File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

New maps: legalization date and method

Hi All, I have created two new maps that depict what method that was used to legalize same-sex marriage (statute, court, referendum, etc) and when this occurred. I used the information in the table of the article on Same-sex marriage in the United States. I did a cursory search and didn't find any maps like this on wikipedia already. Feel free to dismiss these new maps and/or fight over irrelevant minutiae :-). 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I accidentally created the methods map on wikipedia instead of wikimedia. I ported it over to wikimedia but it's still showing up as a separate thing on wikipedia. If anyone know how to sort this out, be my guest. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have separate colors for federal District Court/federal Circuit Court. It makes the map too confusing. Really, all marriage bans in the federal court system are struck down by District Courts. The Circuit Court issues a mandate to the District Court instructing them to issue an injunction against enforcing the marriage ban. This precedent is then binding on the other District Courts in the circuit.

Does it really make it "too confusing"?? It's certainly non trivial to sort out exactly who is responsible for what. Like, is the supreme court responsible for legalizations on October 6th? Their actions were responsible, but the actual rulings came from the circuit courts. But it is a material difference that some states only required action at the district level to have their bans overturned (because they didn't and/or couldn't appeal), while some states required action at the circuit level. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No state had their marriage ban struck down directly by a Circuit Court. That's not how appellate courts work. The injunction itself always comes from a District Court. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Please see the new language in the legend. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The categories should be: Passed by referendum, Passed by state legislature, Ordered by state court, Ordered by federal court 98.113.109.43 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Just continuing the discussion of these...

circuit vs. appeals court seems difficult to determine on some of these, combining to federal seems cleaner. With that, having a color for the USSC seems a little premature, maybe that should wait until the USSC actually schedules arguments on a case?
not necessarily a fan on the October 6th split of this year, but that may ultimately have to wait until we see whether we get 50 states by Christmas or if the 8th is still chugging along in 2019.Naraht (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the legalization method map because in my opinion, the circuit court didn't legalize same-sex marriage in states like Alaska and Wyoming. Sure they set a precedent, but it was the district court that actually struck down the bans. Furthermore, what do we do about West Virginia..? Same-sex marriage was legalized there by executive action in response to the circuit court precedent. Also, the circuit court color should be darker than the district court color! Prcc27 (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add the method map because it's only going to get "fixed" through exposure, or at very least I want more opinions on the uselessness of the map to remove the link, because I think it will be a relevant map once more people have contributed. I'm going to include language to the effect of "Ordered by federal court before/after circuit court precedent". I think lightness of the color should correlate with how much objectionable/difficult it was for the state to legalize same-sex marriage. Also, I'm going to remove striping because others have expressed strong dislike of striping. Color will indicate the last date of legalization, which seems perfectly fair. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Few of my thoughts, for what it's worth.

It was the right idea to get rid of the striping. I understand the desire to account for those situations in which SSM was legalized, took place, got put back on hold and then went back into force at a later date. However well intentioned it is a common pitfall of these kinds of infomaps to want to cram in as much information as possible. Remember, articles are for details, these maps are for summaries. A footnote explaining that some states may have had SSM at some point in the past is sufficient.
I understand the rationale behind the October 6 split for 2014 dates, but this rationale may not be apparent to other users and come across as arbitrary. Furthermore, it may not prove to be the major pivot point that it seems today. I believe it would retain the most utility for your typical user to remove the October 6 split and just stick with 2014 as a whole.
I think that the "method" map is too fraught with gray areas to ultimately be useful. There are a number of ways one could interpret certain situations. If a lower court (ie. Arizona, Wyoming) issues a ruling that is based explicitly on precedent from the decision of a higher court, is it the higher court or the lower court that effectively made it legal? If the AG of Wyoming drops the appeals process and marriages proceed, was it state executive action that was the ultimate call? There are, I believe, too many wrinkles here and this kind of information is best served by some other format. Shereth 04:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

These last cases are pretty easy lumped under "Legalized in response to or after circuit precedent." Though this is obviously not a clear-cut category of governmental action, the intention of "States dragged kicking and screaming after things had been decided for them" is very forthcoming. Still, it might make sense to distinguish between states where the government acquiesced (WV, NC, WY, etc), and states where the government chose to litigate until precedent is used (SC, KS?). 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Does the legalization map deal with legalization or when same-sex marriage became legal..? There is a significant difference between the two... Prcc27 (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another twist in legalization method is Maryland. Passed by the Legislature, signed by the governor and then enough signatures were gotten to attempt to override that decision at the ballot box before it went into effect. Legistlative or referendum? I think these maps are generally good ideas, unfortunately the one with legalization date needs either to be a "finally done" (with footnotes for California, Utah and other states) or it needs to be a animation, I believe. No Deadline for these, at this point, I think.Naraht (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The colors for the Method map are as follows: <deleted. See legend above> I think these are pretty cut-and-dry. Maryland then becomes the only state that would potentially need striping. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Washington is exactly the same situation as Maryland. --Siradia (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't Maine as well? The law was even struck once because of the people's veto, before a new referendum accepted it. Kumorifox (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So 2 states, since it seems Maine required no action by legislature. Still not excessively striped. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Two more things: I agree that the date map would be better as a GIF. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make an SVGGIF / animated SVG. Also: It might make sense to have two color series in the methods map: one for state actors legalizing marriage, and another for federal actors legalizing marriage. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I already made a GIF for the legalisation and bans timeline, see here for that one. I got no feedback on it yet though, could people please let me know if it works and is usable? And if not, I'll gladly alter it to match the new map here, or even make something else. Kumorifox (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your map should jump state by state and not year by year, i.e. each frame stamped e.g.: "AZ 10/17/14." Also, the aesthetic is fairly different from the SVG maps, nothing unsavory, but consistency is a good thing. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think your map should also depict statutory bans (e.g. WY, WV, etc). 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

And one more thing, to address Prcc27's concerns above, I personally think it makes more sense to record the actual time when same-sex couples could actually enter into marriage as opposed to when a timer started ticking towards that eventuality. I know others feel differently, though. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that red and green are usually discouraged as map colors due to accessibility issues; they can cause issues for colorblind users. Consider a safer color combination, such as yellow/green/blue. #edf8b1, #7fcdbb and #2c7fb8 make a pleasing combination to my eye, at least :) Shereth 06:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth and Shereth: Thanks for the comments, I'll take care of the colours. As regards transition, I used the year by year approach as it was suggested not to do state by state, to show the slow start back in 1992, and the very rapid developments in 2013 and 2014. I'll make another map with new colours and state-by-state transitions. For layout/appearance, unfortunately I was not able to convert the SVG file to an animated format with the programs I use, so I had to fall back on a .gif file that was already available. I'll do some more reading on the topic and see if I can convert SVG files instead. And thanks to 0nlyth3truth for adding the map in small format, I wasn't sure how to do that. Kumorifox (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized it would be hard to do the year by year thing with the marriage bans. Still think it needs statutory bans, though! Ideally, use colors that have been previously used for similar things, particularly, blue for marriage equality. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I went for green to avoid the "political" association with red and blue, as someone suggested to me. That way, it would be green for go and red for stop (kind of). I'll take care of statutory bans as well, but this will push the sequence back to 1973, when Maryland was the first state to enact a statutory ban.
Also, question: is there a difference between domestic partnership and civil union? New Jersey legalised domestic partnerships in 2004 and civil unions in 2006, whereas many other states only ever had one and seem to equate the two. Kumorifox (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the political association argues in favor of using blue. At any rate, you shouldn't use colors that only or mostly only differ between their green and red channels (green and red, blue and purple, brown and green, etc.), for the sake of colorblind individuals. I would use the same colors that are used in the main map. You can download the SVG and open it with a text editor to see the RGB values of these colors. Finally, seeing that legal trend has been that anywhere same-sex marriage is not explicity legal it has not been allowed to happen (NM would be the only exception I think), it may make sense to just ignore same-sex marriage bans entirely in your map. Functionally, the position of Maryland in 1972 was not materially different from 1974, so I think it makes sense to ignore the distinction altogether in favor of simplicity.

Civil Unions are generally taken to be unions that are marriages in everything but name, whereas domestic partnership have significantly curtailed rights and privileges and aren't meant to be substitutive of marriages. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose and Comment: I oppose the creation of these maps, but there is one major flaw I see in them that I thought should be pointed out. California's depiction is highly incorrect. California legalized SSM in 2008. Until the new state statute goes into effect, the only thing making SSM legal in CA is the original In re Marriage cases ruling from 2008. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the idiotic mistakes in question. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you oppose these maps? You do realize that once same-sex marriage becomes legal in the entire US, the map whose talk page we're on will become irrelevant. At that point, only maps depicting the process of same-sex marriage legalization ("when" and "how") will be relevant. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: on second thought, I would be willing to support the use of the "Method of same-sex marriage legalization" map, not so much the "Date of same-sex marriage legalization" (which can be and is better handled by tables). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The date map is turning out to be the more popular one (some even want a GIF!), so you'll have some detractors. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas

Kansas Ban struck down stayed until November 11. http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/big-win-federal-judge-rules-in-favor-of-the-freedom-to-marry-in-kansas .--Allan120102 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Light blue while the state pursues futile appeals. Mw843 (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Kansas has appealed and requested an en banc review, which was not done by either Utah or Oklahoma. Not sure how futile this appeal is, but I think the colour should be changed to gold now. Kumorifox (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, until someone rules otherwise. I think a 10th Circuit en banc request is moot, given the Supreme's rejection. Mw843 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas will still be bound by the 10th Circuit precedent, and the en banc is almost certainly futile, so until we get the judge in Kansas explicitly staying the ruling until appeals are done, it should stay pale blue. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 03:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Good enough for me, thanks for clarifying :-) Kumorifox (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just as a general rule, the gold color is reserved for indefinite stays. So long as there is an expiration date for a stayed ruling we must use light blue, regardless of the futility or certainty of any attempt to appeal. Shereth 15:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Next Up: South Carolina

A ruling could come any time after noon EST Wednesday, and the judge dropped some hints: [1]. Mw843 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Missouri

Breaking - the state's ban has been struck down in state court. Mw843 (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ruling here [2]. Noting that the State AG declined to appeal the order that the state recognize out-of-state marriages (was he re-elected?), what should we do with Missouri? Mw843 (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably add a footnote about St. Louis, especially since Missouri recognizes same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know the precedence of Missouri Circuit Courts? The ruling on recognition applied state-wide. Mw843 (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the recognition ruling was state-wide and the performance ruling only applied to St. Louis. Prcc27 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we do nothing until after the State AG issues a statement. For the moment, it doesn't appear to be a state-wide ruing. Mw843 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What are we going to do with Missouri?? Even though the AG is going to appeal it say it will not look for a stay and this decision only applies to St Louis? So what we make a new color for this situation? Because it is still illegal in the other counties.--Allan120102 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

