Jump to content

File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Action on Maine

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12532.html

Maine should be reverted to its former striped form as this law may possibly never be activated, as there won't be Maine SSMs unless the people vote NO on their ballots Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this statement, unlike Vermont Maine is still very up in the air on what is going to happen. (Knowledgekid87) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I accordingly fixed back Maine. Side note: soon we will have to purple NH as the governor has said would sign a modified version of the SSM bill. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that: New Hampshire lawmakers reject gay-marriage bill. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not yet!

Guys, it seems the petition has not yet succeeded. Apparently the only thing that is different today is they have the official, master petition now, with which they will now start to collect signatures. Proof:


The article is explaining the petition process in detail. This implies to me that the process has not been completed, and the author intends to let the reader know what to expect in the future. There wouldn't be much point in explaining it if the petition process was completed and the people's veto was certified. It wastes valuable space when printed in a newspaper.

It has only been two weeks since that paperwork to start the people's veto campaign was filed. I think it's impossible to complete this petition process in just two weeks. I think Maine should be reverted to show that same-sex marriage is still currently expected to become legal. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I keep on saying wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball, you can not honestlly say that nothing will happen between now and September. We should go with the facts at hand and not look into a possible future.
I am not saying that nothing will happen. Please re-read my message, and you will observe that I have not made any such assertion. My point was that the petition to force a people's veto has not succeeded yet, so the bill is still set to come into effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns this year, most likely mid-September. It will remain that way unless and until that petition succeeds and the Maine secretary of state has officially certified this fact. Once this happens, and only once this happens, will the law be stayed. That is the reality today.
You, anonymous editor, are generally correct that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But I think you are applying the principle erroneously. While no one can assert with absolute certainty that nothing will happen, neither can anyone assert with absolute certainty that something will happen. We can reasonably assert, however, that the law is currently set to become effective in mid-September. The map is supposed to reflect today's reality, and that is today's reality. The burden is on the supporters of the people's veto to change this reality by collecting enough signatures to force it onto the ballot. It would not be crystal-balling to assume (reasonably) that the law will come into effect as it is scheduled to. Instead, it would be crystal-balling to consider the law in flux today, when it is not.
For clarity, please read this page.
I again assert my belief that Maine should be reverted to reflect today's reality, that the law legalizing same-sex marriage is set to come into effect 90 days after the current session of the legislature adjourns, and that the law has not been officially stayed. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 02:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I recently just realized that I misread the news. I thought I read something that said they had the signatures already, sorry about my edits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please revert back to green/yellow for WA

Washington also needs to be reverted back please because of the filing of Referendum 71, just recently after the "everyting-but-marriage" or the proper name - Omnibus Domestic Partnership Resposibilities And Obligations Act 2009 got signed into law, by WA Gov Chris Gregoire [1] [2] [3].

The Washington law has not yet been officially stayed. The supporters of the referendum must collect enough signatures before the law is put on hold, and my understanding is they haven't even started collecting signatures yet. Until they succeed in forcing a referendum, the fact is the law is set to come into effect as laws do. I argued above that Maine should not have been reverted, and I argue that Washington should remain the way it's currently depicted. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 04:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of same-sex relationship status when a challenge is made

I have argued in the above sections that Maine should not have been reverted to green/yellow, and that Washington should remain blue/yellow. Other people have made similar arguments elsewhere on this page. So I was bold and reverted Maine to what I think is its rightful state. But if there is still any strife, I invite a discussion on the question.

The current practice is, once a court decision or a law has officially created a certain legal situation in a state, the map reflects this, even if that legal situation is not actually in effect yet (see Colorado and Vermont). However, challenges to the legal situation have apparently been very rare, so it's not immediately clear how to handle the challenges to the legal situation in Maine and Washington.

Here is the most logical way of handling it, in my opinion: Challenges should only be reflected when those challenges have officially altered the legal situation. Otherwise, we are crystal-balling. Maine's and Washington's referendum petitions have not yet forced referendums. The new laws in each state have not yet been stayed. The legal situation in each state has not changed. So Maine should be purple, and Washington should be blue/yellow. They should remain this way unless and until the referendum petitions succeed.

I reached this conclusion after looking at how we handled California. This file was first created just two days after the In re Marriage Cases decision. The statutory ban on same-sex marriage had been ruled unconstitutional, but the ruling did not take effect for another month or so. Nevertheless, California was colored purple to show that same-sex marriage was legalized. This is how Iowa was treated, and this is how Vermont and Colorado are currently being treated.

