the way we currently have it blue with footnote (ssm legalized; ban struck down) or what I proposed: striped medium blue and gold (civil unions; constitutional ban struck down) with footnote explaining ssm was legalized? I believe you were the one a while back who told me that this map reflects the current status of ssm. Prcc27 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(There is a same-sex union footnote but that applies to blue states in general and Colorado's civil unions are more relevant than Hawaii's civil unions are since the only unions a same-sex couple can currently enter into are civil unions). Prcc27 (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They will both provide the same information. Per previous consensus, the fact that SSM is legal in CO means that CU/DP stripes are irrelevant. This map depicts the current laws on SSM. Currently, unless someone intervenes, SSM is the law in CO and VA per the respective court rulings. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: No they won't! The current footnote has no mention of a constitutional ban whereas the constitutional ban is referenced for the gold coloring. Furthermore, I could easily condense the footnote for my proposal.. "Colorado's ruling is stayed until August 25" because the other words would be rendered redundant because of the gold color's wording. (If my proposal is used the footnote would go on the gold color). Prcc27 (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: Yes they will. The point here that SSM is legal in CO overrides the necessity to say anything about the ban. New Jersey got rid of its statute by the courts, Oregon got rid of its amendment by the courts, that distinction is too much detail for the map Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Same-sex marriage isn't legal in Colorado, it was legalized. Therefore, the information is still useful and necessary. Also, it would reduce the footnote.. Prcc27 (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite true. If marijuana purchase is legalized as of three months from now, it is still illegal to buy marijuana today. Tinmanic (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(open note) My main issue with the current map is having Virginia and Colorado be the same color as full marriage states. At a glance, it seems like a same-sex couple could get their marriage recognized in Denver and Richmond just as easily as Boston or San Francisco, which I find to be misleading for any viewer not up to date on the current situation. I'd rather they be beige as they do not have full marriage yet. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this position specific to all court rulings, or just non-SCOTUS rulings. Hypothetical: what if the 10th refuses en banc and the SCOTUS refuses cert, and there was a temporary stay to update bureaucracies and the like, would you oppose the 10th states being blue? To a certain extent, I can understand (not necessarily agree) with not wanting to make appellate court ruling states blue, but I definitely would not understand for cases where the ruling was completely final (i.e., no en banc and no cert) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a temporary stay for bureaucratic reasons, at this point I'd support beige. Right now, I favor saving blue until there are state-recognized licenses being handed out to couples. At this point, that beige "not yet" color would include a situation like Illinois where the law is signed but marriages haven't begun, to be consistent. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, as the legal situation becomes more nuanced and complex, I'm leaning more and more towards consolidating the different legal situations as much as possible in favor of letting the situation on the ground dictate the state of the map. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we go back to the idea of just replacing one color for states that have legalized marriage but the law not going into effect yet? Don tsay consensus was against it as it seems to have been buried under the idea of having a recolored map or several new colors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like it if we could get an up/down discussion of Prcc27's proposal first, once we get around that we can discuss any other proposal, but let's just do this one at a time. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colorado and Virginia should have another color imo but not blue. Imo blue should be given to states where couples can asked for licenses and be given immediately. That was something that always bother me with Illinois, because even though the law was sign couples couldn't be given their marriage certificates until June 1 when the law took effect for all the state. TBH I prefer a solid color than stripes,But Purple can't be used because of colorblindness we should look for another color. That is just my opinion though.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Adding a color would simplify things so there would be no need to discus when to turn a state blue in relation to when the ban is lifted or when the law goes into effected. If we merge something on the map, we can reuse that color, since purple and green are out. CRM28 (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Strongly Oppose adding any additional colors to the map. My first preference is to keep things the same, change the color when the law is changed, and add a footnote to say the law isn't yet in effect if it makes people feel better. My second preference would be to switching to changing the color when the law becomes effective. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to discuss adding a color for states in Virginia's situation and/or consolidating the two reds and the two darkest yellows. However, like thegreyanomaly said, we should probably discuss whether or not we should update the map when ssm (and possibly other unions) are legalized (or made illegal) or when it goes into effect. Once we get that outta the way, it'll be a lot easier to discuss other proposals (especially since those proposals most likely won't get consensus unless we agree to update the map when laws goes into effect rather than when they are passed). So please hold off on those proposals and focus on this one so we can resolve things quicker.
I think it should be noted when something is legalized or illegalized in some way (like with a new color or foot note), but main distinctions like labeling a state as ssm should not be made until the law goes into effect, as this map is meant to show the current situation and basically "where can a couple get married as of today" CRM28 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it true that Colorado and Virginia* qualify as having "Judicial rulings against constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and any existing statutory bans, stayed pending appeal"? It doesn't matter if Colorado's stay is temporary, it is still a stay and it would be inaccurate not to portray Colorado as having a stayed judicial ruling. Doesn't having those states as gold make more sense than having them as blue..?
You are wrong once again. I believe you have already been told this multiple times. We use that color for indefinite stays. Per existing consensus, a temporary stay is akin to a law with an enforcement date, so they are treated as such. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know traditionally we have only used the color for indefinite stays but how is the reader supposed to understand why we do this? How is the reader supposed to know that a definite stay is akin to a law that has not yet entered into effect? If I didn't come on this talk page I'd be very confused about the map. Prcc27 (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They read the footnotes. If people are not going to read, they do not need to helped. If a reader does not read the legend and footnotes and get confused then that is their problem, no one else's. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, when we tried changing the map on the "effective date" rather than the "became law" date a while back people hated it. All the news stories would have headlines saying "State X legalizes same-sex marriage" or "Appeals court strikes down State X's ban of same-sex marriage" and people would come here and say "Change the map!", so we just switched back to changing the map on the effective date and adding a footnote. If we go back to updating the map on the effective date, then we will almost certainly run into the same problem of people not liking to have to wait months for the map to change when they know it is going to anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I say we should add another color to represent that, that ssm is legal but not yet in effect until the day its suppose to be in effect. That is just a proposition for this kind of problem. --Allan120102 (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm sure if we make that color close to a shade of blue those people would be completely fine with it and it's more legally accurate. CRM28 (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some talk previously about removing the light blue color from the map for "limited/enumerated privileges" which currently applies only to Wisconsin. Perhaps that color could be used to indicate a transitory status of "marriage legal but not currently being performed" with optional footnotes for effective dates? I don't think the limited/enumerated privileges is a very useful category as, to be honest, it's very unclear what this actually means. Shereth15:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say you cannot get those colors. If you had two choices, the current status or the proposal at hand, which one would you take? (The Wisconsin coloring is a dud, we've proposed changing its coloring, but it always goes nowhere) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest the "current proposal" has kind of become ... vague. I presume you are asking for my position regarding the core question of when to change a state's color, when a law is signed/decision is made, or when a law/decision comes in to effect? Color the map based on the de jure or de facto status of SSM? I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to that question and what it really boils down to is a matter of opinion and preference. I sympathize with the fact that there are users who hear about a court decision coming down or new law being signed into effect who expect an immediate change and advocate doing so. I also sympathize with the fact that there are less informed users who are looking for a map that tells them, in effect, where one can marry a member of the same sex, and these users may be ill informed if we make immediate changes. After considering the subject a while I believe the "safer" solution is to only make changes when SSM laws are in effect and not just signed. The users who are speaking up for a change already know the status of SSM and aren't really impacted by when it is changed, whereas less informed users looking to answer the simpler question don't know any better and may not be getting the information they want. I think, in the end, it is better that we present information to an audience without assuming they understand the nuances of stayed decisions and impending appeals and temporary stays and delayed implementation; we're better off assuming the audience doesn't know the difference and just wants to know, plain and simple, where SSM is happening and where it is not. In a nutshell : change the map only when changes to the law are in effect. Shereth17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot define what "the law" is by its enforcement alone. That's a naive proposition, since the moment you purport to describe may not even exist as a single point in time. Consider for example a state where a SSM law is passed which will go into force on November 1, 2014. What if no county clerk opens on days 1 (Sat) or 2 (Sun)? Would you say that the law actually went into effect on November 3? Because according to your definition of de facto SSM legal-ness, no gay couple could get married on days 1 or 2, so the would the old ban effectively be alive until day 3?. Or worse, what if a single county opens but the rest do not? On the other hand, the moment a law is enacted/repealed or a judgement is handed down/stayed is well defined, mostly because we have record of that. Remember that Wikipedia does not purport to give legal advice, so if people are looking for a map which tells them the exact down-to-the-day state of a certain law, they should not be looking at this page. I reiterate my opposition. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 18:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not go for broke and change it on day 3 when the first courthouse opens in the state? Or would it be when courthouses all over the state are open? Or maybe the harmonic mean of such times? Because some gay couple might see you changing the map on day 3 and run to their courthouse, only to be disappointed because it is a holiday in their county. It makes not sense at all. The law is the law from the moment it is enacted, be it by the governor's signature or by a judgement being entered. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 18:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would change it on day 1 of when it goes into effect because the ban no longer applies and the only thing keeping same-sex couples from marrying is that the courthouses are closed, not the law. Also, the Illinois footnote was removed on June 1st (by me) even though the courthouses weren't open. Prcc27 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine by me as well; certainly preferably to currently having Virginia and Colorado blue right now because of an order that might be issued in the future. If I ran the map, I would have turned Illinois beige when the governor signed the law, given the state marriage stripes at the Cook County ruling to issue licenses, and colored Illinois full blue at the state vowing to recognize the Cook County licenses. Otherwise, without the Cook County ruling, I'd have turned Illinois blue the first day that the courthouses were open after the law came into effect. Dralwik|Have a Chat20:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The judgement has been issued already, without a stay and with a clear order: to affirm the judgement of the district court below. The only difference is that, due to the rules of appellate procedure, the enforcement must be delayed by a few days in order to (among other things) allow proper communication with the involved parties and the lower court. Note that a higher court providing appellate review will either affirm the judgement below or reverse it, remanding the issue to the lower court with instructions on how to rule "properly". So, the orders that usually get applied are those of the district courts, even though the validation may have come from the Nth Circuit Court of Appeals or even the Supreme Court. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 22:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is talking about assuming a law will change before it goes into effect. We are talking about whether the law is actually in effect. There is no crystal-balling going on. Tinmanic (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, let us not be ignorant of history. We tried this damn proposal, and it failed HORRIBLY. Napoleon marched into Russia in the winter, and he made a big mistake in doing so. No one does that anymore as a result. We did this proposal in June 2012, and we soon realized we made a big mistake. Let's not repeat mistakes we already made. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then what do you suppose we do? I reiterate my position that a state should not be colored a ssm marriage state until the law goes into effect: not when a court opens or when a single county starts issuing, when the law goes into effect. If the Florida situation, being that certain counties have had rulings allowing them to recognize and perform ssm, did not turn the whole state ssm blue on the map, then when a county in a state with a fresh ruling applying to the whole state (that has not gone into effect yet) starts issuing licences, that state should not be ssm blue based on that county. The said state would still be in the proposed "ban repealed but not in effect color" with maybe a foot note listing the issuing counties.CRM28 (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we reject this proposal by Prcc27 and move on towards the transitional color proposal. Prcc27's idea has failed before, it is not a mistake to repeat. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast! Most people who support a transitional color prefer my proposal over the current map. If the transitional color fails, my proposal might still have a chance. I don't mind discussing the transitional color (since it still seems to be coming up on here) but that doesn't mean we have to dismiss my proposal. Prcc27 (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal has failed already well before you ever got to map. It would be downright foolish to go with it. Also, please don't try to read people's minds. If their positions are not clear, wait for them clarify them themselves. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once the colors of the map are settled, we'll come back to your proposal depending on the out come of the color proposal, as instating a transitional color would make your proposal irreverent (though I do Agree with its premise). For now, let's move on and get one thing done at a time. CRM28 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instating a temporary color (while not my preference) is much preferable to Prcc27's proposal. We've done that proposal before, and we know it is does not work. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see these two proposals as complimentary. Using a transition color allows us to update the map the instant the ban is struck down, but it doesn't give readers "false information" by including an explicit distinction for those states from the full marriage states. It heads off and to a certain extent educates "laypeople" (isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia?) trying to update the map because they saw the ban struck down on the news. I think in general people are siding with Prcc27, but it's the details where they get stuck up on.. if we institute a transition color, I feel like it would make both sides happy. See the section below for my attempt at doing so.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented above anonymously. I support changing the map to accurately reflect the states in which marriage licenses are routinely issued to same-sex couples at that time. As a lawyer, I believe the current map is very problematic because several states share the same colors but are not similarly situated. For example, Wyoming and Indiana are both yellow. There has not been any ruling at all yet in Wyoming. It is completely speculative to make it yellow when Indiana actually has a district court ruling that has been stayed. The 10th Circuit decisions in Kitchen and Bishop by themselves are not enough because another case will need to be decided for Wyoming, based on those two rulings as precedent. All of that is also true about Kansas. My understanding is that there are currently no active marriage equality cases in the entire state. Kansas should not be gold which is the same as Utah and Oklahoma. Gold is also inappropriate for any of the states right now in the 4th Circuit. The 4th Circuit decision has not taken effect yet, but it's also not stayed. This is a situation where a transitory color would be useful for Virginia only. West Virginia should stay red and North and South Carolina should stay dark red until courts actually rule in those states just like Wyoming and Kansas. Begruber (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So right now both jurisdictions are colored marriage blue on account of pro-marriage rulings that are on hold temporarily (until a future stay comes in). Since both jurisdictions have set dates where marriages will start unless appeals happen, they are considered akin to a same-sex marriage bill being passed but not yet in effect. However, is this current precedent accurate? A signed marriage equality bill cannot be appealed or stayed, whereas the current situation of Colorado and the Fourth Circuit is highly likely to be reverted. Since having these areas be blue is somewhat misleading, and Wiki is meant to inform above all else, I feel we should revert these two areas to the stayed colors, and scrap the temporary stay precedent we have with Colorado. Instead, we would include a temporary stay or a lack of order with the stays on appeal, meaning a judicial ruling would turn a state
This would be the new map, with the marriage blue limited to states currently issuing licenses state-wide. Dralwik|Have a Chat23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is not inaccurate: the Washington bill was actually passed by the legislature and signed into law, but then suspended following a petition until the November referendum in which it was upheld. Drawing an analogy, this would be equivalent to a judgement throwing out a ban being stayed pending appeal. On the map, I'll find it misleading because:
The Virginia judgement from the 4th Circuit has not been stayed (it might be, of course)
The other states have not had their bans overthrown yet; maybe the 4th Circuit will actually do just that when it files its order, or maybe the several district courts that were waiting in all other states for the appeals court to rule will simply use the precedent they are now bound to follow. Either way, those bans seem to have a short life ahead of them, but they are not down yet.