... and the State AG will appeal, so no map changes or footnotes required. Mw843 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

But marriage is legal in St Louis though so what do we do in this situation because he will not ask for a stay.--Allan120102 (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The attorney general has issued a statement that he will appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, but specifies he will not seek a stay. http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2014/AG_Koster_ruling_StLouis_same-sex_marriage/ Baltimatt (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Loathe as I am to support them, I think there has to be a footnote: same-sex marriage is now legal, and according to reports, are being performed. Mw843 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a footnote for St. Louis. Maybe we shouldn't have striped New Mexico in the past... wouldn't a same-sex couple in a jurisdiction that has a de facto ban on same-sex marriage performance and recognition but performs it a the local level have less rights than a state with a de jure ban on same-sex marriage performance but recognition is legal and ssm is performed at the local level? Here are some options we have: we can change the past precedent of striping jurisdictions with no law for or against same-sex marriage w/ performance at local level, we can triple stripe Missouri (this probably isn't a good idea) dark blue-medium blue-dark red, or we could stripe Missouri dark blue-dark red with a footnote that says same-sex marriage is performed at the local level and recognized at the state level. Prcc27 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand. according to [3], same sex marriage is now the law of the land there, and no stay has been requested. so this state should be dark blue, not striped. unless someone stages a coup and overthrows the govt, and wipes out all prior legal findings, decision appears final. its not a local decision, it was simply made in one location by a single judge (which is normal for humans, as we cannot appear in multiple locations at one instant, nor are we large enough to be considered to be in an entire state at one instant)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's only the law of the land in the city of St. Louis. The AG is appealing without a stay ... if the ruling is upheld by the state Supreme Court, or they decline to hear it, it will become state-wide. I think the current situation with the map is good, and I don't see the need to revisit any precedents at this time. Mw843 (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: Why do you think same-sex marriage will become legal state-wide if the supreme court declines to hear the ruling..? If the supreme court declines to hear it, all that will happen is that same-sex marriage will remain legal in St. Louis. Prcc27 (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope they decline to hear it so it can be faster to change Missouri, but we need to wait and see, and I doubt they would pass to hear it as is an important issue. Beware of SC the ban can be struck as soon as Friday.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Right now, Missouri is the only state on the map that has middle blue. So, why not make the whole state middle blue (i.e., not hatched) with a footnote to explain its unique situation, until such time (unlikely) that another state merits blue. I think that the red needs to be gotten rid of because it's misinformation now that there is no state-wide ban. My suggestion: Missouri middle blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.225.200.92 (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this. We're essentially following Oregon's example where the state had civil unions yet had a ban against same sex marriage. The ban, for now, has been struck down in St. Louis but remains largely in place (excepting the recognizing the outside marriages). Until we get more information that other counties are complying, we can only assume that nothing has changed. Einsteinboricua (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Missouri might not ban same-sex marriage anymore! Since the ruling was made by a circuit court, the ruling should be binding in the entire state. At the very least, Missouri should be striped with the lighter red instead of the dark red since its ban was weakened. However, it's also possible that the same-sex marriage ban was struck down statewide. Since the judge ruled that the ban is constitutional but only ordered St. Louis (city) to issue licenses to same-sex couples, this might mean that there is no law for or against same-sex marriage (with the exception of recognition) in the rest of the state. Using the New Mexico precedent, Missouri would be striped medium blue for recognition and dark blue for local application. It might also be possible that same-sex marriage is legal in the entire state (though the AG would beg to differ). I provided some sources if any of you all are interested in what some of the sources have to say. The first source says the ban was "thrown out." The second source says it's not clear whom the ruling applies to, but also notes that despite the ruling only referring to the recorder of St. Louis, the ruling broadly states that "any same sex couple that satisfies all the requirements for marriage under Missouri law, other than being of different sexes, is legally entitled to a marriage license." The third sources notes that most counties aren't issuing to same-sex couples because they're convinced the ruling only applies to St. Louis (city). It also mentions that the AG believes that the ruling is only binding on the parties involved. Missouri's ruling is so confusing! I lean towards striping Missouri dark blue/medium blue with a footnote stating that Missouri's ban is struck down but the ruling only ordered an injunction for St. Louis to issue licenses to SSCs. If we ignore the New Mexico precedent, then I would just simply color Missouri solid medium blue with the same footnote I proposed in the previous sentence. Here are the sources:[4][5][6] Prcc27 (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Missouri recognizes all out-of-state marriages = medium blue; Missouri struck down in-state marriage ban but ordered only St. Louis to issue licenses = probably not dark blue but definitely not dark red. Red simply doesn't convey any meaning here anymore or, worse, it conveys misinformation.80.99.70.183 (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Striping medium blue with beige due to the appeal to the state Supreme Court, with a footnote explaining the St. Louis ruling and licenses comes to mind for me. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 15:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The map, with footnote, currently reflects the situation on the ground: same-sex marriage is not available state-wide, out-of-state marriages are recognized, and the ruling allowing marriage only applies to St. Louis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw843 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Dralwik There is an indef stay on Missouri, so we shouldn't pretend it has SSM state-wide. Also, any New Mexico analogies that people (i.e., Prcc27) throw around are just plain, bloody wrong. NM had no legal ban on SSM, just systematic discrimination, MO has a challenged law against SSM. They are completely different situations. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly, I've started a new section below arguing for the stayed-recognition striping. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: The part of the ruling allowing same-sex marriages to be performed doesn't have to apply statewide. Point is, the ban was found unconstitutional and so now there is no statewide law banning or allowing same-sex marriage except for recognition so Missouri would be solid medium blue. Prcc27 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ban struck down in US District Court and stayed: I think this means blue and gold striping, but the footnote stays [7]. Mw843 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC) I agree. Looks good.80.99.70.183 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sixth Circuit

The bans have been upheld, per [8]Swifty819 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee go dark red. Mw843 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Now of course, I must ask the question: in the event that SCOTUS stays 6C and takes the case themselves, what do we do? Leave it red anyway? Swifty819 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would there be need for a stay? There will obviously be an appeal from the plaintiffs, but unless the SCOTUS intervenes (which it will) then I think it should stay red. There's nothing stopping the state from enforcing its ban. That being said, should we use OH's yellow as an indicator of where bans have been upheld? This should be considered given that now we have a split and as such we can distinguish between states where bans have yet to be ruled upon and states with bans that have been upheld (whether by federal, state, or district judges). Alternatively, we could use pink (the statute pink). Einsteinboricua (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

They go straight to red sadly. --Allan120102 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this actually has never happened before, and considering that SCOTUS will almost surely butt in, they could make the Sixth Circuit stay its mandate. Swifty819 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Plaintiffs could request an en banc hearing from the 6th, or go straight to the Supremes. If en banc is granted, the four states would revert to where they were before the 6th ruled. If they go to the Supremes, the states stay red. Either way it's unlikely there'll be a final ruling before next June ... if then. Mw843 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Best case scenario: the states go gold. If SCOTUS stays the mandate, there is still no way the bans are unenforceable (from what I know, anyway). Kumorifox (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if it stay the decision it will be the same because none of the four states have same sex marriage right now from a decision from a judge.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If SCOTUS stays the ruling, we then have no official reversal of the district court because no mandate, I think. Also, for reference: [9] Swifty819 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A stay is not a relevant concept in this situation. The point of a stay is to prevent a court decision from taking potentially irreversible effect (for example, keep that building from being torn down; stop that Florida recount; prevent these couples from getting married and causing legal confusion). In this case, there is nothing to "take effect." Same-sex marriages were not being performed before the Sixth Circuit decision, and they are not being performed now. There is nothing to stay. Tinmanic (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a new colour representing the states whose marriage bans have been upheld by a circuit court and are being appealed to SCOTUS, seeing that the battle is not yet over in these states. Or, we could start a new colour for these states plus Puerto Rico and Louisiana and any other states (if there are any) where bans have been upheld but are being appealed to circuit courts. Red implies that there are no ongoing cases regarding these states, which is misleading. sbro0212 (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sbro0212:Having the states in the 6th Circuit coloured red is not misleading, as those states do not recognise SSM nor do they perform it, and that is what dark red means. The litigation map covers where court cases are ongoing. That map will need a new colour for SCOTUS appeals, however, but this map does not. Kumorifox (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: But here's an issue with this map: we've essentially been tracking how the bans in the states fall. Red says that SSM is banned. But yet we have beige to say the same thing, except that the ban was struck down and decision is stayed. Shouldn't we have a color that represents the same thing but in the opposite sense (SSM ban upheld pending appeal)? The appeal obviously is to the SCOTUS and neither the rulings from the 6th circuit, LA, or PR are final until the SCOTUS says so. Where it'll be appealed is irrelevant; the fact is that as sbro0212 said, the battles have started and are far from over. Dark red would symbolize those states where no action has been taken; medium red, where the ban is contrary to circuit ruling but no action has been taken; beige, where bans fell but decision is stayed; and I would advocate pink for bans that have been upheld and are in the process of appeals to a higher court. Essentially, once a state moves from dark red, it's moved and unless the plaintiffs decide to not appeal when a judge upholds a ban (or in the unlikely case that the SCOTUS rules to uphold all bans), that's when they can revert to dark red. Einsteinboricua (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I must strongly oppose adding a color for "ban upheld". Red does not imply that there are no ongoing cases, it has never meant this - in fact, if I recall correctly, there is now pending litigation in every state where a ban is intact. Red means there is a ban against SSM, nothing more, nothing less. The status of SSM in Michigan is indistinguishable from the status in Georgia or South Dakota. Now, if this map were supposed to be a representation of the status of SSM litigation then I could see making the case for different shades representing different stages in the appeal process, but that is not what this map is (there already is a map for that, by the way [10]). The gold (beige) color exists because it represents a fundamental change in the original status of SSM in a given jurisdiction (namely that it has gone from "Not Legal" -> "Legal, but enforcement stayed indefinitely"). What would a new shade of gold represent? "Not Legal" -> "Still Not Legal"? Shereth 03:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Missouri just got more complicated

A Federal District judge just struck down Missouri's marriage ban, although the ruling is stayed pending appeal. Here is the ruling; is Missouri beige striped now? Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 16:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The state AG is pro-SSM, and is, at least partly, appealing the St. Louis ruling in order to have state-wide finality. Missouri could get less complicated in a hurry if he files notice that he won't appeal the District Court decision, and requesting the stay be dropped. Mw843 (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarification, I suggest that Footnote 3 be changed to "Due to a state court decision, same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri." Mw843 (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 17:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