Two challenges to the California Supreme Court's ruling happened subsequently: The court was asked to stay its ruling pending a vote by the people on the issue, and Proposition 8 qualified for the ballot. The map never changed. This is because the fact of the day did not change. Neither challenge altered the legal standing of the court's ruling. Things only changed when Proposition 8 passed. Only at this point was same-sex marriage officially banned.

Challenges to the legality of Proposition 8 were filed immediately after election day, and we still await a decision from the California Supreme Court on the question. Requests to delay the initiative's enforcement were also filed, but subsequently rejected. The fact that Proposition 8 is/was challenged does/did not render it ineffective. Same-sex marriage is/was still banned by the constitution for the time being. Because of this, California is blue/orange.

It's clear to me from how we treated California that we only consider challenges official when they have altered the legal situation. This has not happened yet in Maine or Washington. Until it does, or until I see that there is no consensus on this point, I will revert any improper changes to Maine or Washington if I notice any. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 09:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I said this in a much earlier post about Maine way above. I wish people on here would read the previous posts before the same conversation is rehased. The default is that until signatures are gathered that the bills passed and signed in ME and WA will become law. ONLY when enough signatures are gathered is implementation delayed. Signatures have not been gathered in either states yet and only when that happens should the map be reverted back.DaveI (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire is not purple and Vermont

How come New Hampshire is not purple and why? Same sex marriage passed the NH legislator seven times just in a month with ongoing amendments (relating to religion and religious freedoms), the map is currently wrong. Speaking of "referendums", is there one planned for Vermont? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How come, and why? A bill is just a bill (yes, it's only a bill) until it becomes law, no matter how many roll calls it has passed. To become law, first the bill must officially reach the governor's desk (it has not), and then one of three things must happen: One, he signs it. Two, he leaves it alone and lets it automatically become law five days later (if the legislature is still in session after those five days). Three, if he vetoes it, two thirds of each chamber of the legislature votes to override his veto. None of these three things has happened yet, so the bill is not law. The map is not wrong.
As for Vermont, no, there is no referendum. Vermonters do not even have the referendum power. You can see what forms of direct democracy exist in the various states, including which states allow referendums, on this web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athelwulf (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

California decision coming up

The Californian decision on "prop 8" will be on Tuesday 5pm Pacific time.

The "notice of forthcoming filing" PDF on http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/ says that it'll be released at 10 am Pacific time, which is 5 pm UTC. - Jredmond (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am preparing a file with the CA in purple on my computer in case it is needed (I hope it is needed) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have prepared the file. I will wake up earlier than usual tomorrow, and if need be, I will update it Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 was upheld, but the marriages will stand in california that were issued before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Shall we treat the fact that about 18,000 individual same-sex marriages are still valid in a special way on the map? I lean towards no, but I figure it's worth asking. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless the Federal Supreme Court decides to stay prop 8 (there is a new case in case you haven't heard), CA should remain the same way. The legal situation at the moment dictates that it needs to be striped orange, dark blue

Illinois

Illinois should be blue/yellow on the map, because Illinois recently legalized civil unions [4] [5] [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It did not pass yet. It just recently moved to the house floor for a full vote. If it passes both houses of the legislature and is signed by the governor, Illinois will be yellow/blue. Fortuynist (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ditto what Fortuynist said. You need to pay closer attention to the details, Mr(s). 122. You seem to have a tendency to overlook the important ones. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 06:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Iowa

I have heard in several right-wing media quaters there is a proposal for a Consitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in Iowa - can that be confirmed or corrected? Iowa has had gay marriage for a month now, but for how long - Just like California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Learn how to use Google, and stop asking us these kinds of questions, please. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 04:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Senate and Legislature have now approved same sex marriage. The governor has stated he will sign the bill, likely this evening. Please change New Hampshire to purple! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.121.42 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny coincidence, I posted a similar notice just after you. New Hampshire can be change on the map once the governor has signed the bill, but no sooner. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. --128.135.121.42 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire expected to have same-sex marriage soon

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090603/NEWSBLOG/906039907/-1/XML15

The New Hampshire legislature has passed the same-sex marriage bill today. Once the governor signs it into law, but no sooner, New Hampshire can be changed to show that same-sex marriage is legal there. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The bill was practically crafted to the governor's wishes; I think we're being pedantic here. "Once Lynch signs this bill"—Wikipedia should not be more conservative than its sources. Fortuynist (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. But I think the map is intended to show changes only once they are official. As things stand at this very second (unless there have been new developments), no bill legalizing same-sex marriage has been signed into law. And a bill is only a bill until it's law. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The governor has just signed same sex marriage into law. Someone can go ahead and change NH to purple. --128.135.121.42 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