My disagreements with the map: 1. Virginia should be blue for now, as there is no stay, and we have a date for the mandate to take effect blue when it goes into immediate effect (parties can petition to speed up or delay issuance of the mandate, though, and a petition for rehearing will delay that as well), 2. NC, SC, and WV should be red, as there are no judgments in any of the cases pending in U.S. district court in those states (see above); the stay of proceedings in NC, SC, and WC cases have not even been vacated!, and 3. Colorado is currently in a similar situation as Virginia, so should be blue as well, until an indefinite stay pending appeal is ordered.MarkGT (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and KS and WY should also be red, using my logic for NC, SC, and WV (KS and WY do not have cases in U.S. district court yet to challenge their state's SSM ban, so that gives more evidence for being red).Edit: WY has a state court case, Courage v. Wyoming, challenging the ban, but I think that case is still in it's preliminary stages, far from judgment and appeal. MarkGT (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re Habbit "maybe the 4th Circuit will actually do just that when it files its order": The Fourth Circuit has filed it's judgment order. It's on PACER. There's no stay, and the mandate will only apply to Virginia. MarkGT (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dralwik's map above is the most accurate depiction of the current situation: there are no marriages happening now as a result of Bostic, so no state should be turned blue. And Colorado's ruling is stayed, so it should still be striped. And given the alternatives of two new colors for states subject to higher court precedent, or, re-using Gold and Yellow, I'd support the latter. Mw843 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's consensus for that. My opinion is the exact opposite of yours, as I would keep CO and VA blue, and get rid of this nonsense of precedent = judgment and mandate. Thus I would have NC, SC, WV, KS, and WY as red. Problem is we never established any ground rules for the map, they were made up as we went along, and now we have a mess. And stays are going to be granted, attorney generals are going to/not going to appeal, etc. so the situation is in flux and I'm glad I stayed out of the map debate for so long, maybe I should keep out of it...it's a headache! MarkGT (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much text here to respond to everything individually, so I will just try to sum up my opinion here. Colorado should be blue since there is only a temporary stay, I don't think we should try to re-write the consensus here as doing so may violate WP:CRYSTAL. Now as for the more complicated 4th circuit status, we should wait until the final order. If the final order has an indefinite stay, then we should color them the appropriate stay colors; on the other hand, if the stay is only temporary then to avoid violating WP:CRYSTAL (by assuming something will happen however likely that something is) we must color the circuit SSM blue. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re Thegreyanomalywe should wait until the final order: There is a "final" order in Bostic, the judgment order. It's on PACER. There is no stay in the order, and it says the judgment becomes final when the mandate issues (A mandate issues no earlier than 21 days before the judgment to give parties time to appeal). If a party or intervenor wants a stay, they have to file a motion in the Fourth Circuit, and if denied, the U.S. Supreme Court. I could check PACER to see if anything's been filed, but even if one was, the Fourth would have to rule on it and that takes time. Edit: as the mandate, by definition, will be directed to the U.S. district court where the case originates from, it only affects Virginia. MarkGT (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to MarkGT later, but Prcc27 that idea violates WP:CRYSTAL as it presumes laws will change before they go into effect. For a short period of time somehow a consensus like that had formed (go far back enough into the archives and you will find it, it was in spring/summer of 2012), but luckily no one wanted to follow it (i.e., people updated multiple states when bills were signed anyways and no one reverted them) and the original and current consensus took back hold. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: No it's not. When I suggested to wait til the law goes into effect for Hawai'i I wasn't suggesting it because I thought the law was gonna change (even though it did). The reason I suggested it is because this map should show the current status of marriage. When a law is passed and hasn't gone into effect nothing changes and neither should the map. Prcc27 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: No it is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. A bill is signed into law, once a bill is signed it is the law regardless if it is in effect or not. For example, Obamacare was signed in 2010, parts of the bills are still not in effect, but the entirety of the two Obamacare bills are still entirely the law. By not updating the map when the bill becomes laws supposes that the bills might not be laws when the enforcement date comes around. That supposition is violation WP:CRYSTAL. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never commented here nor edited the map, but I keep both up on my phone to chech from time to time. Why not create a new color for states "in limbo" and put the 10th and 4th circuit states under that? It could be something like "higher court precedent set legalizing SSM, but no specific rulings yet in this state." It would basically signify these states do not have legal SSM, but the status of their bans is very fragile and will likely be overturned very soon. Perhaps bring back the very light red previously used for statute-only bans? Maybe even bring grey back?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the Sixth (KY, OH, MI, TN), Seventh (WI, IN), and Ninth (ID, AZ, NV, MT, AK, Guam) Circuits hearing oral arguments this August and early September, and the rulings coming out in the fall (likely upholding same-sex marriage, almost certain in the Ninth) we're going to have trouble with the map. If we color based on circuit precedent, the whole map will be (mostly) either gold or blue. Perhaps it's meant to be so and we just accept it? Edit: If we come to consensus on a color for the Fourth Circuit "precedent only" states of NC, SC, and WV, we must be consistent and use that same color for the Tenth Circuit states of WY and KS.MarkGT (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about this? The light red is for states where higher court precedent has been set but no ruling has been made in those states. NC, SC, and WV are all striped with this color due to the 4th circuit ruling. Virginia is blue because there is no stay yet and the 4th circuit ruling applies directly to them; if there is a stay, it will turn gold. KS and WY now show the bans since they're still legally in place but have this "precedent" stripe due to the 10th circuit ruling(s). CO, the most complicated state, is triple-striped, showing the stay on their marriage ban, that they allow unions, and that a precedent is set by the 10th circuit. UT and OK both remain gold since the stayed 10th circuit ruling applies directly to them. If any other circuit courts make rulings, the states affected will all be striped light red. I feel it's the most accurate statement, and though it might be a little messy, so is the legality of marriage in these states, so I think it accurately reflects reality.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try one with gold stripes instead of light red/pink? It's worth a try, but from what I've seen the map people put up a big debate over stripes themselves. MarkGT (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are three different shades of gold/yellow already and only two reds, so that's one reason I went with the light red. I feel like the precedent color needs to be distinct from the stay colors, and coming up with a gold color distinct enough for accessibility would be harder to do. Also, I stuck with a reddish color since the ban was still technically in place, so it should be on the "negative" side of the scale. I don't really think another gold color would be the best option, but I'll see if I can find one suitable.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd favor the status quo of coloring the circuits per the outcome of Circuit court orders over adding yet more stripes to the map. Dralwik|Have a Chat03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YES! As an attorney and an outside observer, the "precedent striping" makes the most sense. I've never liked the fact that Wyoming and Kansas looked the same as Utah and Oklahoma, for example. This still doesn't solve the Virginia conundrum, but it solves everything else. 72.83.5.212 (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suport the orange color striping, prefer it over the light red/pink . However, the reason I suggested gold stripeson red is, not because gold is the "stay" color, but it's a color that signifies a same-sex marriage ban was "struck down". I would interpret the gold striping over dark red as "precedent as unconstitutional, but ban still in place." Try and think of it that way. Good job with the orange.MarkGT (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this over adding more stripes. I really do not think the legal point at question here is worth introducing another round of stripes. Dralwik|Have a Chat04:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer pink over orange and yellow btw. Prcc27 (talk)
Another lengthy debate about the map. These never go well and we haven't learned yet. This time I involved myself and I swore I never would. I'm going to kindly excuse myself, discard my opinions, and I'll be happy with whatever comes out of the discussion process. Good night. MarkGT (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we don't need more colors. If MarkGT's explanation why the orders don't apply to other states if accurate, then leave the states the appropriate shade of red. If it is inaccurate, then leave them gold/blue depending on whether the stay is indefinite (if the stay is indefinite then gold). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this proposal. To be honest I don't believe Kansas and Wyoming are in the same situation as Oklahoma and Wyoming, Kansas doesn't even have a ssm case against its ban that will affects it directly just for tax only, so the ban would not be affect.Meanwhile I agree that NC,SC,and WV bans will be struck in the coming days there is still not a ruling against them so the ban is still in force. The ruling I read just set a precedent they do not directly strike them down. So I believe the orange stripping would be correct in this situation. When the six circuit gives its ruling the same might happen to Tennessee and Ohio because there bans have not been struck down like Kentucky and Michigan have.--Allan120102 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the situation is quiet easy now: all states in 4th circuit (exept Maryland) should have same colour like, for exmaple, Kansas and Wyoming (depending the type of ban - constitutional or statutory). M.Karelin (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat easy, but I think it's not as easy as you proposed. I propose that CO and VA stay blue until further INDEFINITE stays are issued; for UT and OK, since there have been multiple direct rulings striking down their own SSM bans, they should stay gold as they are right now; as for SC, NC, WV under 4th, in my opinion they should go with KS and WY under 10th, maybe "precedent for higher courts striking SSM ban, but ban still in effect, for now." As for the coloring for that new, nuanced category, I have no preference whether they go gold as well, or they get assigned another new color that specifies their unique and temporary status, as long as all these limbo states are in the same color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.122.154 (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Same speaker as above] Just do let me know if there is a consensus to add a new color, because I've been doing the Mandarin color explanation for a while, and would like to beat the German translators and the Dutch translators for once. Man, they are fast! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.122.154 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As we are returning to the topic, is there any sort of consensus on weather we should merge certain categories, create a transition color, or add a distinction for states under a precedent? I Agree to all. And for someone more familiar with law: Would all the states in the 4th Circuit be in the new "transition" category until they appeal, or are they just under precedent? In summation, the proposals are: create a transition color for states that have had ssm bans repealed, but have not yet appealed or been put into effect (color cannot be any shade of green or purple. Can possibly be limited/enumerated rights blue if it is decided to remove that category), remove the distinction between constitutional and statutory bans (this would likely result in all ban states being dark red and all appealed states being gold), possibly removing the "limited/enumerated rights" category, and adding a color for states that fall under a precedent (previously proposed as light red). See "Arbitrary Break 2" for the previous discussion. CRM28 (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the colors for states like Viriginia and Colorado where the law takes effect until August. If there is no appeal. I also support changing the colors for states like Kansas, Wyoming, South and North Carolina, and West Virginia where the ban has not been struck down directly.Not going to propose colors until I see if there is going to be a change or not. Right now is 2-0, but if we are going to say about colors I believe a light blue would do ok with states like Colorado and Virginia and light red to the ones like Kansas, Wyoming, NC,SC,and WV.--Allan120102 (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we get rid of light blue we can use that as the transition color and use the current statue stay color as a precedent color. If we don't get rid of light blue (which I support getting rid of) we can use the statue stay color as the transition color and the light red as the precedent color. I support the transition/not yet in effect color and the precedent color. Prcc27 (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one where the ban colors and the stay colors have been consolidated. The "limited" recognition in Wisconsin has been grouped with the unions in Colorado and Nevada as "unions or other rights favorable to same-sex partnerships" (or whatever the best wording would be). The old limited color is used for the transition states of VA and CO, although CO still has a stripe for its recognition of unions. I used the old statute stay color for the precedent of the 4th/10th circuits.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think they both look great and I would be fine with either one. I really appreciate the work. I do think the light red makes a bit more sense since the states still have a ban, it's just legally more likely for that ban to be struck down, so a "softer" red would categorically flow better. In precedent states, nothing has really been appealed yet, so it doesn't need a yellow/beige affiliation. I would still be ok with either. Do we have a consensus or should we wait for more opinions? CRM28 (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think either is fine. I'd hold off putting either out until someone who is color-blind has weighed in. But, re:Ohio ... if a color is only used in one state, is it time to drop the color and add a footnote? Mw843 (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ohio can stay the way it is for now. There is a hearing scheduled in August were the 6th circuit that will consider the bans in 4 states, including Ohio, potentially changing it's color on the map in a month or so. If it's going to be changed relatively quickly anyway (unlike the Wisconsin situation), I think discussing taking it off the color scheme would cause unnecessary debate when so many things are already in the table. I understand where you're coming from though. CRM28 (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Begruber 's commentary from "Arbitrary Break 3" and I think it should be reflected in the map and can be done so with the new colors (with the minor exception that WV will be dark red and not red since we're merging constitutional and statutory bans). CRM28 (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support any moves to merge statute bans and constitutional bans. We just collapsed SSM/CU/DP ban amendments and SSM ban amendments fairly recently, I don't think collapsing all types of bans into one color is at all appropriate. These are important distinctions. As for Wisconsin, I really would like to keep it light blue, but I am more amenable to knocking out that color for the transitional color. Basically, what I am saying is if we keep the statute color in Dudemanfellabra's test map, I will back it. Also, let's wait a few days before anyone makes any moves so we can build a true consensus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that if it helps us get an over all consensus for the important new colors. I am worried about the map being too busy. Would we need to create a lighter light red for Wyoming if we are keeping the distinction? CRM28 (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. How are they "important" distinctions? If I'm someone in West Virginia that wants to marry a same-sex partner, does it really matter that it's a statute keeping me from doing so or if it's a state constitutional amendment? The reality on the ground is that people in that state can't get married, as is the reality in e.g. Mississippi--there is no practical difference in the two. With the plethora of nuanced situations such as Virginia's, Colorado's, Utah's, etc., which require further explanation than "can marry" or "cannot marry", it is overkill to distinguish between "the state legislature says you cannot marry" and "the state constitution says you cannot marry". We should consolidate as much as possible without losing track of the ability to get married in each state in order to keep the map as simple as possible.
The ability of a couple in West Virginia to get married is the same as that in Mississippi (modulo the 4th circuit ruling)... people in both states cannot get married. Period. There is nothing stopping people in Virginia and Colorado at this time from getting married after their respective enactment dates. People in Kentucky, Arkansas, Idaho, and all the other stayed states have been told they can get married, but they are waiting (indefinitely) on affirmation from higher courts. People in Nevada can get a civil union, but they cannot get married. These cases are different at face value from somewhere like West Virginia and Mississippi, where no one has been told they can get married at any point in time. This map is--at least to me, and from what it sounds like here it is the same to many others--a reflection of the ability of people in each state to get married. At present, people in West Virginia and people in Mississippi are in the same boat--they can't get married--and so should appear identical on this map.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both pictures looks cool but like others I believe the light red would make sense. I agree with Dudemanfellabra.It doesn't matter if there is a statutory ban or a constitutional amendment The point is no on can get marry in those states. Btw the ones that have statutory ban like WY,WV,and Indiana there ban have been struck down directly or indirectly so I don't see the point the remaining one is PR and I believe pretty soon there ban would go too. Virignia and Colorado look cool, couldn't have make that map so congrats to the creator of this one. I believe there is only vote against and the others in favor. I believe lets wait two more days and see the consensus.--Allan120102 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I oppose - Legally, they are substantially different from amendments. This is a map of laws; these are substantially different kinds of laws. They are very much significant. A statute can be knocked out based on the US Constitution or the State Constitution and can be removed by the legislature, while an amendment means that only the US Constitution can be used as a basis to remove the ban. Also, by focusing more on LGBT-friendly laws over LGBT-unfriendly laws likely violates WP:POV. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, two days is not enough time, and some of the people above have said they are clearly against adding or re-arranging colors. Just because the opposition is not in this specific section does not mean it can be overlooked. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to why, on the current map, Wyoming and Kansas are different colors from West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Whether there's a different color for precedent or not (and I 1) oppose different color for precedent, and 2) think it shouldn't even be marked on the map--that is, Wyoming and Kansas should be red), Wyoming and Kansas are in the same situation as West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. After all, the courts have been pretty clear (by ruling separately for Oklahoma than for Utah; by the District court having to rule for Colorado rather than taking it as a given) that the rulings in Utah and Oklahoma only set a precedent but don't actually apply directly.68.40.169.63 (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support Dudemanfellabra's second test map above which uses red as the precedent color to indicate the states with bans still in place but which are also located in circuits that have ruled other states' bans unconstitutional. I strongly disagree with Thegreyanomaly regarding the current significance of the distinction between statutory bans and constitutional bans. In the past, this difference was truly significant. But now that all the states that were likely to change their statutes have done so, it's not a big deal. Sure, Indiana, Wyoming and West Virginia could theoretically do it, but the political reality is they won't. I support the transitional color with the caveat that the footnotes must reflect that light blue includes states with decisions that have been stayed for a fixed amount of time (i.e., Colorado) and gold only represents states with rulings stayed indefinitely pending appeal. Finally, I have a question for the group. Since this map accompanies the article on same-sex marriage, and all these court decisions focus on marriage, is it still necessary to show civil unions and domestic partnerships on this map? Eliminating the stripes from Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin would make the map much less busy and eliminate another color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Begruber (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a separate map devoted to same sex unions similar to marriage that can be accessed from the main map page. I think this information is important in general, but since there is a map specifically for unions and such I see no problem with taking it off the marriage map. However, if there is too much opposition against this idea I would be willing to drop it, since it is a radical change. I do think all of these major changes are needed as the general landscape of ssm has changed. People mainly focus on the many unique legal situations for states going through appeals and what new states have had a ban lifted. There is no longer focus on the different types of bans and the different types of partnerships; it's about where in the legal journey ssM is being established in each state. CRM28 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also support collapsing the color categories and simplifying the map. I agree that a single color for bans, regardless of whether they are constitutional or statutory, is sufficient. While there are legal nuances that make the bans technically different, I don't think this map needs to distinguish them. I also like the transitional colors as a compromise between flipping a state when a law is signed or when it is enforced. I am somewhat ambivalent toward the 'precedent' color, as there hasn't been any change in the law in those states; personally I'd prefer they just stayed red until their bans are challenged in court, since while it is a bygone conclusion that such a challenge would succeed, it's still kind of speculative of us to say "this is what is going to happen sometime in the future". I won't fight too hard against the inclusion of this color, however. Shereth15:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would stripe Virginia light blue-gold and Colorado medium blue-light blue-gold. I don't think we should ignore the ssm bans. Prcc27 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we are lumping the statute/amendment gold and red shades, then the striping is too much as it could just be addressed in the legend entry and/or footnote that the legal stays are temporary. I really don't think we are going to have SSM bills come out of any legislature (and we don't have reliable sources saying they are being discussed in the remaining states/territories with statutes), so states being in the transitional state will always be due to the courts. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally forgot that initiative was still going on. Anyways, November 2016 is very far off, so we won't have to deal with that or any other ban reversals for a quite while. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: How do you propose we distinguish between a state with a ban that legalized ssm and a territory without a ban that legalized ssm; a footnote? Tbh, it might be unfair to pussyfoot our way out of striping by adding a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just agree to cross that bridge when we get there. We can word it such that it says that the state either has a temporary stay or a new statute/amendment is not yet in effect. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the new precedent color as well as coloring Colorado and Virginia light blue. This idea neatly solves the issue of Colorado and Virginia not being full marriage states yet. My personal preference is probably the pink precedent color, since the precedent states still have their bans in force. Dralwik|Have a Chat17:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially against changes by just adding more colors on top of the existing map, but I do like the idea of consolidating colors and refarming existing colors for other purposes. I definitely think that the Wisconsin "limited privileges" color can either be consolidated with the Nevada civil unions color or just removed entirely. I also think maintaining the distinction between statutory bans and constitutional bans is no longer very relevant, as courts seem to be just as willing to overturn constitutional bans as statutory bans. If these color consolidations happen, then I would support using the light blue color for Virginia and Colorado. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we take CUs/DPs off the map (which has been suggested, but is to early to call consensus on), then we don't have much to worry about. I think we would change the transition marriage states to the medium blue and use the bright blue to stripe states transitioning into recognizing foreign marriage. If we don't get rid of those categories, but we consolidate CUs and DPs (an idea with more agreement), we could have another color to stripe the states with. It's more of a "cross that bridge when we come to it" thing since we're already discussing so many possible changes. CRM28 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've very recently had the discussion to take off CU/DPs, it is not a battle to fight again. Please, just leave it alone. Foreign recognition can probably stay the medium grey it currently is. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that merging the constitutional and statutory bans would make editing much easier as we wouldn't need to make two colors to represent every one category we come up with. It's just going to make the map unnecessarily busy at this point. CRM28 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to discuss the wording for the light blue, I am genuinely concerned about it. Also, I'm not sure the precedent color should be red.. technically, both yellow and red states alike ban ssm. Since the precedent is a result of a judicial ruling I think coloring the precedent color yellow would also work. I would use the current Ohio cream color for the precedent color and use the current statute stay color for Ohio. Both colors seem to make at least some sense though. Prcc27 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is to be a color for precedents, I strongly prefer the red to the yellow. Staying in the red 'family' makes sense as the bans in those states are intact and there has yet to be any kind of successful challenge against it; changing to a yellow hue creates the impression that there has been some kind of successful challenge to the ban. Since there's been no change to the law in these states I see no reason to jump to a different hue. Shereth03:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the light blue wording, an example to build off of would be "Same Sex Marriage Ban Repealed but still in Effect". CRM28 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CRM28: Wording can't reference a ssm ban because what if a territory with no law prohibiting same-sex marriage legalizes it..?