And the footnote is now attached to the wrong color ... I'll fix that too. Mw843 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Even though the ruling is stayed, couples are being wed in Jackson County (Kansas City): Twitter picture. The map shouldn't change, but add to the footnote maybe? Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 19:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the ruling today doesn't really change anything until an expiry stay is issued. Missouri's ban was already tossed out so that would qualify as solid gray for no law for or against with a footnote explaining St. Louis's injunction and counties acting on their own initiative. But since there was a previous ruling requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages, Missouri should be solid medium blue. Prcc27 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me clarify.. If a ban is struck down without same-sex marriage being legalized, that ban is still as good as gone. Prcc27 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see that perspective; what do others think of the Missouri coloring? My gut feeling is still the beige/out of state blue striping due to the AG's appeal but that's not something I'm too certain on. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 20:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik:If the AG would have asked the state court to stay their decision then I would have left Missouri medium blue/red without a footnote and then color Missouri "beige" (gold)/medium blue in response to today's ruling. However, since the state court ruling isn't stayed, the ban remains struck down. If a ban was struck down in another state but the state was actually forced to allow same-sex marriage, If that state appealed but didn't ask for a stay- wouldn't the state still remain blue? IMO, the appeal doesn't change the current status of the law. Prcc27 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean with no stay; it's akin to the Governor of Idaho's continued appeals after the ruling went into effect. Medium blue seems correct then, but I'll wait a bit before another map change for other thoughts. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree that the map should be changed. The state court ruling on applies to St. Louis ... just the city, not even the county. Jackson County is acting in contravention of the federal stay. Mw843 (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: How can a judge that has jurisdiction over the entire state only strike the state's ban in St. Louis..? The part of the ruling that legalizes same-sex marriage only applies to St. Louis (city), but the part of the ruling that finds the ban unconstitutional applies statewide. If the judge only had jurisdiction over St. Louis then I would agree with you. A judge can strike down a same-sex marriage ban without legalizing same-sex marriage; all this means is that Missouri goes from banning same-sex marriage to having no law allowing or prohibiting same-sex marriage. Furthermore, you mention Jackson County (even though I didn't say anything about the county) but what about St. Louis County (not to be confused with St. Louis city)? In response to the state court ruling, St. Louis County began issuing licenses to same-sex couples. This is akin to New Mexican county clerks issuing licenses on their own initiative even though there was no law on the matter. In fact, St. Louis County's licenses might even be more valid since same-sex marriage is actually recognized (for a brief time New Mexico didn't recognize ssm despite counties issuing) and because there is a precedent set by this ruling that same-sex couples are "entitled to a marriage license". If you read the ruling you'll see that the judge says nothing about it only applying to St. Louis. The only thing in the ruling the applies exclusively to the city of St. Louis is that the recorder for St. Louis has the authority to issue same-sex marriages. As a result, same-sex marriage is recognized statewide, legal in the City of St. Louis, not permitted or prohibited everywhere else in the state- with a precedent in favor of same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to summarise: we have TWO rulings in Missouri. The first one was in a state circuit court, which, by my knowledge, affects the circuit only, and not the entire state (unless the state only has one circuit, and Missouri has two circuits). Please correct me if I'm wrong. This ruling, in State of Missouri v. Florida, explicitly states the following: 1/ The ban against SSM is unconstitutional (which, in effect, strikes the ban), 2/ only the clerks in St. Louis can give out licenses. The second ruling, Lawson v. Jackson County, was in a federal state court, which again ruled the ban unconstitutional, but stayed the decision pending appeal.

Now my question is: which court has the higher priority: the circuit court, or the state court? If it is the state court, then light blue and gold stripes should be added to the map; if they are equal priority, and marriages are performed legally outside of St. Louis as a result of the circuit court ruling, then I would suggest dark blue/gold striping (as there is still a stay). It depends on what effect the stay has, however. If the stay prevents marriages in any way, shape, or form, it should be acknowledged on the map, in my opinion. Kumorifox (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: The state ruling wasn't stayed and is in effect so the ruling made by the federal court shouldn't be reflected since Missouri's same-sex marriage ban was already tossed out. Basically, the federal court's stay is moot because there is no ban anymore. Missouri should be solid medium blue for recognition or striped dark blue (local application)/medium blue (statewide recognition but no law requiring licenses to be issued to same-sex couples). Prcc27 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Thank you for clarifying this. In that case, I support striping Missouri with light blue and dark blue. Kumorifox (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27:

Ask the judge ... from [11] “He [Burlison] was actually very specific in that judgment, that the recorder of deeds for the city of St. Louis has the authority to marriage license to any same-sex couple,” Dawson said. So legally performed same-sex marriages are recognized by the state, but the only place you can legally get married in Missouri is the city of St. Louis. So, absent any other ruling, Missouri would be light blue and red. But there is another ruling: the ban has been struck down in federal court, but that order has been stayed, so light blue and gold/khaki/tan is the correct coloration. Mw843 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: I'm not saying same-sex marriage is legal statewide. What I am saying however is that even though same-sex marriage is legal in the City of St. Louis, the only way the judge could have done this was by tossing out the state's same-sex marriage ban. The ban was ruled unconstitutional, so there is no more de jure ban for Missouri. The only "ban" that's left is de facto. Furthermore, same-sex marriage is de facto legal (with a precedent in favor of same-sex marriage) in St. Louis County. A judge doesn't have to legalize same-sex marriage in order for the ban to be invalidated. There're two steps to a ruling: a) invalidate the ban. b) issue an injunction requiring licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. Since the judge only did step b for St. Louis (city); same-sex marriage is neither legal or illegal in the rest of the state. Prcc27 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
From your own source: "the AG is not stopping clerks from issuing marriage licenses while he appeals the ruling." If same-sex marriage was still illegal, wouldn't the AG stop clerks in St. Louis County and Jackson County from issuing licenses to same-sex couples..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you legally get married in Missouri, outside the city of St. Louis? The answer is "No". Mw843 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: But that is by the choice of the clerks, not enforced by the law or by the federal stay. Kumorifox (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: Can you legally get married in a territory that has no law for against same-sex marriage..? No you can't, but that doesn't mean we should color the territories dark red does it? Same applies to Missouri; if it weren't for Missouri recognizing same-sex marriages, Missouri would be colored gray for no law for or against because the ban is invalid and unconstitutional and thus has been tossed out. Prcc27 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you write, the double blue striping makes no sense at all. Mw843 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We did it with New Mexico, except back then the recognition color was dark gray not medium blue. Prcc27 (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Having re-read the decision, and looked at the legend, there is no easy way to describe the situation in Missouri at this time (IMHO). The state recognizes legally performed SSM, so medium blue. A state judge has struck down the ban on SSM, but limited the application of his decision to a single city - since it's not a state-wide decision, dark blue is out, and because of the recognition ruling, grey is out too - SSM is technically legal, you just can't have one unless you're in St. Louis. Then the US district court piled on - striking down the ban, but staying the order, so khaki.

So how about triple stripping Missouri: khaki, medium blue and dark red, with a footnote on dark red to the effect that the Missouri ban has been struck down at the state level, but marriages are only available in St. Louis? Mw843 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The part about the ban being unconstitutional did not just apply to St. Louis; it applied to the entire state. Furthermore, a same-sex couple that lives in a county not issuing licenses to SSCs can just obtain a license from a Missourian jurisdiction that does issue licenses to SSCs and get married anywhere in the state and have their marriage recognized. Since there isn't a same-sex marriage ban anymore, the stayed ruling that was issued today is as good as moot. Besides, we don't stripe states with stayed rulings with red anymore so why would we need to triple stripe Missouri? Prcc27 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, SSM is technically legal, you just can't get one unless you're in St. Louis. The federal case is not moot, as the state SC is perfectly capable of reversing the St. Louis decision. I think Missouri should be triple striped because there are three different things going on. Mw843 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I almost feel like advocating for "plaid" for Missouri .. Shereth 04:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Shereth: What do you mean? Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That was more a tongue-in-cheek observation on the complexity of the situation. Trying to tell the story for Missouri in color combinations seems to be an exercise in futility; I'm not really sure what the best solution here is. Shereth 04:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed I do not know how one city makes the entire state blue as it is totally misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: A same-sex couple can also get a marriage license in St. Louis County and Jackson County. And like I said, a same-sex couple can get married anywhere in Missouri as long they get the license in one of the three jurisdictions issuing them. The main reason I striped Missouri dark blue-medium blue is because of what we did with New Mexico. Missouri is going to be entirely blue regardless; either striped dark and medium- or solid medium. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Shereth: So a new color, and the label in the legend is "Missouri - it's complicated". Mw843 (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

^This made me LOL! xD

Just so you all know, about a third of Missourians live in a jurisdiction that issues licenses to same-sex couples (since that might matter to some people). Prcc27 (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: Hahaha, it's so true! Facebook terminology on a Wikipedia page, who'da thunk?

Why not reuse the light gold (previously used in Ohio) for the complicated situation in Missouri? Just like we reused the civil union colour, we can reuse the stayed recognition only colour as there is no state right now with recognitions on hold. And I don't think this would complicate matters, as it is still possible that states will implement civil unions instead of marriage, meaning we'd need the CU colour back, but people are not expecting that to happen. And while it is possible that states will place a hold on recognition, with the current situation of SCOTUS almost certain to get involved, I'm starting to doubt that will happen, either. Kumorifox (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Missouri is fine as is. The footnote and the article should explain the situation. Prcc27 (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In other news

The ban in West Virginia, which has been ignored for about a month, has been formally struck down in US District Court. And Kansas's appeal to the 10th Circuit has been rebuffed, so unless they can get the Supremes to act, the stay will expire as scheduled on Tuesday. Mw843 (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, will update Fourth Circuit map! Prcc27 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Footnote for Missouri

Suggested Footnote 2: A Missouri state court struck down the ban on same-sex marriage, but only authorized marriages to be performed in the city of St. Louis. Some counties, including Jackson and St. Louis, have issued licenses to same-sex couples on their own initiative. Missouri's ban has also been struck down in federal court, and that order has been stayed. Mw843 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence isn't important because there is no ban. Prcc27 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
We might want to leave it to the Wikipedia articles for explaining. Prcc27 (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Btw- the federal court ruling only authorized Jackson County to perform same-sex marriages so AFAIC, there might not be a statewide ruling with either of these cases that are being appealed and Missouri could remain striped dark blue-medium blue for quite a while. Prcc27 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sotamayor stays Kansas

Kansas switches from light blue to gold/tan/khaki. Mw843 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not quite yet. Sotomayor's stay is temporary, while considering the request for a permanent stay. Plaintiffs have until tomorrow 5 PM to reply. Since it is temporary, with a set time limit, Kansas should remain light blue for the moment. Kumorifox (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mw843... The stay will remain in place until there is a "further order of the undersigned or of the Court" [12]. There is no set day for when that further order must come. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the stay has more to do with the court's observance of Veteran's Day on Tuesday than any legal issue. Mw843 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If the court does not stay the ruling in light of the 6th circuit, I think we have a good indication where the ruling on the 6th will go. I would not be surprised if they send the 6th back for reconsideration. I think an en-banc request would have been smarter. 2602:304:AF83:B480:29EF:A6EC:383F:801B (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting the Missouri stripes

I haven't been around for several days, but coming back I'm thinking the previous striping on Missouri was the proper coloring. The curent situation in Missouri involves three cases:

Barrier v. Vasterling: This is the recognition of out of state marriages. The state isn't appealing, this is in force, Missouri gets the recognition blue stripe, no worries here.
Lawson v. Kelly: This is the federal case striking down the state's marriage ban. However the state is appealing to the 8th Circuit, and this decision is stayed, so since this is a state-wide precedent, this means Missouri is striped the stayed ruling beige.
State of Missouri v. Florida: This is the state court case striking down the state's marriage ban. The state is appealing to the state Supreme Court, but this decision is not stayed. The complication here is the court's jurisdiction over St. Louis City not setting a firm state precedent, but some counties are taking it as precedent.