THe bill has been signed, please change New Hampshire purple. : ] --cooljuno411 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is video of the signing: http://www.wmur.com/video/19648652/index.html --128.135.121.42 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

NH purpled. The map looks so much nicer without those stripes. Fortuynist (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It would look much nicer without stripes at all, and in one solid color (preferably dark purple). But alas...no. --haha169 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It would look nicer with stripes but that is a personal opinion now isnt it? Knowledgekid87 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Washington state Referendum 71

On Monday 18th, May 2009 Governor Chris Gregoire signed the "everything-but-marriage" bill into law [7] [8]. In response, Referendum 71 (2009) was filed, which seeks to qualify for the November 2009 ballot. The measure would get rid and abolish the 2009 (stage 3) expansion, possibly delaying the law from taking effect in addition as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But the law will not be suspended unless the campaigners can get enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot (which they haven't already), correct? Fortuynist (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it correct the Maine also has a plan like this as well?
If 120,577 valid signatures are submitted by 5:00PM July 25, 2009 then the WA referendum will be on the November 2009 ballot. Normally the law goes into effect on July 26, 2009. When the signatures are submitted to the Secretary of State's office if they are "clearly short of the required amount" the law will go into effect on July 26, 2009. If it is not clear that enough valid signatures were gathered the implementation date is delayed "pending validation of signatures." If, after validation, the signatures were not enough then the law immediately goes into effect......if enough valid signatures were gathered the implementation is delayed pending the November vote. This is all on the Washington secretary of state's webpage. http://www.secstate.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Initiative%20and%20Referenda%20Manual.pdf.
Thus for this map and the standards used the striping of purple/yellow makes sense because UNLESS the signatures are gathered the bill becomes law. Only at the end of July/early August will it be known if enough valid signatures were gathered to delay implementation and force a vote. I believe the map should stay the way it is and a notation, as has been discussed in earlier threads, added in August once it is known if a vote will occur.DaveI (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevada

Nevada needs to be changed from Orange to blue/orange stripes because the NV legislator passed the Domestic Partnership Responsibilities Act 2009 [9]. Since 2002 Nevada has a Consitutional amendment banning marriage that does not consist of a "union between a man and a woman". The domestic partnership will not change that, it is the exact same as the Oregon and California models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.159.204 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion in the comments just above......a bill is not law until signed by the Governor. NV's Governor has indicated a veto so the bill is not law yet. Maybe if the law is overridden by the legislature......but just legislative action does not make new law!DaveI (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: the Domestic Partnership Responsibilities Act 2009 just got VETOED by the NV Gov. (who is a proud Republican). There might be a possible override in the next week, bu we will have to just "wait-and-see". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It was overriden. But is Nevada similar to marriage or enumerated rights?
Was there an effort to make it "everything but marriage", like Washington's replacing statutes that have to do with marriage with marriage and domestic partnerships? Does this specify all the rights of marriage and give it to them? Or are just the major rights offered?
Are same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions or civil unions recognized as DPs in Nevada? Fortuynist (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The article says that the bill was based off of California's. And both the links you provided before it was merged up here states that "all rights" were given. --haha169 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DC Dot

Hey all. What color dot should the map use for DC? Ideally, the dot would have stripes of light blue (recognizes marriages performed elsewhere) and dark purple (grants rights similar to marriage). The problem being, of course, that the dot is small and would be difficult to show both, unless a box was made off to the side. Thoughts? Best, epicAdam(talk) 13:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that we should leave it as is. Striping a dot isn't going to work out well. --haha169 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The dot could be split in half. The dot could be light blue since that's higher. Or, outside of the contiguous states, "D.C." could be spelled out in letters, with D in dark purple and C in light blue. Fortuynist (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
A striped box outside of the contiguous U.S. could work. You could either label it "DC" or just conntect a line pointing back to the District's location on the map. To leave it "as is" would be disingenuous. Best, epicAdam(talk) 19:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Or, instead of a box, a shape that matches the shape of the District of Columbia! Fortuynist (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed that would work. Now... who's good at modifying SVGs? I'm sure not... -epicAdam(talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't DC be too small to see on the map, if we make it as DC's shape? --haha169 (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Its size would be modified for comfortable viewing as Alaska's is. Fortuynist (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