We still need a CU/DP transition color, (possibly a recognition transition color), and a ssm ban transition color. Also, what happens if a state is transitioning from ban to stay; red with footnote, right..? Prcc27 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How 'bout "Same-sex marriage legalized but not yet in effect" as the wording. (I don't see how we're going to pussyfoot our way out of striping states light blue and gold/red/light gray). My proposed coloring for a CU/DP transition color would be to use the cream (currently used on Ohio) and bump Ohio up to yellow (current statute stay color). Also, what if there's a precedent for a partial same-sex marriage ban being struck down..? Should we use pink as a partial precedent color?
Actually, cream could be used for a recognition transition and another color for a CU/DP transition. We still need a ssm ban transition color too..! Prcc27 (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think having all these transition colors might overwhelm the map so I am withdrawing support for transition colors (for now). I still support having (two) precedent colors however. Prcc27 (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we change the wording to be more inclusive, we would only need one color for ssm/cu/dp/foreign recognition allowed but not in effect and one color for ssm/cu/dp/foreign recognition banned but not in effect, since I agree so many colors would over power the map. Wording might be "Same Sex Marriage or Recognition Ban or Union Similar to Marriage Ban repealed but not in Effect" and "Same Sex Marriage, Recognition or Similar Union Banned but not in effect". We could change the appeal color to the same wording and then Ohio would be striped gold. If we were taking CUs and DPs off the map, we would have less of a problem, but there is definitely no consensus on that. I think the blue that we have is fine for more ssm "positive" transitions and a pink is good for ssm "negative" transitions (I do not mean to sound partisan, it's just whether ssm is being added or taken away). The only color change I might make is to swap out the blue for transition and the blue for Unions and Partnerships because one is closer to marriage than the other, but that's more arbitrary. CRM28 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have more of a consensus for the light red precedent color, and possibly combining Constitutional and Statutory situations. Are we ready to change the map to at least those? I still think the addition of many transition colors should wait to be disused until there is a situation for them, but I do see your point. I am still in favor of the transition color, but it does need to be worked out and I don't think that will happen very soon. We should change the map to what we do have consensus on (when it is agreed we have a consensus) so we don't have to make all the proposed changes at once and over whelm people with such a difference. CRM28 (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Partial Precedent needs an explanation, and I don't see a need for it unless it is to refers to precedent on CUs/DPs/Recognition. It should also be noted that not all of the suggested colors (especially the many possible transition color categories) are not going on the map right away. They are just being discussed for the times we may need them in the future so we have a procedure for if/when those situations come up. I think if the discussion gets too arduous it CAN be put off until an applicable situation comes up, but it is a good idea to have a plan to prevent future arguments. I am not sure how the editing process for changing the map works, but if it makes it easier I am for changing the precedent color to the bright red so we can recycle it. CRM28 (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every current circuit court considering a "recognition" case is also considering a full marriage case. In the case of Ohio (the only "recognition" state on the map right now), that case (Henry v. Himes) has been consolidated with the full marriage case (Obergefell v. Wymyslo) so that the rulings will be handed down at the same time. The same has happened in Kentucky, and as far as I know, no other circuits are considering only a recognition ban. Any ruling will apply to full marriage as well as recognition, so the full marriage color would take precedence. The same argument applies to CUs/DPs.. pretty much everyone is gunning for full marriage now, so these "halfway" cases are being eclipsed.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It seems a little counterproductive to let this discussion get hung up on the minutiae of numerous what-if situations that just might pop up down the road. Shereth03:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there are several parts to this proposal, and from what I can gather from the above comments, here is how the consensus stands, based on explicit references to support or opposition. Feel free to add in anyone I missed and update the counts:
Consolidating "limited" with "similar" in WI (6-0): Dudemanfellabra, Prcc27, Rreagan007, Dralwik, Thegreyanomaly, Habbit support
Precedent color for 4th, 10th circuits (6/7-3): Dudemanfellabra, Allan120102, CRM28, Begruber, Dralwik, Mw843 support; 68.40.169.63, Shereth, Habbit oppose; Prcc27 would support only conditionally but under exclusive conditions (one vs. several colors). Thegreyanomaly neutral
Transition color for VA, CO (7/9-2): Dudemanfellabra, Prcc27 (conditional), Allan120102, CRM28, Begruber, Shereth, Dralwik, Rreagan (conditional on 1 and 2) support; Mw843, Habbit oppose; Thegreyanomaly weak support in order to kill the proposal to update when enforced.
I'd call that pretty overwhelming consensus for all of these measures. Am I misrepresenting anything? If not, should we go ahead and update the map.. before long, the proposal for transition colors will be moot anyway since the deadline is quickly approaching.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudemanfellabra: I don't really support a transition color because it seems nearly impossible for us to come up with one for marriage, recognition, other unions, and bans (we'd have to have two colors for bans if we don't consolidate the two red colors, same goes for the two lightest blues). It's very unlikely I'd support a transition color. If I did, I would only support it if we striped a state with the transition color. As for the precedent color, I only support it if we have two precedent colors. But there is a good point being made that the ban is still intact and the precedent doesn't really change anything so... I'm kindy neutral, weak support at the most. Prcc★27 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After 4 days of discussion I think we can make the editing call. I think the Transition color discussion was still important as the situation will almost definitely come up again. CRM28 (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on 1: A color for just one state or a footnote: both are equally offensive. Support 2: At this point, the differences between statute and constitutional bans are moot. Support 3: A precedent hanging over a state like the Sword of Damocles is not a stay, but should be noted. Oppose 4: A stay is a stay, whether it has a fixed expiry date or not. Mw843 (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: That's my point: They shouldn't be. The 4th Circuit ruling in Virginia becomes effective in a couple of weeks, in the meantime the stay stands. All the rulings in Colorado are stayed - whether or not there is an expiry date doesn't matter - it's a stay.
@Mw843:So are you for or against a transitional color, that's what I'm confused about!? Also, I already changed the wording to make it clear that the stays are indefinite.Prcc★27 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Transition color isn't for stays, it's for the few days after a ruling is issued before a stay. I have no argument about turning Virginia Gold about it's stay weather or not it is indefinite, but having a transition color on hold is a good idea to prevent arguments and chaos whenever a new state has a ruling. CRM28 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Prcc27. We're still staying in the red family reusing colors is preferred to making new ones, ind it might make editing easier. CRM28 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be as active as I want to be right now. I begrudgingly support 1 in order to make a transition color for states with temporary stays (i.e., I support 4). The original proposal to by Prcc27 to update when laws come into enforcement has been tried and failed; the transition color is a much better alternative if people don't like VA/CO dark blue. I oppose 2, but I don't have the time or energy to fight it. I will only support 3 if we limit it to one precedent color.Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CLARIFICATION: Regarding #3, after thinking it over, my support is very weak, so weak that I am best considered neutral. Regarding #4, I prefer the current situation, but if people are so appalled by CO/VA being blue, I will support a transition color. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been out for the weekend. I support 1 to clear the map of unneccessary colors, since this is a map for same-sex marriage, not generic LGBT rights. I also support 2 because from the point of view of a couple wishing to marry, there is little difference between a state constitutional or a statutory ban. However, I oppose 4 because I feel the way we were handling such situations before (change as soon as the law is enacted, turn gold if stayed/suspended) was the right way. Finally, I'm ambivalent on the remaining proposal, I think it will just overcomplicate the map, so I oppose 3. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 16:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my position : I wholeheartedly support #1 and #2. I'm still opposed to #3, I don't see why a precedent needs to be shown on the map since the bans are still in effect in those states and it has no bearing on the right to marry. I support #4. Shereth16:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support from 3 for now in order to reach a consensus as long as Wyoming and Kansas stay red and not gold. I still support 1,2, & 4. In think we can call consensus on 1. CRM28 (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If we do not have consensus for a precedent color (as it so seems), what purpose does collapsing statue/amendment bans serve? If we are not repurposing a shade of red, what harm is there in retaining statute/amendment differentiation? I understanding merging mblue and lblue to make room for the not-yet-in-enforcement color, but we don't have a similar justification for merging mred and dred. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally simplifying and updating the map to reflect things more relevant to the time and the populous. Freeing up colors is always good for potential new situations. Currently, only one state is using the yellow for this distinction and there is always discussion on removing a color when only one state is using it, especially when the distinction seems no longer relevant to some people, as with Wisconsin. CRM28 (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding the situation. People are supporting removing the light blue from Wisconsin in order to re-use that color. People are arguing to consolidate some information in order to make room for other information. That is not the case as it currently stands with regard to the red shades. People are arguing for removing the statute ban information without reusing that color. There is no benefit here in removing information that is already present (and not using that color to re-add information). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that consolidating colors for bans/stays is not worth it if we are not adding a transition color or a precedent color. There's no use taking information off the map if we're not adding more. I would be fine with not adding a precedent color if all we got was a transition color (which would kind of necessitate consolidating the limited/union colors, unless someone can come up with another blueish color distinct from the three we already have), but the main reason I suggested the precedent color in the first place was to head off people updating the map claiming that the 10th/4th/later circuits rulings apply to all states in that circuit. If there was at least some recognition of that on the map, people would be less likely to turn those states blue or gold. It would also help to educate the general public to the fact that the bans in those states have not been explicitly overturned until a case specific to those states has gone through the system.