So we have a conflict between a not-stayed local ruling against the ban and the federal court, stayed ruling. In the past we have not included local rulings against a state ban (Boulder, Colorado; Johnson County, Kansas; the Florida cases) when the state ban still existed. With the Federal ruling stayed, the state ban is still in effect, and acting like Missouri is now in a New Mexico-like neutral state is inaccurate. We should have a footnote noting the Missouri situation, but one city under court order and two counties of their own volition in the face of an at least nominally opposed state government do not give Missouri and its 115 county equivalents the full marriage striping.

(P.S. This is similar to the situation Illinois was once in with the Cook County court order during the period before the law went into effect. However Illinois did not fight the ruling while Missouri is, and that was when we colored the state marriage blue as soon as the law was signed, meaning we never worried over the Illinois coloring.) Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Illinois should have been light blue at the time, too. But I've heard conflicting views on the story now. Someone earlier said that, with the unstayed state ruling in State of Missouri v. Florida, the ban was effectively thrown out. While only St Louis is allowed to give marriage licenses, and 2 counties are doing so of their own volition, the ruling struck down the state ban. If this ruling is unstayed and has precedence, light blue striping is the proper colouring, and not gold. The conflicting federal ruling in Lawson v. Kelly struck down the ban and is stayed. However, once again as mentioned before, does this ruling still hold any water, if the ban is effectively gone after Missouri v. Florida? Which case has precedence? Kumorifox (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

IANAL but in theory neither has precedence over the other, being in distinct chains of command (with the US Supreme Court topping both hierarchies). However, I am taking the jurisdiction of each court as the tiebreaker. This map is only dealing with state-wide situations, and the Florida case was binding only on St. Louis City. Some other location, say Joplin, is going to be affected by the Kelly ruling as the other federal court rulings bind their states, but Joplin is not affected by the Florida precedent. The Missouri Supreme Court is what is required for a state-wide binding ruling, and thus is the state court that would change this map. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"the Florida case was binding only on St. Louis City" Yes, but this was only binding for issuing of licenses, wasn't it? I thought the ban itself was struck state-wide by the Florida case. Kumorifox (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the court issuing the Florida case would have the power to jettison the ban in the entire state. The way I see it, it is akin to the Tenth Circuit finding state bans violate the US constitution, but that has no effect on Texas' ban or Michigan's ban due to being out of the jurisdiction. Likewise, Florida found Missouri's ban unconstitutional, but that decision has no legal reach in Joplin or St. Joseph; it would take the state Supreme Court (or the Federal court ruling) to create a state-wide ruling. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Then why was Arkansas blue in May then? Because the ban was struck by a state judge not federal one and only some counties issue licenses the same applies to Missouri then because only some counties are giving ssm licences.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that should have been a footnote covering the specific jurisdiction and the full marriage coloring would have been incorrect given our current rules for the map. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 22:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes do happen. Also, at the time, there wasn't such confusion as with Missouri now. New things have popped up for this map time and again. We have the light blue colour now, which wasn't used for Illinois, as it was a later addition. Arkansas seemed clear-cut as it was only one case, so there was little question at the time whether it should be all blue. Current developments, just like those in the entire process from the time Baker was dismissed to the dismissal of Kitchen et. al., mean we have to revise our stance as well. And I believe this map falls under that. things aren't as clear-cut with Missouri, so we delve deeper into the cases and the legal impact of state vs. district vs. federal court, among other things. Kumorifox (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the recognition case was made by a state court and applied to the entire state; so why wouldn't the full marriage case by a state court apply to the entire state? Yes only St. Louis is required to issue licenses but Missouri's ban was still struck down. Furthermore, the federal case struck down the ban and the ruling was stayed, but it only required Jackson County to issue licenses. Both cases: federal and state, struck down the bans but only required one jurisdiction to issue licenses. Why do you think the federal case struck down Missouri's ban but not the state court ruling? Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Btw, Cook County's ruling didn't apply statewide because the ruling explicitly said so: "Although this Court finds that the marriage ban for same-sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause on its face, this finding can only apply to Cook County based upon the posture of the lawsuit." Prcc27 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27, please don't lie to us. Your rationale for making Missouri as it was (I was bold and fixed the problem as your edit was unjustified) was "Missouri's same-sex marriage ban was already tossed out by a state court (with no stay). Per what we did with New Mexico, Missouri gets striped with dark blue for local application when there is no statewide law banning same-sex marriage." You were trying to apply New Mexico rules to Missouri, when Missouri and New Mexico are completely different situations. As noted, Illinois is not informative/relevant to this situation as the rules were different back then. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just stop right there. I did not lie, and yes a lot of my rationale for Missouri was based on New Mexico. None of my rationale was based on Illinois, I was noting how Illinois is different from Missouri since the Cook County ruling said it only applied to Cook County but the Missouri ruling doesn't say it only applies to St. Louis. Everything I say must be a lie to you huh? Maybe you should actually read over my comment before you make a fool out of yourself..? Prcc27 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Again I feel that Missouri should go back to being gold, counties may be issuing licenses but they are not legalized or recognized by the state of Missouri. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Knowledgekid87: Same-sex marriage is recognized by the state of Missouri. And the AG is not asking counties to stop issuing them either. Also, the federal ruling was a limited ruling just like the state ruling; the federal ruling only told Jackson County they had to issue licenses to same-sex couples but did not tell the rest of Missouri to issue licenses to same-sex couples. If the judge would have decided not to stay their decision, same-sex marriage would still not be legal statewide. So by your logic, Missouri wouldn't even qualify has gold since the ruling only applies to Jackson County (by your logic not mine).

New Mexico and Missouri are not all that different. Since Missouri's ban was struck down without an injunction legalizing same-sex marriage statewide, Missouri would qualify for gray (no prohibition/no recognition). Since Missouri recognizes same-sex marriages, Missouri would qualify as solid medium blue if it weren't for same-sex marriage being a county-by-county thing like New Mexico. A same-sex couple that lives outside of St. Louis couple can go to St. Louis to get a license and get married anywhere in Missouri and have their marriage recognized. This is the same case with New Mexico. Except New Mexico was actually striped for marriage-no prohibition/no recognition for a while. So why is it okay to stripe New Mexico dark blue without same-sex couples having their marriages recognized but not okay for Missouri to be striped with dark blue with same-sex couples having their marriages recognized? Prcc27 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is your source saying that Same-sex marriage is recognized by the state of Missouri? if that were the case then they would not be appealing and Missouri would be in the states that have SSM legalized table. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Knowledgekid87: Lol, this is old news and Missouri was striped with recognition before same-sex marriage was legalized in St. Louis.. [13] Prcc27 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That source goes against these though [14] [15] saying that there is an appeal, I see no evidence that Missouri has recognized marriage on a state level yet. So which one is it are they appealing or aren't they? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A Missouri state-court ordered the state to recognize out-of-state legal marriages, and the state decided not to appeal [16]. My opinion is that Missouri should be triple striped, to recognize the status quo and the ongoing federal and state legal processes. It is also my opinion that the "attitude" displayed two comments up was uncalled for, and unhelpful. Mw843 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: Nobody was giving "attitude".. I just thought it was funny that I had to provide a source for Missouri recognizing same-sex marriage when there has already been strong consensus for striping Missouri medium blue. Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The footnote: "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri. Some counties in Missouri issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on their own initiative." also has issue I mean does St. Louis represent the whole state of Missouri here? Are SSM couples getting state benefits? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

“

Agree with Dralwik There is an indef stay on Missouri, so we shouldn't pretend it has SSM state-wide. Also, any New Mexico analogies that people (i.e., Prcc27) throw around are just plain, bloody wrong. NM had no legal ban on SSM, just systematic discrimination, MO has a challenged law against SSM. They are completely different situations.

”

@Thegreyanomaly: Oh my gosh, have you even been reading the comments on this talk page..? There is no stay on the state court ruling, only the federal court ruling! Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That was in reference to Lawson v. Kelly, I may have put it in the wrong section. This place has been erupting with comments lately, and I have better things to do (e.g., school work) than to participate in every discussion. If I put it in the wrong section that does not take away from my sentiment. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Prcc27, you have no evidence that Missouri is anything like New Mexico Missouri's ban is under litigation, look at Knowledgekid87/Dralwik's sources! New Mexico never had f**king legal ban on SSM, they were just de facto banning it. There is no parallelism here, you don't have a damn clue what you are talking about. SSM is recognized by MO, no one is doubting that (I am presuming Knowledgekid87 understands that part from Barrier v. Vasterling). No one has a problem with the medium blue, it is the dark blue. There is no clear state-wide ruling that MO must perform SSM. This is a state-wide map. I've reverted you once more, now I will leave it to others to rightfully revert you (should you repeat) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Im fine with this result, SSM is not legal but MO does indeed recognize it based on the source provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Thegreyanomaly: Then there is no statewide stayed ruling striking down the same-sex marriage ban since the federal court ruling would only required Jackson County to issue licenses to same-sex couples [17]. You need to read my comments throughout this talk page because I explain that both rulings strike down the state's ban and both rulings only require one jurisdiction to perform. Prcc27 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This source explains that Missouri's ban was struck down by a state circuit court (the same type of court the struck down Missouri's ban on recognition). At the very least, Missouri should be solid medium blue since the ban was already thrown out by the state court. Prcc27 (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I was not arguing that there was a statewide ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. I am saying that there is a statewide ruling finding that the same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional which IMHO means that there is no more same-sex marriage ban since the state court ruling isn't stayed. Since "New Mexico never had f**king legal ban on SSM" and Missouri's ban is no longer in effect, I figured the two were comparable. It doesn't matter if the ruling is under litigation, if same-sex marriage becomes legal in a state and the ruling is being appealed does that mean we wait to color the state blue until after the appeal? No! Prcc27 (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody support coloring Missouri solid medium blue..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That is something I'd be willing to support. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 06:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean I don't like it because you can still get married in any county in Missouri (you just have to obtain a license from a jurisdiction issuing them) and because of what we did with New Mexico; but as long as we agree that from now on, we only color/stripe jurisdictions dark blue that have same-sex marriage at the state/territory level, we should be good. Prcc27 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Reserving marriage blue for only when couples in any county of a state are able to get a valid non-challenged license is very agreeable to me. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 07:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(Almost certainly) splitting hairs, but under that rule, Hawaii should never have been colored Marriage Blue. Same Sex couples can not get a license in Kalawao County, Hawaii. However that is also true for opposite sex couples, as the county does not grant Marriage Licenses. (The county is a construction of the state constitution to allow for a "Leper Colony" to remain apart from the remainder of the state, current population 90) Having said that, I agree with the concept.Naraht (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The situation with that county could be addressed by thinking in terms of marriage equality as opposed to SSM. This is a weird case whether the ostensibly politicized term "marriage equality" actually makes more sense in the real world. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Then consider marriage blue reserved for states where same-sex couples can receive a non-challenged, valid licenses anywhere that opposite-sex couples can. (This might come up in South Dakota, where several Indian Reservation counties are unorganized, and have their offices in adjacent counties. Iirc, that includes marriage licenses.) I wonder if we could get a vote on the solid medium blue compromise. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 19:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting gold stripe