But Alaska isn't contiguous to the United States - D.C. is. I think it would look rather odd. --haha169 (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It won't matter soon anyway if/when we adopt the new map, since it doesn't include a category for recognizing foreign marriages, partially due to a lack of distinct shades of blue and partially due to this very problem. In any case, we could feasibly end up with states needing triple stripes if the category stayed. Newsboy85 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, there isn't a new map yet... so until that time, the map we do have should be accurate. Best, epicAdam(talk) 06:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
True, but Lokal_Profil may yet beat D.C. to the punch. When does the recognition go into effect? Newsboy85 (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Marriage recognition is currently slated for July 6, 2009. However, the map also displays conditions that are expected in the future... Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
DC striping is now supported... code wise. Whether or not it looks sensible I'll leave it to you guys to decide. /Lokal_Profil 23:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support for civil unions/foreign marriages isn't available, however. --haha169 (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Can throw together such a class if requested but it's only worth it If you actually want a striped dot. /Lokal_Profil 10:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I striped DC for the time being. If Maryland ever updates their DP laws, then DC will be hard to distinguish, but for the time being it works. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone mentioned that there's no distinction for recognition of foreign marriages in the proposed new map. This is true, and I had uploaded the map that way because the then-latest proposal also did not show recognition of foreign marriages. However, I've been thinking about starting a discussion about that, maybe sometime a bit later. So, keep that in mind.
As for the dot, perhaps making it bigger would help tell it apart from Maryland. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just realized, if MD updates its laws, the color order for yellow-blue is opposite the color order for yellow-green, meaning there should not be any DC confusion in such case


I was one of many who advocated for the DC dot to be striped, and I think it is fitting for it to be so. Is there a way, though, for the dot to be outlined in white, like the borders of states, to further make it more distinguishable from its neighboring states? Yankhill (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

DC issue on map

I know of a way to fix the problem with DC issue on the map - put a small white ring on the outside of the circle with the very nano and tiny blue/purple strip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island and New Mexico

Is it just a visual trick, or are Rhode Island and New Mexico different shades of grey? shouldn't they be the same?--Found5dollar (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You can check the code for yourself, they are both RGB (204, 204, 204). They may appear different to you because of the contrast of the colors of the surrounding states. They do not look different shades of grey to me. Fortuynist (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a visual trick. RI is surrounded by purple states, while NM is surrounded by red and orange states. This changes how the grey appears in contrast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.114.113 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have two shades of grey, this segment may confuse new talk page readers, so I am striking it out Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevada is the wrong color

Why is Nevada a striped orange/blue color?, it should be a green/orange color because it has a FEW rights that come with the domestic partnership. Because the Gov. (Republican) vetoed the bill? Also if it was overridden by ONLY the Senate NOT THE HOUSE - For an override It HAS TO BE AGREEDED TO BY A MINIMUM OF THE 66PERCENT VOTES BY BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is correct color. The bill is modeled after California's and provides "all the benefits of married couples." Secondly, the Assembly already overrode the gov's veto two hours ago. --haha169 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
My reading of the bill is that DPs are treated as spouses except for in section 8 of the bill, where no public or private employer in the state is obligated to provide health care benefits to or for the domestic partner of an officer or employee. Does California's DP system have such an exception? It's similar enough to marriage in most other cases, but to exempt health care benefits is very bizarre. Fortuynist (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That is rather bizarre. I'm pretty sure that its not in CA's domestic partnership bill. I know that even Colorado has health care benefits. Perhaps they got rid of it to garner enough votes? --haha169 (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire update 6/3/09

The New Hampshire House and Senate will vote next week on Thursday on a new bill called the Civil Marriage and Religious Business Protection Bill 2009 that will legalize same-sex marriage. Until then it stays yellow/blue on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

...As it has been the entire time. --haha169 (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
They're not voting on Thursday. The vote will occur on Wednesday June 3rd. http://nhftm.org/ --205.208.125.130 (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The New Hampshire Legislature just passed the marriage bill (again) and it goes ot the Governor. Someone keep a close watch for if the Governor signs it soon for an update. See http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/06/breaking-nh-passes-marriage-equality-on-to-governor/ for source.DaveI (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming

It seems that Wyoming recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. According to the Casper Star-Tribune, "Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states." However, this fact seems far from widely accepted; for example, the Human Rights Campaign either doesn't know about this or doesn't agree.