It seems 1 and 4 are clearly passing through. I am going out, but when I get back, I am going to start to write up some drafts for the legend entries for the new medium blue and new light blue as well as prepare a map with VA/CO light blue and Wisconsin's light blue swapped out for medium blue. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a map I made [19] Pennsylvania is marked as having same-sex marriage but passing a same-sex marriage ban law that has not yet gone into effect, Colorado is marked as legalizing same-sex marriage, having civil unions, and having a judicial ruling against a ban, Virginia is marked as legalizing same-sex marriage and having a judicial ruling against a ban, Guam is marked as having no law for or against same-sex marriage but passing a same-sex marriage ban, and American Samoa is marked as legalizing same-sex marriage and having no law for or against same-sex marriage. Prcc★27 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No to the stripes; that defeats the purpose of transition colors. States in transition periods should be solid colors (unless they already have CU/DPs like Colorado, Nevada, and Wisconsin). There has not been a stay in Virginia, so it should not be gold at all but rather solid light blue. I see what you've done with the light red standing for passing a ban that is not yet in effect, but it took me a second to figure out these were hypothetical cases.. I thought you'd gone off the deep end or something. If in the future a case like that came up, I could maybe support adding a transition color for it too (though I wouldn't support striping, just coloring the state fully that color), but in all honesty I don't really see that happening. Any state that would pass a ban has already done so, so it's really not necessary at this time. Other than that, I'm fine with everything else on the map.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudemanfellabra:De jure vs. De facto Even if same-sex marriage is legalized, people should be able to know what's keeping same-sex couples from marrying. Is it a ban on same-sex marriage (De jure discrimination) or does the law not say whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or illegal (De facto discrimination)? Furthermore, if a state where same-sex marriage is legal bans same-sex marriage but the ban isn't in effect yet, striping would be very helpful because it shows that same-sex couples can currently get married, but a ban was passed that will prevent them from being able to get married/receive marriage benefits in the future. Assuming that there won't be any more states that pass a ban is a violation of WP:SPECULATION. As for Virginia, there is a stay; the stay from the district court hasn't been lifted. Once the circuit court decision goes into effect the stay will no longer be in effect. Prcc★27 (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have consensus to touch the reds (yet, if ever). We have consensus for changing the blues, not the reds. There are no reliable sources indicated new SSM-bans are in the works in the near future, and generally bans are effective immediate (e.g., Proposition 8 and the 2012 North Carolina ban). Also, please don't unilaterally change the map as you have. We have been functioning on the consensus of updating when legalized for a quite a while now. The road how we got there is irrelevant. Give me five minutes, and I will load a test image for what has actually been approved in the discussion above. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The success of proposals 1 and 4, means the map should look like this unless. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if a circuit court rules that same-sex marriage bans are constitutional but the order hasn't gone into effect yet giving time for appeal? Furthermore, if state legislatures propose a ssm ban and the governor signs it, the ban would most likely not go into effect right away. Also, Colorado is missing a stripe for Civil Unions. Prcc★27 (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We will cross those bridges when they arrive. If a ban does not go into effect right away, we'll deal with that when and if it happens. Let's deal with situations when they actually arise. As for Colorado, good notice, I am about to shutdown, so I'll fix that tomorrow. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is if a state legalizes same-sex marriage recognition it is going to go from light blue to dark gray (yikes!) Maybe the transition color should be dark gray and the recognition color light blue. Furthermore, I don't like the idea of clumping ssm, ssm recognition, and CUs/DPs into one transition category. Also, are you going to touch on my De jure discrimination vs. De facto discrimination argument? It's an important one! Prcc★27 (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We (i.e., everyone) can proposal alternative coloration schemes if necessary, but for now this is what was approved in the discussion. A footnote can list why each light blue state is light blue. De facto discrimination is handled by light grey (look at the territories, the grey means no laws but still no SSM). I need to sleep now, I will look at your points more closely when I have some time. We have no reliable sources indicated new CU/DP states are coming. We have reliable sources based on court rulings that more SSM states may arrive. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's what I'm saying! Jurisdictions should be striped transition-red/yellow or transition-light gray to distinguish between de jure and de facto discrimination (but you didn't catch what I was saying because you're probably sleepy and you said you have to look at my points more closely). In the future there could still be states that legalize CUs/DPs, we don't know for sure whether or not this will be the case so we should be prepared. We should also be prepared for a state banning same-sex marriage but not having it go into effect. Prcc★27 (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to prepare for new CU/DPs or SSM-bans, the same way people in Missouri don't need to have earthquake drills (as are common in California). There are a limited number of scenarios we can prepare for, and we don't have any reliable sources indicating they are coming (just Missourians don't have reliable data to say they need to worry about EQs). You are going to deep into the hypotheticals. If those hypotheticals ever have some probability of occurring we will figure something out then, but we can't prepare in advance for every unlikely scenario. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I just randomly picked a state in the middle of the country. I probably should have picked another state, but I think my point is understood. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what you meant; I just enjoy the irony of you picking as a safe state the one that produced earthquakes perhaps stronger than the 1906 San Francisco quake. If the New Madrid quakes were as strong as the higher end of estimates, they'd be the strongest recorded earthquakes in the US outside of Alaska. Dralwik|Have a Chat18:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to comment on my De facto v. De jure comment..? It explains why states have to be striped with the transition color. Prcc★27 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose: It should say legalized not legal. Also, states would have to be striped to distinguish between de jure & de facto discrimination. Prcc★27 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That wording is somewhat awkward. I'd prefer something more like: "Same-sex marriage legalized by judicial ruling, but not yet performed." Rreagan007 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that wording either. It makes no mention of same-sex marriage recognition, what if Ohio legalizes same-sex marriage recognition..? Also, same-sex marriage might not always be legalized by a judicial ruling. Nevada is working on legalizing it through the legislatures to create a referendum that would ultimately leave it up to the voters. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are throwing a lot of "what-ifs" in there. IF those things happen, then we can revise the wording at that time. But I don't think we should be making the wording any more complicated than it needs to be at the present time
They are not "what-ifs", both are very much plausible. Nevada is in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage through legislative action (and referendum), Ohio is in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage recognition. Ohio's case for recognition was just heard yesterday. Why do we have to pussyfoot our way out of wording it so then it will apply to recognition states and states that legalize it through legislative action? Prcc★27 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legislative legalization in Nevada would be over 2 years away at the earliest, and it is much more likely that some court will swoop in before that and legalize marriage in Nevada. As for Ohio, if that happens all we have to do is add 2 words at the end: "Same-sex marriage legalized by judicial ruling, but not yet performed or recognized. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Same-sex marriage legalized by judicial ruling*, but not yet performed and/or recognized†
* I don't approve of the judicial ruling reference, saying that there won't be a statute legalizing same-sex marriage violates WP:SPECULATION.
† If you add "or" instead of "and/or", people will think that when same-sex marriage goes into effect, it will be performed and recognized.Grammatically speaking, it might be "nor" not "or". I'm actually not sure, is nor appropriate here..? Prcc★27 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and/or" is generally considered poor grammar. The "and" is unnecessary, because, in English, the inclusive use of "or" (rather than the exclusive use of "or") is considered to be the standard usage of "or". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The wording makes it seem like a state legalized the performance and recognition of same-sex marriage but both of them are not yet in effect. If a recognition state is colored as this, people will think they also legalized the performance of same-sex marriage because it says it's "not yet performed." Also, since ssm states usually perform and recognize anyway, the wording should include recognition as of if/when this proposal goes into effect. Prcc★27 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I seem to always be a few comments behind, so I can't contribute much to the discussion. Since the discussion with wording is going well enough without me, I won't be commenting for a while. You have my agreement for whatever wording you reach, as long as the transition color is used. I also withdraw my support for Precedent colors for now. CRM28 (talk) 7 Aug 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.17.13 (talk)
Wow, everyone's still going at it. I'm going to stay out of the debate on whether the map should be changed, but if it is changed, I oppose the wording. "Legalized" is clumsy, as it's too similar to "legal." I would suggest:
"State ban on same-sex marriage struck down as unconstitutional in court; however, same-sex marriage has not yet been ordered or effected"
-or something similar where the emphasis is on the ban being found unconstitutional by a court—not on same-sex marriage being "legalized" and not yet in effect—as this overcomes the obstacle and big argument over when a state should turn "blue" (i.e. whether a law takes effect when it passes the legislature and is signed, or when it's effective date passes, or when marriage is actually occurring.)
As for the theoretical argument that a court decision is like a piece of legislation going into effect: I think the two are very different. With legislation, there is no appeals process, and you can go with WP:CRYSTAL and turn a state "blue" as soon as the law is signed. But with court decisions, stays and appeals are very common; in decisions on controversial topics, they are to be expected. In legislation, the act of signing a bill is the final act. With court decisions, a ruling is not the final act. Neither is an affirmance on appeal. Heck, a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is not final; with the rule of law you've got to wait for the mandate to be handed down, and in the meantime a petition for rehearing can be filed. The opponents (Alliance Defending Freedumb) made a fuss with the Ninth Circuit not waiting for the mandate after the SCOTUS ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry to restart SSM in California. See here (this may be one reason Virginia is insisting on the mandate before allowing SSM in their state.) So I've come to the conclusion that we cannot treat court decisions similarly to what we've done with legislation. MarkGT (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkGT: Why not just have the light blue say "same-sex marriage not yet in effect" (loose suggestion on wording) and just stripe states (like CO and VA) light blue-yellow. The yellow shows that the ban has been struck down as unconstitutional and the light blue shows that the ruling is not yet in effect.
I agree with you that court decisions aren't akin to a law being passed. Because of this, states like CO/VA either need to be full yellow (and striped with CU when applicable) or striped yellow and light blue (and medium blue when applicable). A stay is a stay. @Mw843: is another user that doesn't view a temporary stay as a law not yet in effect. The temporary stay issue definitely needs to be addressed. Prcc★27 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't merge the reds (Statute & Constitution), can we at least merge Yellow and Gold? The ban has been struck down and the order stayed: Does it matter if the ban was by Statute or Constitutional? Mw843 (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reds and golds parallel each other, it would be very inconsistent to color all bans into two colors, but then categorize stays of those bans into one. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we treat the light blue like another stay color..? Proposed wording: "Judicial rulings against ban on same-sex marriage stayed temporarily or has not received mandate" Prcc★27 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: I like your wording on Commons. What do you think of my wordings on the two lightest blues on the wikipedia template..? I'd prefer having the light blue as another stay color.. Both wordings seem to suffice. Prcc★27 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the "performance" wording however because when a state legalizes same-sex marriage and it goes into effect, they usually also recognize the validity of same-sex marriage (however some judicial court cases in Florida didn't touch on out of state recognition). Prcc★27 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(quadruple edit conflict, slow down dude) I like my Commons wording too; that wording is able to cover both scenarios without going into too much detail. I changed "performed" to "recognized" to address one of your concerns. I don't mind having the transition be with the stay colors; I had it with full marriage due to being "marriage on the way." You also solved my main concern I was trying to bring up with the new Virginia/Colorado footnote. Dralwik|Have a Chat20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, people think that I make all this sections and go on and on with my discussions to build consensus as the last man standing. However, in reality, I'm just a very loquacious user and eager to discuss concerns I have with the map. Sorry for the quadruple edit conflict (and I think there was some edit conflict between us with the Missouri earthquake analogy too..?) I will stripe the map and change the wording if you haven't done so already..! :)(: Prcc★27 (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, I oppose beige striping on the transition blue. The transition color would include the temporary stay. So I feel Virginia and Colorado should be solid light blue. Dralwik|Have a Chat20:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The agreement (as I understood it) was to make Virginia and Colorado solid light blue, not striped. That is the whole point of creating a whole new color meaning, so you don't have to stripe. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: Oh.. That means the CO/VA footnotes are going to have to be expanded again if we don't color them yellow (to explain in the footnote that there was a judicial ruling striking down a ban on same-sex marriage). Someone turned Colorado and Virginia back to solid light blue (which we already agreed to striping Colorado with medium blue) so I reverted back to the original map until we settle the issue. @Rreagan007: No, we at least agreed to striping Colorado for civil unions.. Also, you guys ignored my De jure vs. De facto argument for striping (you guys always ignore me) and plus, a stay is a stay. I gotta go video chat with my dad, but this discussion is not over. Prcc★27 (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus on this map has been that when same-sex marriage is legalized, we stop stiping for civil unions. It is why California is not striped for both civil unions and same-sex marriage. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, not video chatting with my dad. If we aren't striping those states with yellow, then I think we should go back to the wording "Judicial rulings against ban on same-sex marriage stayed temporarily or have not received mandate" because as I've argued time and time again, a stay is a stay and there are no sources that state that a judicial ruling is akin to a law being passed. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: I thought we aren't going with the red/dark red consolidation (2) due to no consensus on precedent colors (3). It is pointless to take out the medium red color if we are not going to do something with the open color. I can understand light blue/medium blue on CO, though I am fine with or without the CU/DP stripes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we stripe states yellow and light blue, we won't have to make the light blue wording be inclusive (and confusing) towards recognition states. If Ohio were to "legalize" same-sex marriage recognition we wouldn't have to use a lengthy footnote to explain Ohio's situation because the cream color explains what kind of ruling it was. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The less striping the better. There is no reason to stipe when properly worded descriptions can remove the need to stirpe. Also, if we stripe for both civil unions and same-sax marriage in Colorado, then we would have to go back and see which other states also still allow civil unions and same-sex marriage. I think California still does, and there may be some other states that do as well. I will note that when this issue came up before, previous consensus was against striping for both. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: Not true, a same-sex couple can get married in California. In Colorado the highest form of recognition currently is Civil Unions. Furthermore, the civil union color is darker than the transition color so if anything the medium blue color overrides the light blue color. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in my previous statement that is "not true". And where are you getting the idea that the "civil union color" overrides the "legalized, but not yet performed color" just because it is darker? I'm pretty sure that has never been discussed here before, so you basically just made that up. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT CONFLICT:@Rreagan007: I meant that we don't have to stripe for California because unlike Colorado, the highest form of recognition for same-sex couples is marriage. Here is @Dudemanfellabra:'s initial proposal for the transition color (which also includes a precedent color) [22]Prcc★27 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
If we are just acting on 1 and 4 right now (which was my understanding), this test map is essentially what the last map revision was with statute/amendment distinctions remaining. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we word the light blue color "Judicial rulings against ban on same-sex marriage stayed temporarily or have not received mandate" then the footnote for CO/VA would be "Virginia's ruling takes effect August 18. Colorado's ruling stayed until August 25." If we don't word it that way, the footnote would most likely be worded how it is now "A ruling striking down Virginia's same-sex marriage ban takes effect August 18. A ruling striking down Colorado's same-sex marriage ban has been stayed until August 25. Ten Native American tribal jurisdictions also allow same-sex marriage." Prcc★27 (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thegreyanomaly, my understanding was that each proposal was independent, and truth be told I do prefer the simpler color scheme. Since we had a consensus to eliminate the statute/constitutional distinction, why should we keep both shades? Dralwik|Have a Chat23:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear consensus to consolidate the colors and they should be consolidated. The whole reason the statute/constitutional amendment distinction was seen as relevant was that it was thought it would be more difficult to overturn a constitutional ban. Now that we are in the court striking down bans phase, and courts seem to be just as willing to strike down constitutional bans, there is really not a good reason to maintain the distinction on the map any longer. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like Rreagan007 and Dralwik's wordings. For the sake of getting things done, why don't we just revert to their commons legend and use that for the template, we can then work on any necessary changes after that. I am very tempted to just do that off of WP:BOLD. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So wait, their wording for commons and my wording for the template (how it originally was) for the time being..? I can support that for now... Prcc★27 (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prcc27 put the mblue striping on Colorado. Since I am neutral to that, I am not fighting it, just thought I should point that out to anyone who somehow does not noticed that. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the template text to match the Commons description from Dralwik (and reverted to their map), and I adjusted the footnotes from Prcc27. Change is here. We can still discuss these changes (and change them), but I think we can agree some change is better than no change. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think with some rewording, we can make 5 and 6 into the same footnote. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just reverted you. My wording was on the template first and Dralwik's wording was on Commons first so I feel that's how the map should be displayed until we agree on the wording.. Prcc★27 (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My read was at least some people OK'ed Dralwik's versions. I don't know of anyone other than you who OK'ed your version (it is possible I may be missing something). Anyways it can still be discussed, and it makes no sense to have different wordings for the same English legend. I am shutting down after saving this message. I probably will not be back until tomorrow most likely. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thegreyanomaly that we just need to go ahead and make the change and then we can discuss any wording issues that anyone cares to bring up. This whole discussion is taking way longer than it needs to. I'll even withdraw my opposition (for the time being) to the civil unions stripes on Colorado if that helps (though I reserve the right to bring the issue up at a future date). Just change the map already please. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: My wording was on the template first, Dralwik's was on Commons first. If we use my wording on the template for the time being I'll support updating now. Prcc★27 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007:, I reverted you because the map didn't match the template's legend. Maybe you were in the process of updating the template..? If that's the case, sorry for reverting you. Prcc★27 (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the map back to the current consensus along with the template. Argue about the wording on here to your content, but do not revert the map, key, and template Dralwik|Have a Chat03:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Here's my new proposed wording to compromise: "Same-sex marriage in process of being legalized by judicial ruling, but not yet in effect". As for recognition states, if Ohio were to legalize recognition they couldn't go from striping, to solid transition, back to striping. We could stripe Ohio transition and red and explain with a footnote that Ohio's ruling is a partial ruling. Prcc★27 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like how the transition color ignores that these states have a temporary stay, nor do I like that it makes it seem like same-sex marriage was legalized. If it weren't for the "in process of" wording I'd probably open up an RfA. I'm almost tempted to do so; almost.
Here's my last wording proposal (unless something else comes up): "Judicial rulings against ban on same-sex marriage stayed temporarily" (similar to one of my other proposals but it's straight to the point). Prcc★27 (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the one above fails, here's my next wording proposal: "Same-sex marriage in process of being legalized, but not yet in effect" the performance/recognition is redundant. Prcc★27 (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, I'm not going to argue whether or not it gained consensus. I just don't like how my wording was pushed aside and ignored. Prcc★27 (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Kansas and Wyoming colored yellow, but not NC/SC/WV?
We're trying to work that out in the Coloring Proposals. One of the ideas is to create a "Precedent" color that all those states would fall under to be consistent. CRM28 (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Begruber , who appears to have much more knowledge on the technicalities here, said before that at this moment the 4th Circuit states should be red. When the order is issued I think they will then be under precedent. CRM28 (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ninth circuit issued a ruling that its decision covered the entire ninth circuit, but was stayed in all affected states. The fourth circuit has not yet issued a mandate in its ruling. The ninth circuit should be shaded beige/yellow to reflect this, while the fourth circuit has yet to issue its final mandate. Andrew1444 (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew1444: I think you mean the Tenth Circuit. Also, just because it "affects" those states through a precedent doesn't mean it should be shaded yellow because Wyoming's and Kansas's bans are still intact but subject to precedent. Prcc★27 (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right. I meant Tenth Circuit. Good point though. Individual cases will follow in those states, and the District Courts of each jurisdiction will then use the precedent to decide their own respective cases. I still agree with my original point of view, but your point is equally valid. Andrew1444 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only Wyoming Ban has the possibility of being strike down meanwhile Kansas does not have a petition for being strike down as its only being challenge for taxes.--Allan120102 (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there not a hyphen in the title of this file?