Since the federal court ruling only required Jackson County to issue licenses to same-sex couples (just like the state court ruling only required St. Louis to issue licenses to same-sex couples) Missouri should not be striped gold. Here is the source I provided that got cut off [18]. Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Until someone explains to me how the federal court ruling applies statewide but not the state court ruling (even though state circuit courts have jurisdiction over the entire state of Missouri) Missouri should be left without a gold stripe. There needs to be a stronger consensus for Missouri having a gold stripe. Prcc27 (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there are two rulings striking down the ban, moving on separate legal tracks: both are valid, and at the moment, they are not both reflected on the map. Mw843 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to solve this is to use a new colour. As I suggested before, use the light gold striping (previously used for Ohio) to show conflicting rulings. Then we can stripe Louisiana as well, as the ban was partially struck by one judge and upheld by another. This should solve any problems of blue/medium blue/gold colours.
Just because NM was striped before does not mean it is complete precedence, as misjudgements and changes in views do occur, even among us. The recent consensus was that these colours are used for state-wide rulings. We developed our views as these cases progressed, and we changed the colours and reasons along the way. During the NM legal uncertainty, we had one particular view, and the non-existence of an actual ban made the process easier. In MO, however, there was a ban in effect. One court struck it and stayed its ruling, another struck it and did not stay the ruling. Both rulings are being appealed, one to the Missouri Supreme Court, the other to the 8th Circuit. So we have two conflicting rulings, creating a lot of confusion. Kumorifox (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between a state-level decision that only applies to one county (like in Missouri) vs a county-level decision that only applies to that county (like NM or FL a few months ago). I think it makes more sense to group all state-level rulings together (whether currently applying only locally or to the whole state) for purposes of this map. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas should be striped light red

Kansas' ban is still vulnerable due to Circuit Court precedent and ought to be striped light red. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Kansas ban has been struck by a state judge, but the ruling has been stayed. Red is not necessary, as gold indicates that there is a ban, a stayed striking, and associated litigation in appeals courts, be they local or Circuit. Whether or not the stayed ruling is strengthened by Circuit precedent does not really matter, I believe. Kumorifox (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this has some merit as the current color scheme makes it seem like the situation in Texas or Arkansas is the same as that in Kansas, when that isn't the case. However, the question is whether the merit outweighs the negativity of striping. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

But Kansas had its ban struck down in a federal district court, then stayed by Justice Sotomayor pending "further orders". How is that different from Texas aside from who did the staying? Swifty819 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

See [19]. The stay is gone Swifty819 (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I love it when Wikipedia problems are solved because the real life problems have vanished. Kumorifox (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina struck and stayed

The stay expires November 20th, so light blue for now[20]. Mw843 (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts and Striping

There are two main coloring criteria we can follow for striping: one based on an enumeration of court rulings, laws, etc; and one based on an enumeration of jurisdictions.

For court rulings, there are three main types: 1) state-level* rulings that are currently applying to the whole state, 2) state-level rulings that are currently applying to one or a few counties, 3) local rulings that only are currently applying to one or a few counties. If we decide to stripe based on court rulings, then it needs to be decided which of these levels can be ignored. It was established by Florida a few months ago that #3 would be ignored; though that seems to conflict with the prior finding in NM where local decisions were used to stripe the whole state. It has not been established what to do with scenario #2 AFAIK, which is what applies to the Missouri case. ~~If #2s are ignored, then MO should be solid medium blue.~~ [See below.] If #2s are not ignored, then MO should be triple-striped solid medium blue, dark blue (since there is an unstayed state-level ruling (in state court) that only applies locally permitting SSM), and beige (since there is a stayed state-level ruling (in federal court).

If we decide to stripe based on jurisdictions, then MO should be double-striped solid medium blue (since there are jurisdictions that recognize foreign SSM) and dark blue (since there are jurisdictions that offer SSM). No other color should be employed in this case since these two categories cover all jurisdictions. [See below.]

If we choose not to decide, double-striping as above is a very good compromise.

^*State-level includes both state court and federal court.

0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hold up. If #2s are ignored, then MO should be medium blue and beige (since there is a stayed state-level ruling (in federal court)) that reflects on the whole state. I take back what I said about "very good compromise." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Also need to decide in the court ruling criterion case whether court rulings upholding bans are to be represented at all in the color scheme. I would argue no, but someone above mentioned a color communicating the decision split in Louisiana. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I support the jurisdiction criterion. It's more straightforward and represents what's happening on the ground. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Argh but every jurisdiction in MO is also subject to the stayed decision. As much as I hate it, I'm starting to lean towards triple-striping. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, only the jurisdictions that don't recognize SSM are subject to the stayed decision. So we have some counties that individually should be solid dark blue, and then other counties that individually should be double-striped medium blue and beige. So altogether the state does seem like it should be triple-striped. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We do have a county-by-county map at File:Same-sex marriage in Missouri.svg. We could double stripe Missouri the stay beige-recognition blue, and put a link to the state article in the footnote, which has the map. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 19:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I support that, given that the possibility of a SSM decision (communicated by the beige color) seems more "important" than foreign recognition. I would also support triple striping since MO is such a mess and <mess> is what triple-striping communicates. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I tripled striped and reverted MO in case people want to see what it looks like. The colors coordinate very well XD. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That does look prettier than I expected. I think I've seen peanut butter candy canes that pattern. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27, Thegreyanomaly, Naraht, Knowledgekid87, Kumorifox, Mw843, anyone else I've missed, which is the more acceptable coloring? Beige-recognition blue, or 0nly's triple striping here? Either way I'm thinking we have a link in the footnote to Same-sex marriage in Missouri which has the county-by-county map. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Beige-mblue. I am particularly busy this time of year AND I have focusing a bit on another article, so my attention to this map is temporarily strained. But the way I see it there is at least one state-wide stay, and there is state-wide SSM recognition. So Beige + Medium Blue. 22:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC) [This was added by Thegreyanomaly [21]. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)]

I'm amused that the current scheme is neither beige nor dark blue. MO is such a mess! Also, you used ! instead of | for Thegrey. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with the triple striping. and definitely footnote...Naraht (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose beige (gold). Yes, the federal ruling struck down the ban, but so did the state court ruling. The federal court stay doesn't matter because the ban in is already gone because of the unstayed state court ruling. Prcc27 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The ban on issuing licenses is de facto still in force in most counties, though. So I would agree with you if we're sticking with de jure. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: de facto bans qualify as dark gray for "no law for or against same-sex marriage." Since Missouri has recognition, this overrides the gray color since it requires "no recognition." Prcc27 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I don't disagree that gray is inappropriate here. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: When same-sex marriage was legal at the local level but de facto banned at the state level in New Mexico, it was striped marriage-no law. When New Mexico began recognizing same-sex marriage it was striped marriage-recognition even though same-sex marriage was de facto banned in a majority of New Mexican counties. The same should apply here. The gold color does not matter because it only requires Jackson County to issue licenses to same-sex couples. If the Eighth Circuit comes to the same conclusion, it would only require Jackson County to issue (even though they are already issuing) which would cause the map to go to either medium blue-light red or if we are using your proposal, dark blue-medium blue. All that would change is that the footnote would say same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis and Jackson County and all others perform on their own initiative. I don't know any other way to explain Missouri's situation without confusing anyone! :/ Prcc27 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: "If the Eighth Circuit comes to the same conclusion, it would only require Jackson County to issue." I'm pretty sure the whole state would be required to do so at that point. If the decision had not been stayed, then MO would have gone the way of Michigan, Arkansas, Indiana and the other states when they temporarily had SSM. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the triple striping, With both blue and Gold. Gold because the other counties cannot issue licences and the federal court stay its decision and the Missouri state case will apply to all counties if the Misssouri supreme court rules in favor of ssm.--Allan120102 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Allan120102: The other counties can issue licenses since the state court ruling wasn't stayed and the federal court stay doesn't affect the state court ruling. It is WP:CRYSTAL to assume that either of the cases will apply to the entire state when both of the lower courts only required one jurisdiction each to perform. Prcc27 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the triple striping. This is because A) A court ordered MO to recognize same sex marriages, and the AG said it applied statewide. Therefore, we have light blue. B) A state judge in St. Louis struck down the ban. In doing so, he did not make clear whether it applied to the entire state or not. So this would either be the second stripe or solid dark blue. C) A federal judge struck down the ban, but stayed the ruling, so we have gold. Swifty819 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We know the following for Missouri:

The Missouri constitutional ban was struck in state court and not stayed (Missouri v. Florida case)
The Missouri constitutional ban was struck in federal court and stayed (Lawson v. Kelly case)
Missouri recognises SSM in all counties (as per Barrier v. Vasterling)
Only 2 jurisdictions are entitled to issue licenses (St. Louis City, and Jackson County)
There are more jurisdictions issuing (I believe so, anyway; are these considered rogue?)

We have the following currently enforced rules for colouration:

Higher listed colours override lower ones
Colours are for state-wide application

Missouri recognises SSM, meaning the dominant colour here has to be medium blue; its position in the list overrides all colours below it, meaning any form of red is out of the question. Grey is also out, as there is both de jure and de facto recognition. However, regarding the stay, which court has precedence? Prcc27 explained earlier that the state court had its ruling first, threw out the ban, and therefore rendered the federal ruling moot, as there was no longer a ban to throw out and stay. But others seem to disagree, and apparently, the Missouri AG also disagrees, as both rulings are set to be appealed, meaning they both hold water, AFAIK. This means the stay colour should be incorporated. Does recognition override the stays? I personally don't think so, since they are different issues; this should indicate at least double striping. Light blue is out, as the stay of one court is permanent, so medium blue/gold striping seems correct. Yet marriages are performed in Missouri, and can be entered into all over, as long as a license is obtained from St. Louis City or from Jackson County (from what I understand, anyway), meaning dark blue must also be incorporated. Does dark blue override medium blue? I think it does, as state-wide marriage performance implies state-wide marriage recognition, right? Therefore, I am of the opinion that dark blue/gold striping seems sufficient, and we don't need medium blue at all for Missouri. Kumorifox (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: We can't do that because if the stay is lifted, same-sex marriage will still only be legal in St. Louis and Jackson County with St. Louis County issuing on their own initiative. If the Eighth Circuit comes to the same exact conclusion as the lower federal court, there would be a circuit-wide precedent, but same-sex marriage would still only be legal at the local level. The federal court ruling has no affect right now since it only deals with whether Jackson County can issue, and they are already issuing anyway! When we have a pro-marriage equality/anti-marriage ban ruling in effect vs. a stayed ruling, the ruling that's in effect is the only important one since a stay means the ruling won't go into effect yet. The stayed ruling has no legal affect until it is lifted, which would officially legalize same-sex marriage in Jackson County. Prcc27 (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: Am I therefore right in saying that higher colours do not always override ones lower down? If this is the case, I support triple striping, as, like you stated, marriage is performed everywhere in Missouri, though only two places are allowed to issue and one county is doing so anyway. Kumorifox (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  - Can someone explain the "performed everywhere"? If you must get a license from St. Louis, then it is not appropriate to say that marriage is performed everywhere in Missouri, even if the actual ceremony can be held anywhere. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    - This is what I understand: a marriage license can only be issued in 2 jurisdictions, with a third doing so of their own volition. This is just the issuing. Once a marriage license is issued, however, people can have a marriage ceremony everywhere in the state; this is what I call marriage performance. I might be mixing up my terminology *again* however (wouldn't be the first time). Kumorifox (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      - People can have a ceremony regardless of a license. I think the ceremony stuff is irrelevant. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        In that case, I don't see why people see a difference between licenses being issued only in three jurisdictions in a state, and saying marriage is legal in the state. If anyone can obtain a license and say they are legally married anywhere in the state, then I stand by my claim that double striping (dark blue and gold) is sufficient for Missouri as of this moment, and that light blue is not needed. Kumorifox (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        But they can't obtain a license anywhere in the state. A Missouri where individuals can get married in St. Louis, but wouldn't have that recognized anywhere else in the state due to a federal stay would also be dark blue and gold. Is it appropriate to distinguish that state of affairs from the current, where the rest of the state does recognize that marriage? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        So which is it? People can obtain a license in St. Louis, and under Barrier v. Vasterling, Missouri is obliged to recognise that license (which is issued in Missouri itself). The federal stay does not affect the recognised status of the marriage. Ergo, people can get married in Missouri AND have their marriage recognised. Thus, dark blue is the only blue colour required; medium blue is superfluous. Kumorifox (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        "Is it appropriate to distinguish that state of affairs from the current?" 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        @0nlyth3truth: Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry about that, I completely misunderstood your reasoning. That is an interesting point. In that case, I agree fully with triple striping. Kumorifox (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        Yes, same-sex marriage can legally be performed statewide, but a license can't be legally issued in other jurisdictions, but there's no law preventing anyone from issuing either... And the AG isn't asking the counties to stop issuing. Prcc27 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        @Prcc27: If it is appropriate to distinguish the two states of affairs, then it is appropriate to incorporate gold, as gold distinguishes between the two states of affairs. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to use an analogy.. If a state court ruled that Missouri's ban was unconstitutional and required the entire state to perform same-sex marriages without staying their decision. If a few days later, a federal court ruled that Missouri's ban was unconstitutional but stayed their decision would Missouri go from solid dark blue to striped dark blue-gold? No, because the ban was already tossed out and all a stay does is delay the ruling from going into effect. And even if the federal court ruling did have an affect on the state court ruling, the state court could still rule that the ban violates the Missourian constitution (which I'm pretty sure it did) and the federal court didn't rule on the Missourian constitution since the only time they can rule on a state constitution is if it goes against federal law. So before the federal court ruling same-sex marriage was legal in St. Louis, recognized statewide with no law permitting or prohibiting performance (regardless of whether or not other jurisdictions hoped on board). The federal court ruling didn't stay the state court ruling, it delayed the effective date of the federal court ruling. "The effects of the judgment will be stayed until the judgment is final." Also, if the circuit court sides with the federal court, all this means is that Missouri would go from same-sex marriage legal in St. Louis, no law for or against performance, recognized statewide to same-sex marriage legal in St. Louis and Jackson County, no law for or against performance, recognized statewide. Prcc27 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're clearly using the court ruling enumeration criterion here. Just to make that explicit. At this time, there are effectively two Missouris: one solid dark blue, one striped gold and medium blue. That's what we're dealing with, and what makes the jurisdiction enumeration criterion inviting. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: That's not true, we are dealing with three Missouris. St. Louis: same-sex marriage legal; Jackson County: same-sex marriage ban (that was already struck down and unstayed by a state court) struck down and stayed, recognition; Statewide: recognition with unstayed state court ruling and stayed federal court ruling striking down the same-sex marriage ban. The ruling that is in effect has no affect on the ruling that isn't in effect because the federal judge said "the effects of the judgement will be stayed until the judgment is final." Since the judgement isn't final, only the state court ruling matters. Maybe we should have four stripes: marriage (St. Louis), stay (Jackson County), ban (everywhere else), and recognition (statewide); will that do? Prcc27 (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: The last two together only need one stripe: medium blue. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like consensus. Naraht, Allan120102, Swifty819, Kumorifox are in favor of triple striping, <unknown> supports beige and medium blue, Prcc27 Supports dark and medium blue, or possibly quadruple-striping. I have to log off, but unless things change, it's probably safe to revert to the triple stripe map. Again, the triple striped map can be found here. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: Lol, you do not have consensus.. Like I said, by your logic there should be four stripes, and guess what? The current consensus is to not consolidate red and medium blue which you suggested "only need(ed) one stripe." I have another proposal though. Stripe Missouri dark blue-medium blue and have a footnote explaining that the ruling requiring Jackson County to issue licenses was stayed but the county is issuing anyways. However, if we have footnotes for county-by-county bans being struck down, we might have to add a footnote about the three parishes in Louisiana. Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose adding red to Missouri. It is completely superfluous, as both medium blue and gold override it. Kumorifox (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  - @Kumorifox: According to the conventions of this map, medium blue does not override red. Also, if gold overrides red then that would mean dark blue overrides medium blue. Prcc27 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    - @Prcc27: Medium blue should override red anyway, as "recognition only" implies no performance, but I'll leave that be for now. Gold definitely overrides red, however, as gold implies that a ban has been struck but is stayed, meaning the ban is still in place, thereby covering all the terms required for adding red and removing the need for red on the map. If that wasn't the case, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, and South Carolina also need red striping, as SSM is still illegal there by law, but we don't do that, as both gold and light blue indicate that marriages are not performed there despite the judicial rulings. I clarified my position on dark/medium blue above, and reiterate that, in this case, Missouri is an exceptional case that warrants both colours. Right now, the "rings" map shows the Missouri status the most clearly: recognition state-wide, with marriages performed locally, making it precedent (to me, in any case) for adding both of these colours to this map. The two concurrent rulings mean confusion abound, which is why I would prefer to see gold in Missouri as well. Kumorifox (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: "you do not have consensus" I am not trying to acquire consensus for myself, I am trying to discover consensus for something. Unless you can achieve a better consensus around your new proposal, I or someone else will enact the triple-striping. Also, you seem to not know the difference between a ruling in county court vs a ruling in state or federal court that is currently only applying to one county. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  - @0nlyth3truth: So let me get this straight, if the Eighth Circuit rules the same way as the federal court (same-sex marriage legal in Jackson County, no law for against same-sex marriage statewide) then Missouri would go from dark blue-medium blue-gold to dark blue-medium blue..? Prcc27 (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    - @Prcc27: First of all, the 8th circuit is a federal court; second of all, if the 8th circuit rules the same way as the district court and there is no appeal, the entire state would be solid dark blue. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      - @0nlyth3truth: First of all, yes I know that- but we've been referring to the district court as the "federal court." Second of all, no- the entire state would not be solid blue, just like the entire state wasn't solid blue when the state court struck down the ban but only legalized same-sex marriage in one jurisdiction. Similarly, the Eighth Circuit would strike down the ban but only legalize same-sex marriage in on jurisdiction which would not be solid blue. Unless you think Missouri should have been solid blue when the state court made its ruling... Prcc27 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        @Prcc27: In the state case, the ruling pertains to the entire state, but it happened at a level below the Supreme Court of the Missouri, so it is not binding over the whole state until it gets there. In the federal case, the ruling pertains to the entire state as well, and if it had not been stayed, the entire state could have started issuing SSM licenses, as what happened in Utah, Arkansas, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        @0nlyth3truth: And this is why you don't have consensus; because you don't have all the facts! Yes both cases pertain to the entire state, but both cases only limit one jurisdiction each to performing. Furthermore, the state court ruling is binding over the whole state just like the state court ruling legalizing recognition was binding over the whole state. Both state court rulings were done by state circuit courts, and circuit courts have jurisdiction over the entire state. In fact, the federal court ruling was done by a federal district court and Missouri has an Eastern District and a Western District. So how can you say "if it had not been stayed, the entire state could have started issuing SSM licenses" when the state court ruling was done by a circuit court but the federal court ruling was done by a district court and there are two districts in Missouri? Are you saying that if there wasn't a stay, same-sex marriage would be legal only in the Western district of Missouri and not the Eastern district..? (BTW, federal district courts have jurisdiction over the entire state, not just their district). Here are both state court rulings to prove to you that state circuit courts are binding on the entire state: [22][23] Prcc27 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        @Prcc27: At this point it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. And those are primary sources, so I'm not going to take the time to interpret them. Also, about Dralwik and voting: "The terms "!vote" (read as "not-vote"), "!voting" and "!voter", introduced in 2006, are sometimes used in discussions to indicate that taking part in a straw poll is not voting, but rather engaging in an act of consensus-building. These terms serve as reminders that while we do vote on things, votes without reasonable accompanying rationales receive little consideration unless you also explain why you are voting the way you are. Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored." I think many people here are prepared to ignore you on this issue. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        @0nlyth3truth: I'm pretty sure most people aren't questioning that the state court has jurisdiction over the entire state.. the thing that people are arguing is that since the ruling only told St. Louis to issue, the state shouldn't be solid blue. Also, there is no rule against primary sources but I will try to find secondary sources and then you will have no excuse to ignore me. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        @Prcc27: ~~Each of the Missouri Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the entire state,~~ [see discussion of Cogshell below]] but each of the lower Missouri Circuit Courts do not. Both of the cases you stated above are in the lower circuit courts. So their rulings are not binding over the entire state until they reach the appeals level (which is immediately below SCOMO). 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll support triple striping to make it a 5-1 vote in favor, which is consensus. We should wait a few more hours at least -- and maybe until tomorrow US time -- to give everyone a chance to weigh in but barring multiple votes against the triple stripes uploading them would be justified. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 01:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: A 5-1 "vote" is not a consensus per WP:NOTVOTE. AFAIC, we still have a lot to discuss before we can consider it "consensus." Prcc27 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Consider WP:Dispute Resolution if you do not like it. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: Okay, but you are going to have to form a new consensus to consolidate the red... Prcc27 (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a consensus for every minutia, just how to color Missouri. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And you still need to explain how Missouri will go from triple striping to solid blue in the event of a limited ruling by the Eighth Circuit. Prcc27 (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a federal ruling limited to only a few counties in a state. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