Support: the precedent only makes it easier (nearly compulsory, in theory) for district courts to overthrow such bans, but it does not affect them directly. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support that at all. They should be in yellow as they are effectively overturned. If the 10th or 4th Circuit have the final word, then the same-sex marriage ban in all of those states is overturned. The attorney general of a state could try to dig his/her heels in the ground and argue it in District Court that their ban is somehow different and not covered by the ruling, but that's just not realistic. I also don't think Virginia and Colorado should be colored blue. Same-sex marriage is not legal there and it is not realistic to expect that it will be any time soon. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments back and forth over whether the states subject to precedent should be red or yellow just convinces me that they should be a new, different, color. And I agree that just because a stay has an expiry date, it doesn't mean that the ruling isn't stayed. Mw843 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A circuit court precedent has no affect on the ban. The ban is still intact. Maybe there could be a precedent footnote but I think it's unnecessary to mention it. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then what would you do if the Supreme Court affirms the 10th Circuit? Technically, the Supreme Court's order is only "The ruling of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed." But yet the precedent is immediately binding across the entire country. This legal triviality is not important enough for a map that is intended to give a quick visual cue as to what is going on. There doesn't need to be separate colors for statutory ban struck down/constitutional ban struck down; that is a distinction without a difference. There should be a color for "struck down, decision stayed" and "struck down by federal appellate court, decision stayed." 216.165.95.66 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to continue this discussion on updating the map when a law goes into effect rather then when it is passed. This discussion got sidetracked due to coloring proposals but these proposals are all over the place and could take weeks before they are implemented. Also, the discussion has been quiet for 30 hours. I would like to invite @MarkGT: (even though they said they're staying out of it), @Thegreyanomaly:, @SPQRobin:, @Tinmanic:, @Shereth:, @Knowledgekid87:, @Mw843:, @Dudemanfellabra:, @CRM28:, @Davidmac2003:, @Dralwik:, @Habbit:, @Allan120102:, @Rreagan007:, and @Begruber: back to the conversation. If I missed anyone who was in the last conversation please tag them!!!
WP:CONSENSUS The reason why updating when a law goes into effect didn't work is because PEOPLE WENT AGAINST CONSENSUS. Back in 2013 Tinmanic said
“
The previous consensus seems to have been ignored in practice for the last two months; RI, DE and MN have all been colored blue, and nobody has complained or said it's confusing. Maybe that means a new consensus has evolved? I know the merits have already been discussed, but: I would imagine very few, if any, people check this map on any given day to see if they're allowed to get married that day. I would think most people check the map because they're interested in the topic and want to see which states have passed laws or issued court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage, and which haven't. At any rate, nobody seems to mind that RI, DE and MN have turned blue.
”
Also, thegreyanomaly went on to say
“
per WP:CON Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted. No one enforced or followed the "update when effective" consensus, so that consensus changed back into the prior consensus
”
This is definitely untrue! Here's the map when same-sex marriage was legalized in Delaware: [24]; here's the map when same-sex marriage was legalized in Minnesota: [25]. Then @Magog the Ogre: left these states blue but added the number "1" to them (probably some kind of footnote). When this was reverted, Magog the Ogre reverted the map to what it looked like before Rhode Island, Delaware, and Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage [26](WHICH WAS HOW THE MAP WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK ACCORDING TO CONSENSUS!!!) They explained their edit by saying
“
Reverted to version as of 25 November 2012 - if no numbers are included, then we must show the current statute; there is no same sex marriage in these states until the bill is enacted
”
. Then, Tinmanic reverted their edit and said
“
I don't think you're supposed to make such a radical change to the map without starting a discussion first and seeing if a new consensus can be reached. The current consensus is that the map will reflect laws that have been passed but are not yet in ef...
”
(it got cut off)
This is definitely untrue, the current consensus at the time was to reflect laws that went into effect! If consensus was affirmed for updating the map when a law is passed, rather then when it goes into effect was based on false statements that the previous consensus wasn't enforced, that means the previous consensus is still intact!!!
WP:CRYSTAL/WP:SPECULATION It is not WP:CRYSTAL to show the current status of same-sex partnerships in the United States. Same-sex marriage isn't legal until the law goes into effect. It is WP:CRYSTAL however to assume a court ruling/law will go into effect. For example, when a judge issues a temporary stay pending appeal it is speculative to assume that the ruling won't be appealed. We don't know whether or not a law will go into effect or if someone will block it (appealing a court decision, delaying implementation with ballot measure i.e. Washington, etc.) so coloring a state blue based on false assumptions that there won't be an appeal or a delay of some sort violates WP:CRYSTAL. Waiting until a law goes into effect before updating isn't based on me thinking that "some change to the law will occur before it takes effect" because the fact is we don't know whether or not there will or won't be a change. Also, when same-sex marriage is "legalized" because of a temporary stay, the effective date is conditional. Same-sex marriage will only become legal on such and such date if the ruling isn't appealed. We don't know whether or not the ruling will be appealed so why jump the gun? WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." When same-sex marriage is legalized it is definitely not almost certain to take place, there are legal obstacles that can get in the way..!
WP:RELIABLE SOURCES Arguments have been made that reliable sources say that same-sex marriage has been legalized in such in such state before the law goes into effect. However, do any of those sources say that the law has gone into effect? Do any of them say same-sex marriage is legal? Even if they did, that wouldn't necessarily mean it's true would it..? (File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 7#Remember, reliable sources aren't always right) I don't think there are any sources that say Colorado or Virginia legalized same-sex marriage. A stay is a stay; temporary and indefinite stays are both in place to delay enforcement of the ruling pending appeal. In both cases, if the ruling is appealed- same-sex marriage remains illegal. If the ruling isn't appealed same-sex marriage eventually becomes legal.
De jure vs. De facto Even if same-sex marriage is legalized, people shou
ld be able to know what's keeping same-sex couples from marrying. Is it a constitutional or statutory ban (De jure discrimination) or does the law not say whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or illegal (De facto discrimination)? With the current set up, people aren't aware of what is keeping them from marrying (constitutional ban, statutory ban, no law) even though same-sex marriage was legalized.
Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships When a state is colored solid dark blue because same-sex marriage was legalized, the map fails to express that a state currently provides CUs/DPs. No, the fact that same-sex marriage was legalized does not "override" such unions because the fact of the matter is same-sex couples can currently enter CUs/DPs and receive benefits from them whereas they can't get married and receive marriage benefits from the state or the federal government (unless they were married out-of-state) until the law goes into effect,,,.
The map should reflect the current situation: where is same-sex marriage legal (dark blue), where is it banned (dark red), where is it something in between because of in-progress legal action ... stayed (gold), or subject to precedent (let's light red). Making Colorado dark blue when there is a stayed order with a termination date is speculating that the order will not be extended or replaced ... it's as bad as speculating that the order will be struck down, so Colorado should be red ... there is a currently enforceable stay, therefore Colorado should be gold, and cannot be dark blue. The same with Virginia. Mw843 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ... any state that isn't dark blue that has some other recognition should be striped ... dark blue with other recognitions is covered by the footnote. Mw843 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have already agreed upon instating a transition color above, we just need to someone to act on it. Second, you are bloody wrong. If you assume a case will be appealed, you are objectively crystal-balling. This discussion is moot. The proper thing to do right now is to agree upon the wordings of the new medium blue (i.e., any form of state-wide CU/DPs) and the new light blue (i.e., transitional color). Once this is done, the discussion is moot. I am going out to eat. Later on tonight I will create draft wordings and a copy of the file with CO/VA light blue and Wisconsin's light blue swapped out with medium blue. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly:NO ONE IS ASSUMING A CASE WILL BE APPEALED!!! All I'm saying is we don't know for sure whether or not it will be appealed so having a state blue on the assumption it won't be appealed violates WP:SPECULATION. This discussion notes that there currently isn't consensus for updating when a law is passed as consensus was never gained properly. Prcc★27 (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why people keep trying to separate these issues.. there are 20389402384 sections on this page devoted to the same issue. The coloring proposal--specifically the transition color--is the solution to this issue. I would say that there is a consensus that we should wait until marriage is actually happening in a state to color it blue, but leaving a state red even after a ban has been overturned by a court is not acceptable either. That is the purpose of a transition color (and also a precedent color if you get right down to it). The issues are complimentary. Stop trying to "refocus" discussion when it is already focused on the issue at hand. The coloring proposal above solves this problem. If you want to wait to turn states blue until marriage is being performed, we need some kind of interim solution that will ward off edit warring. That interim solution is the transition/precedent color.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudemanfellabra: How is it a "solution" to the problem? Unless a state is striped with the transition color, the current law is ignored. Also, a state does not go red after a ban has been overturned by a court, it goes yellow. As I have said above, "a stay is a stay" whether temporary or indefinite. I am not "refocusing" the discussion, I tried to direct people to the transition color(s) discussion here but nobody wanted to join me. Plus, the discussion was silent for ≈ 35 hours. Prcc★27 (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong or grossly nonfactual about what @Dudemanfellabra: says. The current consensus (update when signed/ordered) is still in effect until wording for the new transition-to-SSM color is set. It does not matter how the consensus came to exist, it is the consensus that people have been conscientiously following. Recent decisions (e.g., coloring Idaho blue for a couple days) were made explicitly based on this consensus of updating when signed/ordered. If anyone is in the wrong here, it is Prcc27 for unilaterally changing the map. You can't just take action anyways when people don't agree with you, you've done this before with your SSM minus CU/DP map fiasco. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prcc27, if you keep reverting the map unilaterally, I will report you an admin. I have better things to do that edit war with you, but if you revert the map once more, I will report you. You cannot take unilateral action when things don't go your way! It does not matter how the consensus came about, it is not like an election you can contest. It is the operational consensus until the new one (transitional coloring) is finalized. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Without the "it wasn't enforced argument" there is no consensus. And can you provide a source that same-sex marriage was legalized in Colorado and Virginia..? Also, this is what the map looked like because you guys ignored my warning about CUs/DPs [27] FOUR SHADES OF YELLOW! At least we finally dealt with that mess.. Prcc★27 (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need enforced argument, read Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing. The map has edited this way for sufficiently long without any reverts or complaints, and people have made conscientious decisions to edit the map based on this consensus. You are not entitled to see your proposals go through, if people reject them, you deal with it, not edit the map anyways. An admin's opinion on policies is not a special opinion. An admin is a user with special powers. An admin's opinion on a debate is not more valid than any other users. You are not on sound policy, as Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing negates your argument. I am going to sleep now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: You misunderstood me, if it wasn't for the "it (consensus for updating when a law goes into effect) wasn't enforced" claim, there wouldn't have ever been consensus for updating when a law is passed in the first place. The "consensus" for updating when a law is passed is based on a bunch of lies!!! Prcc★27 (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Wrong, this "consensus" has been reverted/complained about. It was reverted when RI, MN, and DE legalized ssm. It was complained about when California and Hawaii legalized same-sex marriage and possibly Colorado as well. Prcc★27 (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. People reverted then but then never again. People (i.e., you) complained, but it got no to little support and absolutely no action. Editing habits established this consensus and people made and discussed edits (e.g., Idaho was blue for a while) based upon it. Goodnight. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who complained about California and Colorado. In fact, I was the one who updated Colorado because I was naïve about the "consensus" being false. Prcc★27 (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dude(tte), it does not matter how the consensus came into being, it has been the functional consensus for a sufficiently long time that people have made decisions based on it. It is the current consensus until the transition color is added. This large discussion you've started is a load of historical revisionism. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We did not violate it, we changed it. People did not follow the "update when enforced" proposal, and no one actually did anything so per WP:CONSENSUS a new consensus formed. People actively made decisions based off the old-then-new "update when signed/ordered" consensus, and that consensus was (and is) cemented until the transition color wording is finalized by the community. I am done responding to this section. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that "we've been violating consensus for 2 years" is a contradiction in terms. If nobody did anything to uphold what you think was the consensus in such a long span as 2 years (without this page being protected or something like that), maybe it was not the consensus. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 19:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People have reverted and disputed but then the "we tried it but it was never enforced" card was played!!! Also, show me a source that says CO/VA legalized same-sex marriage.. Prcc★27 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" does not mean unanimity. The generally accepted consensus for the past 2 years has been that we update the map when laws are passed, not when they come into effect. You are the one trying to gain support for a new consensus, and, in my opinion, it isn't working so far. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: The only reason it's been accepted is because people lied or accidentally gave false information that a) updating when a law goes into effect rather then passed violated consensus (which definitely wasn't true at the time) and b) that nobody enforced the consensus when there have been reverts and complaints at least three times.
Are there sources that say a temporary stay is akin to a law passed that's not yet in effect..? A stay is a stay.
Prcc27, yes there are, there are plenty sources saying CO/VA have orders legalizing SSM. They just aren't enforced yet. Prcc27, you need to just fucking give up already. If you cannot accept it when people reject your proposals, maybe you should stop editing here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see where it says Colorado's ruling was temporarily stayed; I'm not saying it isn't there, but there's so many pages to go through. Isn't the Virginia ruling you provided from the district court not the circuit court..? Prcc★27 (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion was requested above, under "Arbitrary Break 2". I'll offer it only because it's an opportunity to clear up some ambiguities I see in this discussion. I am not by any means married (ha, pun) to the idea of seeing my opinion prevail.
It all depends on what question we want our map to answer. The two alternatives answer two different questions:
Where is same-sex marriage legal? (i.e., What is the current legal status of the recognition of same-sex relationships across the United States?)
Where can same-sex couples marry? (i.e., Where do same-sex couples currently have the realistic, tangible option to obtain and/or enjoy legal recognition of their relationship, and in what form is the option available?)
If we consider which question we want to answer, then that may lead us to the more appropriate alternative.
I appreciate the reasons we want to answer Question 1. But I lean towards Question 2. I think the answer to that question is closer to the info the average reader (though granted, not every reader) might want. So it seems more informative on balance. It also seems like a much more clear-cut question, as it sidesteps all the tough, persistent questions of what counts as same-sex marriage being legal, how we handle court cases whose effects are hard to explain succinctly with a few colors and footnotes, etc.
I would probably support having two different maps, answering each question, to keep things clean and satisfy more people. But if there could only be one map, and if this is my opportunity to cast a vote, then my vote is for the map that is updated when a new way of recognizing same-sex relationships goes into effect, answering the question, "Where is same-sex marriage currently a lived reality?"
At the same time, I respect the fact that we've tried it before and the results weren't considered desirable. For that reason, I'm satisfied with just having my say, and I won't insist.
Despite all the back and forth, we now have a map with nine colors, where there is a reasonable argument that six would do, and so many lines of footnotes that I've been moving the map on one page because the length of the map box is buggering up the format of the chart that is the main purpose of the page. And despite all this, there are two states, Virginia and Colorado, where the map is demonstrably WRONG!!! So, can we stop arguing about the process, and fix the map? Mw843 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have consensus to do proposals 1 and 4 above, once people approve the wording, we will be merging all forms of CU/DPs into one color and creating a light blue transition color. We do not have consensus to obliterate any colors. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mw843: I tried arguing that there are no reliable sources that say that Virginia/Colorado legalized same-sex marriage and that the sources don't say a temporary stay is akin to a law not yet in effect but I doubt that will go anywhere.. I took my question to the reference desk though. There is currently a transition color discussion going on above but I think you oppose a transition color am I right..? I agree with your argument that a stay is a stay which is why I proposed that Virginia be striped light blue for same-sex marriage legalized and yellow for stay. Colorado would be striped for legalization, civil unions, and a stay. Would you support a transition color if states like Virginia and Colorado were striped with the stay color as well. If so, please discuss on the transition color(s) and Key proposal sections. If not, I would think the next best solution would be to show Virginia as yellow and Colorado as medium blue and yellow. The only way to do this is to convince people that a) there are no reliable sources that say Colorado and Virginia legalized marriage nor do they say a temporary stay is akin to a law not yet in effect. b) that a stay is a stay (You and I have already tried arguing this) and c) the "consensus" for updating when a law is passed wasn't really consensus and it has been disputed/reverted multiple times, but failed because of the false statement that updating when a law goes into effect "wasn't enforced." As for the footnotes, I'm kinda known for being the king of footnotes on this template. However, if we don't differentiate between how same-sex marriage was legalized (law vs. court ruling; laws can be overturned easier than court rulings) then why differentiate between constitutional and statutory bans..? We could easily get rid of two colors, I kinda like having the recognition stay color though. Consolidating two reds and two yellows would only get rid of one sentence though (which is still good). Please note that proposals for consolidating reds have failed time and time again. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly:I don't think that has anything to do with Colorado or Virginia: there is a stay in effect, same-sex marriage is not legal, they shouldn't be dark blue.