State Circuit Courts have jurisdiction over the entire state; (see comment above). Prcc27 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've done some reading and it looks like the each of the Missouri Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the entire state, but each of the lower Missouri Circuit Courts do not. Both of the cases you stated above are in the lower circuit courts. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: From that article: "The Missouri Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of original jurisdiction and general jurisdiction of the state of Missouri." Prcc27 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: You obviously don't know what general jurisdiction means: "A court of general jurisdiction is one that has the authority to hear cases of all kinds - criminal, civil, family, probate, and so forth." I'm continually shocked by your disregard for good epistemology. Though I probably shouldn't, given your shenanigans over at the method map talk page. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: Please read the article on original jurisdiction... Original jurisdiction deals with trial courts with juries. In this case, the court had general jurisdiction since it heard a civil court case, not a trial court case with a jury. BTW, here are your secondary sources:[24][25] As you will see, both decisions were made by state circuit courts. Basically, they have general jurisdiction over the entire state of Missouri. Prcc27 (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The Federal District Court also has original jurisdiction. I actually recommend you read trial court: "In the United States, the United States district courts are the trial courts of general jurisdiction of the federal judiciary." Prcc27 (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

These comments are gibberish. There is no such thing as "general jurisdiction" over a state. General jurisdiction is a term that applies to the kinds of cases a court handles, i.e. a court can have some kind of specific jurisdiction (e.g. a criminal court), or it can have general jurisdiction, which means it can hear any kind of case, though not necessarily an appeal case. General jurisdiction has nothing to do with the geographical extend of jurisdiction. In MO, circuit courts have no jurisdiction over appeals cases: "The Missouri Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over all appeals which do not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Missouri." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

General jurisdiction and original jurisdiction are orthogonal concepts. A court can have both, either, or none. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Federal District Courts don't have jurisdiction over appeals cases either because nothing has been appealed yet, not until after the ruling. Once it is appealed, an appeals court hears the case. That's why state circuit courts don't have jurisdiction over appeals, because nothing has been appealed yet. I already provided a source proving that circuit courts have jurisdiction over the entire state per the recognition case. State Circuit Courts are similar to Federal District Courts, State Court of Appeals to Federal Circuits and State Supreme Court to SCOTUS. Prcc27 (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Though you are exactly right about the relation between these levels of state courts and these levels of federal courts, note the structure of all states' judicial branches may not be the same as MO's. A MO circuit court ruling can be material to the whole of MO, but it does not become binding upon the whole state until it is affirmed by an appeals court and then appealed to and affirmed by the SCOMO. A lack of appeal to the SCOMO or a denial of cert by the SCOMO results in the ruling affecting only that ~~circuit~~ district, as can be seen with the sodomy law in Missouri v. Cogshell. This is exactly what we see in that the non-stayed ruling only requires St. Louis City (the geographical jurisdiction of that circuit court) to immediately issue licenses. St. Louis County is also issuing licenses, but it's not required to by the absence of stay. Since this case concerns a matter of "The validity of a Missouri statute or constitutional provision", it will be appealed directly to the supreme court and bypass the district appeals courts. If it concerned a matter of interpretation of statute (as did the Cogshell case), then it would go to a district appeals court, and if the ruling would be affirmed and not stayed there, then it would become binding upon the whole district. Add another iteration with the Supreme Court of MO and there you go. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For further clarity: http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/missouri/missouri.htm 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The ban wasn't even struck down in this case. Here was the court's conclusion: "The circuit court's judgment of the appellant's jury convictions of and sentences for two counts of sexual misconduct in the first degree, § 566.090, is reversed." So that would mean that the entire state of Missouri banned sodomy until SCOTUS stepped in. The people who edited the sodomy map just assumed that because the court ruled on a sodomy case, that the sodomy ban was struck down and only struck down for that district. Well, they didn't even provide a source to back up that that the ban was struck down and only applied to one district. In fact, at first they accidentally put the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri instead of the Western District for Missouri state court. The sodomy map is wrong! Prcc27 (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and according to your source: "The Missouri Court of Appeal ruled July 6, 1999 in State of Missouri v. Cogshell, 1997 S.W.2d 534 (Mo.App., W.D.), that a revision of the state’s sodomy law had, in effect, decriminalized consensual sodomy in the state." So you just proved that it isn't just the SCOMO that has jurisdiction of the entire state... Prcc27 (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's okay to stripe Missouri with gold then how come with Colorado when there was a federal court ruling and a state court ruling striking down the ban: one stayed, one temporarily stayed; we only striped Colorado medium blue (Civil Unions)-light blue (transition: temporary stay) instead of medium blue-light blue (temporary stay)-gold (indefinite stay)..? For the same reason we didn't triple stripe Colorado, we should shouldn't triple stripe Missouri. Just like the a temporary stay overrides an indefinite stay, an unstayed ruling overrides an indefinite stay. Same could be said about Florida; Florida has a temporary stay and an indefinite stay, but we only need to reflect the temporary stay- not the indefinite stay. IMO, we should either color Missouri solid medium blue or striped dark blue/medium blue. If the triple striping proposal fails, I will propose coloring Missouri solid medium blue. Prcc27 (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"a revision of the state’s sodomy law had, in effect, decriminalized consensual sodomy in the state" The finding was about the whole state, but the finding was only binding in the Western District. From the source: "We do not know if the Southern District or Eastern District court of appeals will agree." --implying that their agreement is material, which would only obtain if the Western decision is not binding on the whole state. This is directly analogous to findings in the various federal circuits about the Constitution of the USA prohibiting SSM bans: they are about the entire USA's Constitution, but they are only binding in their respective circuits and not the whole USA until the SCOTUS takes them and affirms them. The ruling in St. Louis City only applies in St. Louis City until SCOMO affirms it. As it is a question of constitutional validity, it bypasses the district appeals courts, prohibiting the possibility of an MO District split. You simply need to live with the fact that while an appeals process unfolds, there may be contradictory laws within a jurisdiction. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In CO, there was no (legitimate) splitting of law within subjurisdictions. (I think we all agree rogue counties don't need to be represented on this map). In FL, there wasn't either. Also, you (Prcc27) and Shereth both oppose triple striping, but you're not proposing the same colors for double striping, so it's probably the case that the most fruitful discussion would occur between the two of you. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I oppose solid medium blue. That implies that there's been no findings in court apart from recognition of foreign SSM. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/missouri.htm : "Because this case was not appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court and because the state has multiple appellate districts, this decision has precedental value only in the one district." The sodomy map is not wrong. And in case you noticed that the recognition case made the whole state recognize foreign SSM without being appealed above the first level circuit court, note that counties issue marriage licenses (like only St. Louis City must), but states recognize them (like the whole of MO must). 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am no fan of striping and I am doubly so not a fan of triple striping. I believe it is a mistake to attempt to accommodate every single permutation with colors and striping. I believe it is a mistake to attempt to accommodate jurisdictions within a state. I believe that the coloring of a state on the map should reflect the prevailing state of affairs in the state as a whole. To be honest this discussion has gotten a little convoluted and I'm not quite certain what three colors the "triple stripe" proposal encompass, but I believe the idea is dark blue, medium blue and gold? Dark blue and gold should never coexist at they are mutually exclusive, and a casual reader is going to be confused by this fact. At best I could support the medium blue/gold striping, since recognition is statewide and the stayed decision seems to be statewide, whereas the actual legal marriages are confined to certain counties. Shereth 17:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"I believe it is a mistake to attempt to accommodate jurisdictions within a state." I believe so as well, but only regarding #3's as explained at the beginning of this section. In other words, a court ruling that only applies locally but is about state law should be reflected in the map. I don't generally support triple striping either, as you say it is confusing. But in this case, the reality in MO is very much confusing, and if an ordinary viewer of the map goes away thinking MO is complicated, I don't think that's inappropriate in this case. Part of the problem is that without three colors (dark blue, medium blue, gold), it seems like it'll be difficult to create consensus over just two. While gold and medium blue does seem appealing, there are SS couples getting married in Missouri, and they are doing so under a ruling that is about the entire state (unlike NM, where the individual rulings were about individual counties, or CO, where the counties were simply rogue.) To offer a counterfactual, if MO had stayed the St. Louis case, then there would be no argument about shading it gold and medium blue. The question is whether the (legally and duly processed) marrying couples merit the inclusion of an additional color. Kumorifox had a similar objection, but seemed to agree when I offered the counterfactual above. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Insofar as we're trying to represent information from active court cases, we must be a little extra willing to stripe. Perhaps there is a discussion to be had around not including information from active court cases? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