@Prcc27:AFAIK, the only time a transition color has been needed was when some counties in Illinois were allowing marriages before the law came into effect (some with court approval, some without) ... I don't think there is a functional difference between statue and constitutional bans, so Blue, Red, and Gold pretty much cover it, except for striping the three states with some sort of DP/CU and no same-sex marriage, and Ohio. My personal preference would be to differentiate the states subject to Circuit Court precedence, because they're in a legal limbo that I think should be noted. Mw843 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The stays are temporary. Unless some judge somewhere approves a stay, SSM is imminent in those states. When a long-term stay is filed, then it would be appropriate for them to be gold, but not right now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mw843: I don't really support a transition color either, but if the transition color does get consensus (which thegreyanomaly claims there is consensus for them) you might want to go to the discussion and say that if the transition color is going to be added to the map (even though you oppose the color), you'd prefer striping states with the transition color and their current status rather then coloring them light blue and ignoring there current status (which in Colorado's and Virginia's case is a stay on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage). Prcc★27 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we work on the wording then? I'm sorry if it is being discussed somewhere I can't see: my computer was sent in for repairs so I have been away and am on Mobil. How about "Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Limited/Enumerated Rights" or "States with Laws granting similar unions or rights to same sex couples" for the medium blue and "SSM legalization/recognition law not yet in effect" for the light blue? CRM28 (talk) 7 Aug 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.17.13 (talk)
@Thegreyanomaly: "Imminent" is not equivalent to "Now", so is the wrong color for CO and VA.
Under the existing consensus to update when signed/ordered that does not matter. Once the wording is set, we can follow the transitional color proposal and they will be light blue (unless the long term stays come in before the wording is finalized). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok people look the map should represent what is happening now I am not sure by why is this still a conflict because I am pretty sure Colorado and Virginia are going to be gold as soon as early next week with Virginia AG to ask SC about the ban. Colorado AG already appeal so lets not make this a big thing I support bringing Virginia to light blue and Colorado to light blue with the stripes of civil union, and a footnote explaining the ban was struck down and its not in effect. I hope we have a decision as early as tonight or I am pretty sure we are not going to use the light blue at all,with the stays being imminent.--Allan120102 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan120102: We have a lot of footnotes as it is.. What if we stripe states yellow and light blue (medium blue for Civil Union states) to show that a same-sex marriage ban was struck down (yellow) but same-sex marriage has not yet gone into effect (light blue). Prcc★27 (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to start of by saying that most of us are not legal experts and it is not up to us to decide that a temporary stay is akin to a law being passed.
@MarkGT: made a good point above about how a court ruling is different from legislation as court rulings have an appeals process and legislation does not.
“
As for the theoretical argument that a court decision is like a piece of legislation going into effect: I think the two are very different. With legislation, there is no appeals process, and you can go with WP:CRYSTAL and turn a state "blue" as soon as the law is signed. But with court decisions, stays and appeals are very common; in decisions on controversial topics, they are to be expected. In legislation, the act of signing a bill is the final act. With court decisions, a ruling is not the final act. Neither is an affirmance on appeal. Heck, a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is not final; with the rule of law you've got to wait for the mandate to be handed down, and in the meantime a petition for rehearing can be filed. The opponents (Alliance Defending Freedumb) made a fuss with the Ninth Circuit not waiting for the mandate after the SCOTUS ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry to restart SSM in California. See here (this may be one reason Virginia is insisting on the mandate before allowing SSM in their state.) So I've come to the conclusion that we cannot treat court decisions similarly to what we've done with legislation.
”
Furthermore, I ask you all to keep in mind that a stay is a stay! Whether temporary or indefinite, they both have the same effect on a state. In both cases the ban is struck down, in both cases same-sex marriage is on hold, in both cases the ruling can be appealed. There are no reliable sources that say a court ruling is akin to a law being passed, so for us to go ahead and say that it is would be a clear violation of WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Prcc★27 (talk) 04:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with dudeman in here why are we making anothe section? We are like discussing this topic over and over again they are like four sections we are discussing of the same thing. Are we going to change the map or not? I thought we got consensus days ago.--Allan120102 (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear consensus for proposal 1, which nobody is opposed to; and maybe some consensus for proposals 2 and 4, which have few people opposing them but have ongoing discussion on the wording, support from some versions of them is conditional, etc. However, there is no consensus for option 3. You can be bold and change it however you want to, but maybe somebody else will feel that you're being too bold and revert you to the previous consensus until a new one is reached. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 12:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: You are creating new sections over and over as soon as you "decide" that the discussion has stalled, I'm counting at least three sections created by you with a new iteration of something that was already being discussed. To me, it seems like your way of "building consensus" is nothing more than being the last man standing when everyone else has tired, particularly after your latest retort. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 12:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Well if there is consensus for one then the map should show it. Should we vote again or what to see how things are going and to get finally an answer?--Allan120102 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Habbit: I am not the only one making sections... Furthermore, there are A LOT of aspects to this debate and MarkGT made a good point that I didn't want to go unnoticed. Also, the whole judicial ruling not being akin to a law affects the current map and the proposed map. If counting states with temporary stays as legalizing same-sex marriage violates Wikipedia policy, it should be changed immediately and we shouldn't wait for the proposal to go into effect (which still has several things that needs discussing). Prcc★27 (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. The precedent section I created had nothing to do with the precedent color proposal. That's why a new section was created for that. And me reiterating the effective date argument got people to start discussing the color proposal again which helped move things along. Otherwise, we'd probably not have proposed wording for the color. You're welcome! Prcc★27 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan120102:, @Habbit:, and @Dudemanfellabra: are totally in the right. Prcc27, there is no more good faith to assume. You have become a disruptive editor. We've rejected your proposals, but you just keep on with them. If you don't back off, I am going to have to report you for disruptive editing. Your proposals were not accepted, deal with it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can discuss further if people want, but currently there is no consensus for proposal 3 and only partial, though maybe sufficient, for proposals 2 and 4. However, starting section after section on similar themes just makes this editor look like an arsonist, creating several ignition points for the fire to expand faster. He/she sees that discussion is whittling down without the desired consensus being reached, and simply creates a new section to re-discuss it. Btw, if you have to tell other people to AGF, maybe you should look under your own shoe. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 16:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree we have passing consensus on 1, 2, and 4 but 3 is too close to implement (keep in mind consensus is usually not unanimous). Will the map be updated soon? Once the passing propositions are in, these sections from my "Revisiting" section to this one are good candidates for hatting in order to douse the fire and keep this discussion from ballooning any more. Dralwik|Have a Chat17:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Damn edit conflict) Basically what I said before is that this section is not a proposal nor is it the same as the other sections so you guys shouldn't be complaining. Prcc★27 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section may not be identical to other sections you made, but its purpose is clearly identical. Your proposal failed, you don't like it, and as a result you keep bringing up discussion sections to repeatedly try to convince people who aren't convinced. You are getting so much hate, because you are being disruptive. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Expressing hate towards me violates WP:CIVIL. And my comment does not violate WP:CIVIL as bigotry is defined as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." I'm pretty sure you don't tolerate my opinions. Intolerant of my opinions plus hatred is clearly bigotry. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except I never said I hated you as an individual. I hate your behavior on this matter (You constantly trying to revive dead proposals is clearly annoying). You brought hate into the mix (SMH is regularly defined as "so much hate"). Your definition of bigotry is a stretch, disagreeing with people's opinions is not bigotry. By that definition anyone who disagrees with another person is a bigot. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: I have been tolerant of your opinions and never expressed hate towards you even though I recognize we have our differences. I did not bring hate into the mix, SMH as I understand it means "Shaking my head". Also, that's Dictionary.com's definition of bigotry, not mine. The difference between you and someone who simply disagrees with another person is that you expressed hate as well as disagreeing with me. Prcc★27 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
False comparison. 1. I don't hate you or your opinions, I hate your behavior. 2. When my proposals fail, I let them go, I don't keep trying at them incessantly. You've been grasping at any straw (even imaginary ones) trying to convince people incessantly to join or your side since your proposal failed. It is time to let go. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: I'm sorry, but your "I don't hate you or your opinions, I hate your behavior" sounds too much like the "hate the sin, not the sinner" expression; of course you hate me (at least that's what I originally thought you meant when you said I was "getting so much hate"). Also, you don't get to decide that a judicial ruling is akin to a law being passed; it's not up to us to decide that. This section affects the proposed map too so it isn't exclusively meant to convince people to side with my proposal. Prcc★27 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I do not hate anyone, hate is such a strong word be careful when you use it.I do not even know you in real life, what I was saying and many of others that contribute here is that you are speaking about your proposal that was not approve. If you want try next time.--Allan120102 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright you guys, if the transition color isn't implemented in the next 24 hours and if you guys don't refute my claims that there are no reliable sources that say Colorado and Virginia legalized same-sex marriage, I'm going to contact an administrator and ask for permission to color Colorado medium blue-gold and Virginia gold (because I was threatened with being reported to administrators). I went to the reference desk to see if there were any sources out there that said CO/VA legalized same-sex marriage and they assured me that same-sex marriage wasn't legalized in those states. Prcc★27 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "if ... and ..." or "if ... or ...". We've refuted your claims. The primary sources (the court orders) do not include any long-term stays. Once the temporary stays ends SSM will be performed unless someone gives a stay. They have been legalized, they just aren't enforced yet. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an admin can't come and really do anything here, there isn't really an RfC to close (and you don't even need an admin to close an RfC if there was one). I threatened you with admin action because you are being disruptive and their are policies about being disruptive (and there is a fair amount of agreement to you being disruptive). No other policies are really being broken here. The only thing is change is come slower than you would like. An admin can't really do anything about that. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: But there are no sources that say a judicial ruling is akin to a law being passed. Plus, MarkGT and I explained how a judicial ruling isn't akin to a law being passed and that there's still a stay in place for those states. They haven't been legalized because judicial rulings have an appeals process and the ruling can still be appealed. If the wording on the transition color references same-sex marriage being "legalized" I will probably contact an administrator regardless. The reason why I'm gonna contact an admin is to see if they think me updating those states deserves me being blocked. If they don't think I deserve to be blocked, I might be less likely to be blocked if I get reported. Prcc★27 (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is. Look at California (both cases), look at Oregon and Pennsylvania (there are others, these are just the ones I can remember right now). Rulings with temporary (or non-existent stays) led directly to SSM in those states. A judicial order was not indefinitely stayed (and not appealed) and it led to SSM. CO and VA are in the same legal circumstance. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is still an appeals process in those states regardless. Oregon and Pennsylvania don't compare to CO/VA because there was no stay and the order took effect immediately. Also, saying that because court rulings don't have long-term stays same-sex marriage is legalized violates WP:No original research. Prcc★27 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making up bullshit. There is nothing to do with original research here.
California - In re Marriage Cases: A temporary stay expired and that is what led to SSM in California
Exactly, you just proved my point. The expiry of a stay legalized same-sex marriage, not that the ruling was stayed temporarily. Prcc★27 (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No... The orders legalized SSM, the expiry of the stay initiated enforcement. The same way when a Governor signs a bill it is law even before it is enforced. Without the judicial orders, there would be no SSM. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have a transition color, this issue isn't as important. However, if the transition color is ever changed in such a why that it says same-sex marriage was legalized (which a temporary stay does not legalize same-sex marriage) I will open up an RfA. Right now the transition color is barely making it by with the "in process of being legalized" wording since it doesn't suggest it has been legalized yet. Prcc★27 (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting more and more refined absurd as time passes. A judicial order overthrowing a SSM ban has the same effect than a repeal of the ban by whatever procedures are required by the state constitution (legislative approval, referendum, whatever). Once again I point you to the case of Washington:
- The governor signed a SSM bill into law, so SSM was the law then, but the enforcement date was delayed to allow for implementation. At that time, we'd have said WA→blue, we might choose light blue now for "in transition".
- In the meantime, opponents organized and collected signatures, thus forcing a referendum under the state laws. The successful initiation of the process suspended the law with the same effect as a judicial decision being stayed upon appeal, so WA→gold. Note that this could have happened even after marriages started, as it did with a CA law on protections for transgender students: it went into effect but was later suspended by a referendum initiative.
- The referendum was held and the law was retained, so WA→blue. Had it been defeated, we'd have said WA→red again.
I ask you once again: what is the difference between a court striking down a SSM ban and a SSM ban repeal being signed into law? What is the difference between a temporary stay in order to allow for appeals (mandated by court procedure rules) and a delayed implementation date (say, 20 days after the law is published)? What is the difference between a judicial decision being stayed upon appeal and a law being suspended upon a successful referendum initiative, which may be taken as an "appeal to the people" in the states that allow it? Finally, what is the difference between a higher court (potentially the USSC) ruling on the ban and the referendum upholding/defeating the law? Please, do answer because until now you've just merely stated that there is a difference. What is that difference? Please elaborate, and stop making threats about calling a RfA on the consensus proposal because you don't like it. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 10:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Habbit: The difference is that there aren't any sources that say a temporary stay is akin to a law being passed and coming to that conclusion is original research (which is a prohibited). When a law is passed, it's passed; there is no stay pending appeal. The law mostly likely doesn't go into effect right away to allow preparation for implementation. Even though there was a delay later on, when same-sex marriage was legalized- it was legalized without a stay. A judicial ruling however is stayed pending appeal. The ruling doesn't go into effect right away because it allows for the ruling to be appealed (which would delay implementation). Prcc★27 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: What kind of sources do you want me to pull up here, exactly? A textbook from a course in law, maybe? I don't really know how to explain it better, but from the very moment the judgement in VA was entered by the 4th Circuit panel, two things happened:
* The lower court decision was affirmed.
* The stay issued by the district court upon appeal ceased to apply.
Since the 4th Circuit panel did not issue a new stay, the judgement applies and SSM is legal in VA. So what is happening, you say? How come I can't take my partner of 5 years and go have a nice wedding in Richmond? Well, the rules that the circuit court uses to function specify that after a judgement is entered, a mandate will be issued after between X and Y days (can't recall the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure right now). This is not a stay, either temporary or permanent "upon appeal", but simply a delay for the Court to maybe talk to the parties and then draft and issue the mandate.
However, it is not the mandate what makes the SSM ban illegal, it is the court ruling. What the mandate does is officially tell the parties what the Court expects them to do, that is, it spells out how the judgement must be complied with, as in: "all state officials are enjoined (forbidden) from enforcing the SSM ban" and things like that. It is important to note that the state does not need a mandate to start complying with the judgement if it wants: think CA after Hollingsworth v. Perry was announced, they didn't wait for the mandate and started implementing the ruling right away. The mandate only compels people to comply, but the SSM ban has already been overthrown and is no longer valid law.
A stay may still be issued if any of the parties appeal to either the full 4th Circuit (en banc review) or the Supreme Court (writ of certiorari); with the stay being granted by the 4th Circuit panel, the full Circuit or the Supreme Court itself (as in Kitchen v. Herbert, the UT case). It may be temporary, as in "we want to seek appellate review, please give us a few days until this ruling must be enforced" or permanent, as in "an appeal request has been granted, please stop implementation of this ruling while the case is considered". However, for now there is no stay at all in VA. Let that sink in, please: there is no cabalstay at all and if nothing changes the Court will (as specified by its own rules) issue the mandate making it compulsory for state officials to comply with its ruling in a few days. How, in the name of any deity of your choice or the FSM by default, how is that not similar to a law signed and enacted but with a delayed enforcement date? Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 00:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Habbit: I would first like to see a source that says Virginia's stay was lifted. Since this section reads "Is a temporary stay akin to a law being passed?" Virginia would be in a different boat than Colorado. You went on a whole different tangent, I was explaining that there aren't any sources that say a temporary stay is akin to a law being passed. If Virginia legalized same-sex marriage then having Virginia colored light blue is somewhat understandable. However, Colorado's ruling is stayed and that's what needs to be addressed here. Prcc★27 (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prcc27, it is is time to stop being a sore loser. We did not go with your proposal. Let it be and move on already! Habbit did not go any tangent. He/she was trying to explain to you something you are refusing to understand, namely that a temporary stay is the same thing as a delayed enforcement on a signed bil (i.e., a law). The only appreciable difference I can see between a temporary stay and delayed enforcement is that the temporary stay is more like to be extended, but denying action because something is more likely is WP:CRYSTAL. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict)@Thegreyanomaly: I am not being a sore loser, it's not the transition color that's the main issue, it's the wording. Habbit did go on a tangent because Virginia does not have a temporary stay. Prcc★27 (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that we have colors for states with judicial rulings that have been stayed. Even if a judicial ruling was akin to a law being passed, we are ignoring that like Oklahoma, the judicial ruling is stayed. What's the point of having stay colors if states with temporary stays aren't going to be treated as states with stays? I would be okay with the wording if states with temporary stays like Colorado were striped with gold to indicate that a stay is in place. States like Virginia that don't have a stay could remain solid blue. If we used my wording then I wouldn't mind leaving Colorado as is. Prcc★27 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: So, you are backtracking but trying not to show it? You say I went on a tangent because I tackled the VA case instead of the CO case? Well, let me quote nobody else than yourself:
“
Furthermore, I ask you all to keep in mind that a stay is a stay! Whether temporary or indefinite, they both have the same effect on a state. In both cases the ban is struck down, in both cases same-sex marriage is on hold, in both cases the ruling can be appealed. There are no reliable sources that say a court ruling is akin to a law being passed, so for us to go ahead and say that it is would be a clear violation of WP:RELIABLE SOURCES.
”
I tried to look through this section to see if you had dropped your objections to the VA case, but most to the contrary, you upheld them to the point of wanting to call an admin over them:
“
I'm going to contact an administrator and ask for permission to color Colorado medium blue-gold and Virginia gold (because I was threatened with being reported to administrators). I went to the reference desk to see if there were any sources out there that said CO/VA legalized same-sex marriage and they assured me that same-sex marriage wasn't legalized in those states
”
So I did not go on a tangent, I addressed one of the two cases you were (fiercely) arguing. Only after my post did you backtrack and say States like Virginia that don't have a stay could remain solid blue. We may disagree, but please do not insult either my or anybody else's intelligence. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 13:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... The first quote says nothing about Virginia, the second quote was addressing having VA/CO dark blue, which I felt violated Wikipedia policy. I didn't backtrack, I was informed about Virginia in the section below. I still think Virginia needs a source though. The comment you responded to didn't mention Virginia. Prcc★27 (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this is really becoming insulting. You say that the section below informed you about the VA situation and thank me for trying to clarify it to you? As late as 01:19 UTC today, you were saying this on the section below about VA: "But the circuit court affirmed the lower court's ruling so wouldn't the circuit court have to lift the district court's stay..?". My post, which was sent at 00:48 UTC, tells you specifically that when the 4th Circuit entered its judgement, "The stay issued by the district court upon appeal ceased to apply.". Was that so unclear that you needed more than half an hour, and another Wikipedian's confirmation, to process it? Cut this bloody sillyness short right now. You had a point of contention about VA for the whole of this section and I addressed it. I did not go off on any tangent, but simply and clearly explained the VA case to you; trying to suggest otherwise is insulting. To me, it seems that you are only trying to save face (a glorious army never retreats, just turns around and keeps advancing!) and tire everybody else out of this debate. Please, do stop this attitude now and try to re-engage in constructive debate over the outstanding points with the rest of the people here. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: This is the last time you insult my intelligence. The other user said:
“
A district court's stay remains in effect until an appeals court issues a ruling. The district court's stay is definitely not in effect in Virginia any longer. Unless the appeals court issues its own stay, there is no stay. The delay between the appeals court issuing a ruling and the effective date of the ruling is governed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
”
While my own comment, just below the line that said "The stay issued by the district court upon appeal ceased to apply.", stated
“
Since the 4th Circuit panel did not issue a new stay, the judgement applies and SSM is legal in VA. So what is happening, you say? How come I can't take my partner of 5 years and go have a nice wedding in Richmond? Well, the rules that the circuit court uses to function specify that after a judgement is entered, a mandate will be issued after between X and Y days (can't recall the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure right now). This is not a stay, either temporary or permanent "upon appeal", but simply a delay for the Court to maybe talk to the parties and then draft and issue the mandate.
”
It's the same. Bloody. Source. And if you were referring to the later quote from the district court stay, well, (deep breath) then blame me if you want to; blame me for understanding that when we are discussing a handful of court cases and arguing about a fine point of law over and over, you'd have taken the time to actually read the said cases at least in what pertains to the point you so fiercely argued! Several editors told you over and over that the circuit court had not entered a stay and that the old stay was gone when the appeal was resolved. All you wanted was a link to the district court case and stay? Really? WHY didn't you say so sooner? Apart from the fact that a link to the case with explanation of the stay and sources is available at Same-sex marriage in the United States, I'm sure that was a hard connection to make... Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 22:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prcc27, stop lying and bullshitting already. We all know what you are doing, and I am so close to reporting you for disruptive editing. I am serious this time. You lost and are wasting everyone's time with this, give up. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: For the last fucking time I don't wanna get rid of the transition color, I support the color. However, a temporary stay is not akin to a law being passed so CO shouldn't be light blue, Virginia should be. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: just because you keep saying that does not mean it is true. Really, give up and spend your time arguing here doing something productive for Wikipedia instead. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Now that I know that Virginia doesn't have a temporary stay I fully support the transition color (I still think Colorado should be colored gold, possibly even having the light blue color removed however). Since the district court stay no longer applies it would be stupid to have Virginia go back to red when Virginia is actually one step closer to marriage equality. I also noted that now that the transition color is in, this discussion has less importance (although there still is some importance to it). I am sick of you not assuming good faith, I am sick of your condescending comments and I am sick of your hatred and bigotry towards me. Do not expect me to ever respond to any of your comments on this talk page; I am sick of your impertinent remarks. Prcc★27 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. when you keep saying the exact same thing over and over again and won't take no for an answer at a certain point there is no more good faith to assume 2. the concept of me hating you as an individual is something you made up; 3. bigotry is something you apply to a group on people not an individual. I am not responding to your nonsense anymore. I have better things to do. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "temporary stay" of the judicial ruling in Virginia. The reliable sources are very clear about that, so saying that the ruling is "stayed temporarily" would be incorrect. There is merely a delay by operation of law in the judicial ruling coming into full effect. Same-sex marriage is "in process of being legalized". That process could possibly be disrupted, but anticipating that that legal process which is already underway might be disrupted before it is completed would be the violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that "process" does not necessarily imply completion. The wording is accurate, and I settled on "process" since that word permits the possibility of the legalization being stopped. Dralwik|Have a Chat20:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik:@Rreagan007: Oklahoma is in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage too. A same-sex marriage ban being struck down is the first step to legalizing same-sex marriage, the appeals process is the next step, and so on. I believe the district court's stay is still in effect in Virginia, are there any sources that say otherwise? Once the circuit court ruling goes into effect the stay won't be in effect. The stay is in effect until same-sex marriage is legal in Virginia. There are no sources that directly say "same-sex marriage was legalized" in CO/VA so interpreting a expiry stay as legalization is original research. Oklahoma is in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage, Colorado has a stayed judicial ruling striking down a ban on same-sex marriage; these states' situations aren't that different. Prcc★27 (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A district court's stay remains in effect until an appeals court issues a ruling. The district court's stay is definitely not in effect in Virginia any longer. Unless the appeals court issues its own stay, there is no stay. The delay between the appeals court issuing a ruling and the effective date of the ruling is governed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a matter of law, a lower court stay only applies to the lower court's ruling. It can't apply to an appeals court's ruling. If an appeals court issues a ruling, the appeals court must be the one to issue the stay of the appeals court ruling, otherwise there is no stay on the appeals court ruling. So, the real question should be, are there any reliable sources that say the appeals court has issued a stay of their own ruling? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the circuit court affirmed the lower court's ruling so wouldn't the circuit court have to lift the district court's stay..? Prcc★27 (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the circuit court does not have to do anything to lift the stay. The stay that was issued was a "stay pending appeal". The stay only lasts until the appeal's court decision is issued.
"In accordance with the Supreme Court's issuance of a stay in Kitchen v. Herbert, and consistent with the reasoning provided in Bishop, this Court stays execution of this injunction pending the final disposition of any appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals." [30]Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, my original wording was "Judicial rulings against ban on same-sex marriage stayed temporarily or have not received mandate." Prcc★27 (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik:, I like that your wording doesn't directly say same-sex marriage was legalized. Here's what I had to say about the transition color above: "My concern is that we have colors for states with judicial rulings that have been stayed. Even if a judicial ruling was akin to a law being passed, we are ignoring that like Oklahoma, the judicial ruling is stayed. What's the point of having stay colors if states with temporary stays aren't going to be treated as states with stays? I would be okay with the wording if states with temporary stays like Colorado were striped with gold to indicate that a stay is in place. States like Virginia that don't have a stay could remain solid blue. If we used my wording then I wouldn't mind leaving Colorado as is." Also, the wording "not yet performed or recognized" is redundant; "not yet in effect" would suffice. Prcc★27 (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have mainly been focused on Virginia, which I think should remain solid light blue for now. Colorado could be striped with gold rather than light blue, but I am against triple stirping Colorado. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
now that I see it Colorado should be triple striping. The ban has been struck down so that would be light blue because the law would take effect in August 25 I believe. There is actually a stay so it should be gold and last but not least it should have the blue of the civil unions because there are actually in effect right now and are given any time.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we used my wording (which was the original wording on the template, but later reverted to the "consensus" wording -_-) we could possibly leave the map as is. Here was my wording: "Judicial rulings against ban on same-sex marriage stayed temporarily or have not received mandate." The problem with my wording is that it assumes that there won't be any states that legalize same-sex marriage legislatively; that violates WP:CRYSTAL. Colorado definitely qualifies as gold, and even light blue (Dralwik's wording); although one could argue (which I have argued already) that the wording is vague and a state like Oklahoma that had their ban struck down would technically qualify as "same-sex marriage in process of being legalized" because striking down a ban is the first step to legalizing same-sex marriage. If we don't change the legend to my wording (which might violate Wikipedia policy) there are two ways to approach this. We could change the vague phrase "in process of being legalized" to "legalized". I am convinced that Virginia legalized same-sex marriage since there was no stay (although I'm not sure if there are any sources that say Virginia legalized same-sex marriage) so Virginia would qualify as light blue but not Colorado. This is what the map would look like: [31]. If we stick with the vague wording and apply it to Colorado, this is what the map would look like: [32]. Rreagan007 expressed concerns about having Colorado triple striped (which is totally understandable) but we have triple striped in the past so... But in all honesty, the current wording is so vague that the map could easily look like this depending on how you interpret the wording: [33] (I'm obviously not proposing we do this). Prcc★27 (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well let's talk through Colorado then. There is an appeals court decision striking down Colorado's ban, but that decision is stayed pending appeal. That's a pretty straightforward case for striping Colorado gold. What exactly is the case for striping Colorado light blue?
The notion that a temporary stay is akin to a law being passed.. if anything, Virginia's situation is akin to a law being passed. Colorado however shouldn't be striped light blue, there a stay pending appeal and when a law is passed there is no stay pending appeal. I oppose striping Colorado light blue and support coloring states like Virginia light blue (until/if the color is changed). Prcc★27 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support leaving the map as is. Whether CO/VA should be gold(+mblue) or solid light blue or solid dark blue will be solved in a couple weeks based on what happens with the cases. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I have to disagree with you there. Saying let's not worry about whether or not the map is accurate right now because in a few weeks it will be easier to get the map right isn't an acceptable strategy to me. My goal, and I think all of our goals here, should be to have this map be accurate all the time. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could compromise on triple striping. My view is, unless something happens by Aug 25, 2014, same-sex couples will be able to get married (beyond getting civil disobedience licenses from Boulder). That fact makes me feel their must be some light blue on Colorado. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true that the stay in the Colorado case has a termination date of August 25 rather than being stayed indefinitely pending appeal, then leaving the map as is seems okay to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a bold edit and colored Ohio solid cream but then reverted myself because I thought that there might be some issues. Now that we consolidated some colors, is it still necessary to stripe recognition states..? If a territory with no prohibition were to recognize ssm they would be solid dark gray. But what if a jurisdiction bans same-sex marriage but recognizes out-of-state ones? If we use the wording on the North American map we might be able to color recognition/recognition stay states solid. The wording goes "No recognition, same-sex marriage banned"; with this wording we could color a recognition state solid dark gray with a footnote that says "____ bans the performance of same-sex marriage." The only problem with the North American map wording is that some states have limited recognition. Prcc★27 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please quit it with the whatifs. If something happens or we have reliable sources indicating something will happen, then we'll deal with that then. Historically, we have had no problem striping a state with dark grey + blue (e.g., Maryland before SSM), dark grey + red should not be a problem. In the case creating a new solid color for one state versus adding one more striped state, adding one more striped state seems the better option (and in this case one kind of striping would be replaced with another). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ohio should not be colored solid, it should remain striped. This was specifically discussed on the talk page and that was the consensus. The reasoning is that since it is only the ban on the recognition of out-of-state marriages that has been challenged, Ohio will still have to be striped, as the ban on in-state same-sex marriages will remain. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is why I reverted my edit. I also thought it was important to note that on the North American map recognition states are solid when they recognize ssm, should this be changed? Ohio is solid cream on the North American map. Prcc★27 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool. Should the red color be fixed then (I never was a fan of the wording)? Do any of the Mexican states need to be striped with red..? Prcc★27 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you tweaking the wording on that map, although I don't quite see an issue there. As for Mexican red striping, I don't know if that information is out there. Finding court rulings for marriage south of the border is hard enough. Dralwik|Have a Chat21:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Attorneys for two same-sex couples have until 18 August 5 p.m. EDT to respond to a county clerk's stay request. If the stay is rejected by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, same-sex marriage will be legal on 21 August at 8:00 a.m. EDT. Would anyone be up at 8:00 a.m. EDT/5:00 a.m. PDT to update the map..? [34]Prcc★27 (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal if someone isn't here to update it on the dot. I'm sure one way or another it'd be updated by someone within a few hours at most. Shereth20:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Does the Supreme Court stay of Virginia apply to all cases, including Florida? If it doesn't apply to Florida, Florida should be the transition color (who's wording I would like to fix if possible). If I am wrong, please correct me. 71.225.218.253 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, keep in mind that lately cases have been stayed pending appeal of other cases i.e. Indiana (recognition) and Florida (stay lifted 90 days after resolution of similar same-sex marriage cases). Colorado might be in the same boat too. Prcc★27 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the Seventh Circuit has issued no order after ruling today and can be expected to stay its ruling. SSM is no more legal in IN and WI than in OK. There's just the teensiest chance that a Governor won't appeal. Hardly likely.