{U|Shereth}}, normally I would agree on ignoring local decisions (and I do not object to a beige-recognition blue coloring), but one wrinkle about the Missouri situation leads me to not object to the marriage blue striping. A couple in Missouri is not required to get a license in their home county, meaning a couple anywhere in the state could go to St. Louis (or Kansas City) and get a valid license recognized by the state. So same-sex couples throughout the state do have de facto access to a Missouri marriage license, akin to couples in full equality states, and the dark blue stripe is not inaccurate. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 02:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Recap: (!vote) Naraht, Allan120102, Swifty819, Kumorifox, Dralwik, 0nlyth3truth (6) support dblue/mblue/gold; Thegreyanomaly, Shereth (2) support mblue/gold; Prcc27 (1) supports dblue/mblue or possibly solid mblue. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If the state court ruling is only binding on St. Louis then I support medium blue-gold. Prcc27 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I continue supporting triple striping per my comment at 18:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC), and because of maps like these [26]. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that minimizing the number of colors on the map would encourage double striping with dblue/gold, thereby eliminating mblue for recognition. Also, now that SSM is being performed within MO, "Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized" from the legend doesn't seem fitting. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of snow-balling this discussion, I would be willing to move my support to triple-striping. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Shall I update the map? Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 02:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: By all means. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. (Depending on how quick the Missouri Supreme Court gets involved, if SCOTUS grants cert on a Sixth Circuit case and all the lower court processes are frozen, Missouri may be in this state for quite some time.) Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 02:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that the pro-SSM AG of MO intends for the SCOMO to rule in this case, which is why he appealed the district case to the 8th circuit, to give SCOMO time to rule in favor of SSM. I don't think SCOTUS granting cert on the 6th circuit is in any way ~~binding on~~ interruptive for state courts (unlike the way it probably would be for federal courts). States don't like federal courts overturning their own laws. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS granting cert is itself not binding at all on SCOMO, but the AG could very well ask SCOMO to hold the case until a SCOTUS ruling, to take the heat from a conservative electorate off himself and the state courts. Of course, SCOMO could also just make Missouri full dark blue and we wouldn't have to worry about what pattern is most proper. (I don't know the makeup of SCOMO and how likely a pro-marriage ruling is from them.) Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 03:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, are we going to include the link to the Missouri map? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 03:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So what just happened…? From now on, are we going to stripe states blue if same-sex marriage is legalized in a county or multiple counties..? I'm going to start a new section below. Prcc27 (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas Supreme Court stay denied (DARK BLUE)

Same-sex marriage immediately legal in Kansas.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/246408674/14A503-Kansas-Stay-Denied

216.165.95.66 (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that the denial of the stay included who would have allowed it: only Scalia and Thomas. Mw843 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If that doesn't show how both of them are so against this topic, that they would break circuit court precedent, nothing else will. Ghal416 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They were probably against denying certiori to the circuit cases as well. So you can't really blame them for trying breaking the precedent that they opposed. But by revealing the two names, I think Sonia Sotomayor was basically asserting how the SCOTUS intends to rule if when they take the 6th circuit case. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ThomaScalia confirmed that in a curious opinion on the denial of a stay in an unrelated case in Arizona. Here is the SCOTUSBlog article with a link to the two-page rant. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying/Clarifying the Map

Missouri is listed in the boxed section of states with stays but this is in no way reflected in the map, where it looks as though all that has happened there is that they recognize marriages contracted out of state. This category only applies to Missouri. I recommend removing this category, i.e. that the map indicate in-state conditions only (it already does not indicate federal recognition of marriages). So, there can be three categories: marriage, marriage pending, marriage stayed. In that case, I also recommend removing color tan and applying three shades of blue to these categories, thus: marriage/dark blue, pending/middle blue; stayed/light blue. To be honest, the tan color has always looked off and confusing to me. If everyone agrees to my proposal, there'll be just blue and red, with easily legible gradations. OK, it might look odd to some that Texas turns blue - even if light blue - but the fact is that the ban has been struck down there and will remain struck down (even if temporarily stayed) until the appeal decision. So, I prefer some shade of blue in that case, certainly more than random tan.80.99.70.183 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please contribute two sections above. There is considerable amount of debate over how to color Missouri. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Blue striping

So with the new triple striped Missouri map in, what does this mean for blue striping in general..? From now on, are we going to stripe states blue if same-sex marriage is legalized at the local level only..? Does Louisiana get a gold stripe since the ban was struck down at the local level..? Prcc27 (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Gold is for pro-marriage rulings, so no stripe on Louisiana. As for local blue striping, it might be best to leave that to a case-by-case discussion and see if we cross that bridge again, rather then trying to come up with a pre-determined rule for confusing situations. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 03:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: There was a "pro-marriage" (anti-same sex marriage ban) ruling in Louisiana [27]. The judge only had jurisdiction over three parishes. Prcc27 (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, forgot about that one. Since no licenses were issued I'm inclined to leave it off to keep the map simpler, i.e. only show local rulings with actual same-sex marriages occurring. That means a slight inconsistency with the map with showing de jure rulings, but a simpler map is a worthy tradeoff. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 03:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: Shouldn't Louisiana at least get a footnote..? Prcc27 (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 03:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay- great! Also, shouldn't dark blue override medium blue with a footnote about Missouri's recognition? As 0nlyth3truth noted, "now that SSM is being performed within MO,'Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized' from the legend doesn't seem fitting." Prcc27 (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it- that might be a bad idea.. Prcc27 (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with any footnote or map change for Louisiana: there is no state-wide ruling. And the next state that could get complicated is Arkansas, where there are state supreme court and US district court hearings scheduled for the same day.

~~Arkansas will not get complicated since their ban was already struck down statewide and would not be worth noting; same goes for Florida.~~ Prcc27 (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I don't even know how Arkansas relates... Louisiana deals with a local ruling, Arkansas deals with statewide rulings... What is your point? Prcc27 (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose LA footnote per above. LA footnote is completely unnecessary as there are no statewide implications. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned Arkansas as the next state that's possible to be a mess like Missouri, with multiple rulings that are hard to map. Mw843 (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: Both rulings in Arkansas would be binding in the entire state so it would only take one of the two rulings to legalize same-sex marriage and turn Arkansas blue. I doubt Arkansas will be a mess like Missouri and even if it were, that is besides the point. Missouri's mess and Arkansas's potential mess have nothing to do with Louisiana's anti-ssm ban ruling that has been stayed but only affects 3 parishes. Prcc27 (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys, why tan? Why not a lighter shade of blue (4th degree)? Or red (third degree?) Someone new to the map would get an instantly legible map with a spectrum between two extremes. Is it because tan is the closest there is193.225.200.92 (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC) to a light red that is not pink?

Florida

Any update concerning Florida's case before the 11th Circuit? Any word on whether Bondi et al turned in the briefs necessary for the case? Apparently, the deadline was extended to today, but I haven't found any articles stating whether or not the office met the deadline or whether it was extended again. Ghal416 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

She filed. Here is the brief courtesy of Equality Case Files, linked on Twitter. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 03:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, there we go. Was looking for such a confirmation online. Thanks for the share. Ghal416 (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi

Keep an eye out for Mississippi, a ruling is due soon, and it seems the judge will strike it down. We could be changing Mississippi to gold, light blue, or even dark blue soon!! More information here. aharris206 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Knowing Mississippi, dark blue is still a while away. But it is still a very optimistic thought that soon, another dark red will most likely change colour. Kumorifox (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas statewide

Same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide in Kansas and many counties are refusing to issue license to same-sex couples. The ruling was only a preliminary injunction that applied to two counties. Furthermore, one county is barred from issuing under court order. Kansas should either be light red or striped dark blue-light red. [28] [29] Prcc27 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The ruling says "Defendants are barred..." etc [30] on the last page. The primary named defendant is the Kansas secretary of health. That's a statewide position. In fact, federal district court rulings apply statewide, as shown by the primary defendant. Even the AG says the provision is disabled in [31]. So why the stripe? Swifty819 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

California's ruling wasn't a preliminary injunction like the Kansas ruling. Furthermore, the California case ruled that the same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional whereas the Kansas case ruled that there was a "likely violation of (the plaintiffs') constitutional rights." Also, the AG in California ordered every county in the state to issue licenses to same-sex couples and on this map an executive order is akin to legalization as long as their is a binding ruling. In Kansas however, the AG is saying the ruling only applies to the two counties and AFAIK- same-sex marriage isn't recognized in the state. I have a source that affirms that this is indeed what the AG is claiming. It also says same-sex marriage is only legal in certain counties [32]. BTW, the Human Rights Campaign and Freedom to Marry are not reliable sources. The "Relationship Recognition", "Marriage Prohibition", and "Interstate Recognition" maps on the HRC website have not been updated. I think Kansas is more relatable to Tennessee since in both states, the same-sex marriage ban wasn't struck down or ruled unconstitutional, but a preliminary injunction was issued which rendered the ban unenforceable in limited situations. As a result, I think it is best if we stripe Kansas light red since the same-sex marriage ban wasn't struck down, this ruling was only a preliminary injunction (just like Tennessee's case), the ruling only required two counties to issue, the AG is not ordering the rest of the counties to issue licenses like the California AG did, I have yet to see a source that says Kansas is recognizing. Prcc27 (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Carolina recognition

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

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

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

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

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

Kansas Supreme Court

The Court has lifted the its stay [33]. Time to go dark blue? Mw843 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, same-sex marriage is not legal statewide.. [34] Prcc27 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Dralwik: The court clerks of Douglas and Sedgwick counties are also defendants.. [35] Prcc27 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Dralwik: Lol, I already provided the source in one of the comments above..! "The defendants are court clerks in Douglas and Sedgwick counties, along with the secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The agency furnishes marriage license forms and keeps marriage records." I'm sure their is more to the job title, but it's probably irrelevant to what we're talking about. [36]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was just going to make the same point Dralwik. I strongly suggest that Kansas be changed back to solid blue. [Comment added by 107.2.70.190.[37] Please sign your comments with ~~five~~ four tildes (~) per WP:Talk page guidelines 0nlyth3truth (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)]

Per [38] "Doug Bonney, legal director of the ACLU Foundation of Kansas, said the group reads the Supreme Court decision as a clear ruling that the state must stop enforcing its marriage ban on same-sex marriages." And per any analysis of this very complicated issue by Prcc27 (or any of us with less legal training than Doug Bonney) violating WP:OR, I support a solid Kansas. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: Your source doesn't say same-sex marriage is legal statewide.. Also, I already provided a source that says same-sex marriage is only legal in select counties [39]. Furthermore, the ACLU does not have jurisdiction to legally interrupt rulings pertaining to Kansas's laws like the AG does. Prcc27 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Another source for you [40]. Prcc27 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The supreme court of Kansas ruled against the AG, fyi, by permitting marriages in Johnson County.[41] I rescind the "contempt of court" language, but I assert that that was a sufficient but not a necessary criterion for Kansas being solid blue. Also, AG's don't issue "binding opinions." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recap (!vote):

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

If we must stripe:

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

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

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

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

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

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

arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Montana Struck

No stay issued [42]. Since they're subject to 9th Circuit precedent, I think they can go dark blue. Mw843 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Kansas should be BLUE.

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

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

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

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

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

Grey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recap (!vote):

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

If we must stripe:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kansas state defendants

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

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

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

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

South Carolina update

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

Archive 15 Created

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status Quo

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

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

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

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

I think this article sums up Kansas nicely [43]: Same-sex marriage is legal, but the Brownback administration is in denial. Mw843 (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing medium red / readjust color scheme?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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