@Bmclaughlin9: So should Indiana and Wisconsin be colored as stayed or as transition..? Also, we could change the wording; what do you think the wording should say..? In Bowling v. Pence it said they had to "rule on the merits" not issue an order. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In today's two cases, nothing has touched the district court stays. They remain in place. If anything changes it will be very clear. Judge Young won't do anything different in Bowling. Baskin is his case too. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For easy ref, here's Boling, where the last sentence tells us to wait until Baskin becomes clear:
This Order is stayed until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence. Should the Seventh Circuit stay its decision in the related cases, this order shall remain stayed.
In my opinion, which comes from reading various articles about this, the seventh issued no stay YET. I say this because as far as I know in my limited knowledge, once a circuit rules, that's a new ruling that has to be stayed all over again even if the district issued a stay. And nothing I've found says "The Seventh Circuit issued a stay." Swifty819 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that until an actual long-term stay is placed, we need to have them in the transition color. Also, @Prcc27:: I have undone your bold color scheme change pending any discussions on the matter. I am not quite sure why Indiana is striped with medium grey OoS stripes (though I have not read up on this case yet) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They'd be in transition, since even though there is no stay, any appeals court ruling has to wait 21 days before the mandate is issued (or 7 days after a request for rehearing or stay is denied). This would be most analogous to a law allowing gay marriage passing that says "This law takes affect 21 days after passage." Swifty819 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (Five edits later and I finally get this to look right while actually logged in)[reply]
Also, why is Indiana striped anything? Even if the seventh circuit ruled they had to recognize marriages (which they implicitly did because there's no way you can permit marriages but not recognize them without being paradoxical), this would not take affect until 21 days either. Swifty819 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the judge have to lift the stay..? The decision was stayed until the Seventh Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. If the Seventh Circuit would have stayed their decisions in the similar cases then Bowling v. Pence would have remained stayed. Even if a stay is eventually issued, I'm not sure that would mean Bowling v. Pence would be stayed because of the wording they used: "remain" (how could something remain stayed if the stay is no longer in effect)? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Indiana recognition striped? The state does not seem to be recognizing any marriages yet, which to me implies solid light blue. (Wouldn't Bowling being dependent on the Seventh Circuit require that the actual mandate be issued before it took effect?) Dralwik|Have a Chat02:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Indiana isn't giving recognition to same-sex couples (de facto) it is still legal there (de jure). We updated Kentucky when same-sex marriage recognition was de jure legal even though same-sex couples didn't receive recognition from the state. The name of the template is "State laws regarding same-sex marriage and similar unions in the United States." If the state wants to break the law, that's on them; but this template deals with laws. Also, the recognition ruling says "This Order is stayed until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence." It doesn't say the mandate has to be issued; Bowling v. Pence was stayed pending rulings in similar cases. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We updated Kentucky when same-sex marriage recognition was de jure legal even though same-sex couples didn't receive recognition from the state. - but then we created the transition color and changed procedure, so all your de jure de facto stuff is irrelevant. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. When recognition was de jure legal in Kentucky for 1 day it was not in transition. Kentucky's ruling wasn't stayed until the next day (which would have made Kentucky go from the recognition color to the transition color). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Indiana is solid light blue. As long as no one changes that no more reverts are necessary. Prcc27, you are the only one who thinks striping is needed, no one else holds that view and at least three people (including me) dispute that view. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one in Indiana is recognizing marriages at the moment. If I found evidence that one was recognized, I would support the striping. Further, even if Judge Young's stay lifted automatically, I believe a case isn't concluded until a mandate is issued. The difference between here and KY is that KY was decided in a district court. In district court, an order and a mandate can be issued at the same time. In an appeals court, the judges are generally required to wait 21 days after the order to issue the mandate. So the comparison to KY does not apply.Swifty819 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The judge said the stay would be lifted at the CONCLUSION of Baskin v. Bogan. Because there has been no mandate issued in Baskin, the case has not yet concluded. Swifty819 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I'm thoroughly confused. I clearly misremembered because the judge's order reads "This Order is stayed until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence." However, at the same time, Indiana is saying that because there is no mandate in the 7th circuit case yet, the ruling is not in effect and they therefore refuse to perform or recognize the marriages, so I don't know what to do. Swifty819 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my confusion is, until the mandate is issued, the order could be stayed at any time. And if we agree with your interpretation of the ruling (which could well be correct), then that means that Indiana might recognize marriages for 5 days, and then not do it anymore. Because "Should the Seventh Circuit stay its decision in the related cases, this order shall remain stayed.", I'm a little iffy on saying "OK, Indiana recognizes" until we KNOW the ruling won't be stayed. Swifty819 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for one ever since I got into this debate, and as of yet, I can't find one. In fact some Indiana officials actually consider the ruling to be stayed even though Posner made no mention of it Swifty819 (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/Rules/handbook.pdf follows: "It is important to note that the successful party on appeal cannot enforce its judgment in the district court until the issuance of the mandate has formally reinvested jurisdiction in that district court." Does this mean that the plaintiffs in the recognition case (the one in the district court) cannot yet say "Look, the appeals court ruled in Baskin, so the stay on recognition should be lifted." because Baskin is still in the 7th circuit? This is what I've been wondering the whole time. Swifty819 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Swifty819: Hmm.. The district court may not have jurisdiction in the Baskin case, but since a district court could choose to temporarily stay their ruling or even choose not to stay it at all, the district court still has jurisdiction in the Bowling case if/until the Seventh Circuit steps in- in that particular case.
In Indiana, recognition seems to be de jure legal but there isn't de facto recognition. Kentucky legalized recognition (de jure) without recognizing any same-sex marriages and then the next day it was temporarily stayed. Kentucky was still colored as recognition even though it was only de jure legal. If Kentucky would have been in the same situation today, it would have been recognition for one day and transition until the stay was extended. Since this map deals with laws a state should be colored once recognition is de jure legal. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was the previous consensus, but since we now update to transition color before a law is in effect, I think the OoS recognition is covered by the transition color. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kentucky's law was in effect!!! An unstayed ruling by a district court, regardless of whether or not it is enforced, is a law that is in effect. If Kentucky were in the same situation today, it would not be colored as transition until the next day when the judge decided to temporarily stay their ruling. What's being argued is whether or not Indiana's law is in effect, regardless of whether or not it is being enforced.Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can produce a reliable source that says specifically that the recognition ruling in effect (i.e., we need more than Wikipedians' readings of the original primary/secondary sources), and then we can consider making Indiana striped. As of now, no one has a primary or secondary source saying that the recognition ruling is in effect. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why there would be a source that says so if the governor is going to pretend that Baskin is stayed anyways. Oh well, Indiana's current situation isn't gonna last long anyways.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, no one else is reading the case the same way as you. If you want striping on Indiana, you need to give us a reliable source that backs your reading. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cert petitions filed in Bogan v Baskin and Walker v Wolf. Per FRAP 41, the mandate cannot issue until certiorari is resolved. Colored them stayed. Davidmac2003 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. "(A) A party may move to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. The motion must be served on all parties and must show that the certiorari petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay." No party has asked the Seventh Circuit to stay the ruling yet, they have simply filed for cert. Swifty819 (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for Indiana recognition... the Supreme Court made it clear that Virginia would be stayed until a mandate was issued whereas the judge in the Bowling case didn't make it clear that a mandate had to be issued for recognition to go into effect. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the transition color should be dark gray because states in this color are "legally ambiguous" according to the reference desk. I agree with them because these states are going from discrimination to marriage rights and in the meantime they are transitioning from a "negative" or neutral color to a "positive" color. Furthermore, the recognition color is light blue on the North American map, and the world homosexuality map. Also, recognition states currently give rights to same-sex couples whereas transition states do not. So basically my proposal is to switch the transition color to dark gray and the recognition color to light blue. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it is not legally ambiguous, it is legally solid; it is just not yet in effect. Recognizing but not performing is neither affirmation or rejection, so a grey color is proper. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination is still enforced until it goes into effect, so having transition states colored dark gray makes sense. Recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere affirms the validity of same-marriage and gives same-sex couples the same rights as different-sex couples. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, a state is not taking a position on SSM, it is just recognizing them as they would any other marriage. Many states do not permit cousin marriage, yet they will recognize cousin marriages from other states; those states are not affirming cousin marriage, they are just accepting them anyways. The analogy holds for SSM. Light blue makes more sense for a transition color as in those cases the law is affirmative (even if not yet in effect). Anyways, I am not responding in this section anymore until others chime in. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think cousin marriage is recognized in every state though.. Also, a same-sex couple receives more rights in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages than a state that legalized same-sex marriage (until it actually goes into effect, which would turn the state solid dark blue). Because SSCs (and even couples that are cousins) receive benefits and are treated as married, the law is in fact affirmative. Recognition states recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, but in-state same-sex marriages are considered invalid. Even though the law that legalizes same-sex marriages is affirmative, the law that is still being enforced (or in some cases the de facto discrimination) is "negative". As a result, I think that transition states should be represented with a color that shows that the current law is "negative" and the law that hasn't entered into effect yet is affirmative. I do agree that this discussion won't really get anywhere unless other people join in. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not making an iota of sense. A state that does not allow SSM but recognizes it anyways is identical to a state that does not recognize CM but recognizes anyways. They are directly analogous. They are recognizing OoS marriages, but they are not letting people perform said marriages; summing those two sets of facts, it is a fundamentally neutral position. A state that is about to enable SSM does not have the same neutrality. No one else is agreeing with you. It is pointless for you to try to respond here until more people actual chime in.. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed directly analogous; which is exactly why it's not worth bringing up. If I view same-sex marriage recognition as an affirmative law, why would my opinion be any different when it comes to cousin marriages..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons set forth by Thegreyanomaly. States with a court ruling or law are going to PERFORM gay marriages, it just might be a few weeks or months before they do. On the other hand, a state that only has recognition might be months or years before they perform. In other words, I believe a state that has something not yet in effect is closer to dark blue (marriage) than a state that recognizes marriage but doesn't perform. Swifty819 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that any state which falls under a circuit court precedent and has a ban in effect should be colored pink. My reasoning for this is that even if the precedent is stayed, that information can be found by a gold state in the same circuit. Furthermore, either the stay on the precedent is lifted, and those states would remain pink, or they would be overturned by SCOTUS and we'd have to turn a bunch of states anyway. I say pink (the old statute ban color), because that way, the further a way a state is from one end (complete marriage) or another (complete ban), the lighter it ought to be. What do you all think? If needed, we could do something for stayed precedent. Swifty819 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn.Swifty819 (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A circuit precedent does nothing to a ssm ban, the ban is left intact. Furthermore, Kansas's ban isn't even being (fully) challenged, so the precedent is essentially useless to Kansas if/until the ban is challenged. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the precedent does matter. Although you are correct in saying that by itself, the precedent doesn't do anything, it does essentially mean that when it is challenged, it has to fall. I figured that perhaps people might want to know that even though the ban is still in place, there is precedent against it, which DOES make a difference as far as the challenge goes, since as you know, it means a district judge in Kansas (or Wyoming, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia) won't be able to uphold the ban. The wording I would use is something like "Same-sex marriage banned, but subject to court precedent." Swifty819 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not chiming in (I have too much work to deal with another re-color proposal), but you really should not be starting this discussion, we just had it in July/August and it did not take hold. If you are going to continue this discussion anyways, you ought to ping everyone involved in that prior discussion (as well as any other active users on this page). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider same-sex marriage cases from 5 states on September 29. [37] If they deny cert for all 5 states, same-sex marriage will be legal immediately in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Florida would be colored light blue for transition [38] (in fact, if SCOTUS decides to hear the cases for Indiana and Wisconsin but not the other states, Florida would still be colored for transition). Okay, so is it possible for the Supreme Court to take up one or a few of the cases and preserve the stays and delay ruling in the other states or would the Supreme Court be required to deny cert..? So if the Supreme Court issues a nationwide ruling in support of same-sex marriage, every state would be colored light blue for transition until the mandate is issued? If the Supreme Court issues a ruling against same-sex marriage, then the state(s) would remain stayed (gold) until the mandate is issued right..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what the map would look like if the Supreme Court denied cert for all of the cases [39]. Here is what the map would look like if the Supreme Court issued a nationwide ruling in support of same-sex marriage [40]. I'm still confused on how the map would look if the court issued a ruling against same-sex marriage... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dralwik: Did you read Florida's ruling..? "The stay will remain in effect until stays have been lifted in Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen, and for an additional 90 days to allow the defendants to seek a longer stay from this court or a stay from the Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court." Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is going to be a while till any of this is more than supposition. The SCOTUS can give cert as early or late in the session as it wants, so there really isn't much we can do on this matter. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well- I just thought I should bring it up just like what we've been doing in the past. I also wanted to make sure we were clear on Florida so it wouldn't be like Indiana all over again! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if SCOTUS decide to not hear the cases from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin same sex marriage would be legal in all the states that are part of the circuit so all the states in the 4th, 7th and 10th would have marriage equality as there is binding precedent by the appeal courts.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be binding throughout the nation, as all SCOTUS decisions are. The only way it might not be binding nationwide is if it were somehow a narrow ruling (something like the vacated 9th Circuit Perry ruling, which applied only to states in the 9th Circuit that had previously had marriage equality but then got rid of it, i.e. only California). Tinmanic (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this is no longer speculation, was a clear consensus ever reached about what color Florida should be? Or has anything else changed that would render this question moot? Axelfar (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rolled the map back (and updated the world maps). We should wait for a source that the ruling would actually be state-wide before changing Louisiana. For Federal District Court, this isn't necessary, but a state court bears double checking the scope of the decision. Dralwik|Have a Chat19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No footnote necessary: a stay is likely, and the appeal is to the State Supreme Court ... if it's struck down, it's over, and if it's upheld, it will apply state-wide. Mw843 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Louisiana should be a yellow dot (not a ring) on the world map. Also, Florida's and Arizona's rings should be green for recognition, not blue for marriage. In the future if there's ssm in select counties, there should be a footnote for this map, a dot for the world maps, and it should be colored in on the US map broken up into counties as dark blue. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ACLU says the ruling is in effect now. Appeal not likely, but no one knows for sure. "“As of right now, the injunction and order requiring the state to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdiction is in effect,” Rothert told BuzzFeed News. " HERE. Tony Rothert is legal director of the ACLU of Missouri. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, I say we don't color a state dark gray until recognition is actually legal. In the meantime, a state that legalized recognition (but hasn't gone into effect yet) should only have a footnote. In this case, Missouri's ruling is already in effect so I removed the footnote. If I'm wrong then a footnote should be added and Missouri should go back to solid dark red. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: Well that's not what happened here was it? Someone colored Missouri dark gray for recognition and added a footnote saying it wasn't in effect yet (even though it actually was). It makes zero sense to have a state go from light blue when recognition isn't in effect to dark gray when the state actually starts recognizing same-sex marriages. I'm guessing this is why they used the recognition color instead of the transition color (unless they forgot about the "transition" color). IMO, it would make more sense to have the "transition" color be yellow and have the states with same-sex marriage bans that have been struck down be medium red and pink (light red). We could even re-add the limited same-sex union color as light blue (even though I'm not a big fan of it). Or we could use the light blue as the recognition color. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You recently just made a re-coloring proposal and it fell flat. You frequently make these merit-less proposals and almost all of them fall flat, please stop. For stability, we should aim to stick with the colors we have. Readers will get confused each time people try to change up the color scheme. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thegreyanomaly: You do have a point (about the color scheme being changed too much). How about we keep the colors the same and put the recognition color above the transition color (I mean, that's what was done with the document):
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:State_recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_(North_America).svg#Stays){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.tinmanic.com/testmaps/gold.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.tinmanic.com/testmaps/goldred.svg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Same-sex_unions_in_the_United_States.svg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7e/20140304012420%21Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[19]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20140807033814%21Test.svg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[20]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20140807071650%21Test.svg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[21]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20140807230702%21Test.svg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7e/20130514220416%21Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7e/20130515012907%21Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7e/20130525223025%21Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[27]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7e/20140625165713%21Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20140810081338%21Test.svg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20140810081708%21Test.svg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20140810082922%21Test.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20140911005255%21Test.svg){kind=link}
![[40]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20140821074252%21Test.svg){kind=link}
![[41]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20140911014059%21Test.svg){kind=link}