This was discussed before. The relevant discussion is now in the archives. But apparently no one took action. We should pursue what the official legal opinion is on this, and perhaps stripe Wyoming yellow and light blue if indeed this is true. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

US territories

As a substantial amount of users have showed their support for a new map color design to replace the old one in the near future, I think it would be wise to base the new form of this map, as it's quite likely that Guam will enable same-sex civil unions by the end of the year, mainly due to the strong support throughout the senate. It wouldn't surprise me if Puerto Rico stepped up in the next few years as well, so it would be handy to have the islands already included in the map so we don't have to start from scratch if such occurs. I've read through the statutes throughout all the US territories on the map, and only Puerto Rico has a statutory ban on same-sex marriage. The others are in the same category as NY, NM, RI: No ban whatsoever, yet no same-sex marriage. I personally feel that it would be a worthy element on the map; especially since Washington DC is included. VoodooIsland (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I support making a new map similar to the current, but with the territories included. Hekerui (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Me too, but instead of using that map, which is not stripes-enabled, we may have to lobby Lokal_Profil to include the territories on the striped map. Fortuynist (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! VoodooIsland (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well. That's a great map - I was planning bringing Puerto Rico in as well, but completely forgot about other territories! --haha169 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As a resident of an oft-forgotten non-state, I fully support including the U.S. territories. Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New version of map

  Same-sex marriages
  Unions granting rights similar to marriage or limited/enumerated rights (marriage may be banned)
  No specific prohibition of or allowance for same-sex marriages or unions
  Statute bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

OK, this thing has needed some work for a while now, so I went ahead and took care of it. I've uploaded a new version to Commons, which I've included to the right. I've attempted to fix some of the concerns about color blindness. I realize the orange and red still pose a problem, but the categories are similar and the map is still much more usable than the current one.

I've also eliminated the distinction between various forms of civil unions because it was just causing clutter. Striped states have also been removed - even if a prohibition on marriage exists in the state, I think the more important information is that some sort of unions are recognized. The state recognition of foreign same-sex marriages is also gone. While both of these points are certainly information that should be included in a state-specific article, trying to cram them all onto one map was getting silly.

Finally, I've cleaned up the file for the map itself. Colorado and Oregon didn't even exist anymore - the borders were incomplete, meaning changing their color would have been difficult in an svg editor. I've also removed what appeared to be a bumch of random groupings. It should be easier to make changes from now on, although I've only tested it out in Illustrator. Those of you who edit the raw code will have to let me know how it looks, but changes can now be made with just an svg editor and the paint bucket. I've also added an outline to D.C. now that it and Maryland are both blue. Let me know what you think, and if consensus prefers it, I can upload it to replace the current map. Newsboy85 (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It is good map. New York should not be grey. That state recognize of foreign same-sex marriage. It must be covered. Ron 1987 (User talk:Ron 1987) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, but the problem with the current map is that it tries to cover too much. Having a new category for a single state is a waste. The state has no specific prohibition or allowance for its own gay marriages, no matter how it treats foreign ones. We have to draw the line somewhere for how much information we want on the map, and I think the current one tries to include too much. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This is easier to look at. Also, the law isn't entirely clear in Rhode Island and Wyoming as to out-of-state marriages anyway. The Maryland Attorney General may be issuing an opinion like the Rhode Island AG did. It's just a murky area in a lot of respects. Even New York doesn't have uniform recognition, some of the counties don't recognize the marriages for instance, even though the state does. I think a law that's going into effect should get a change in color, such as in Maine. Also, I don't think it's too much to shade according to how many rights are given.Theknightswhosay (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I am against this map, it is too broad in some areas while I agree it covers too much in others. I think the current map is fine. "If it aint broke dont fix it" Knowledgekid8715:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
But I think it is broken. A graphic should easily relate information about a topic, not try to cram in as much material as possible. A casual reader should be able to glance at this map and see the general state of same-sex unions in the U.S. But as it stands, with all the different categories and stripe combinations, interpreting the map itself is a task. Specific information, such as the distinctions between various civil unions, is better left to prose. Newsboy85 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The only diffrence between this and the current map is "Unions granting rights similar to marriage or limited/enumerated rights (marriage may be banned)" That statement both covers too much and is broad in other areas. It would make me look up the stats in the state seperate if I was a reader and saw something like that on a map. Knowledgekid8715:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
By that logic, the map as it stands should be divided further. After all, the states that have listed or enumerated rights certainly don't all have the same ones. There was also earlier discussion about dividing "constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions" into that category as well as "constitutional ban on gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships." We could easily get this map up to a dozen different colors if we wanted to, but it's already confusing enough as it is. In any case, isn't it good if a reader delves deeper into the issue than what the map can convey? There will always be important information in an article that just can't be displayed graphically. The map should be a summary, not a catch-all for every distinction. And I still think, at the very least, the stripes need to be killed. Newsboy85 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The current map does not need to be divided anymore, and does a good job to cover marriage as well as the stats of civil unions and states that dont allow marriage. It is not too much and not to little as youre right it can be much more in depth. As for the stripes, look in history books and textbooks and you will find them on maps.Knowledgekid8716:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

  Same-sex marriages
  Unions granting rights similar to marriage
  Unions granting rights limited/enumerated rights
  No specific prohibition of or allowance for same-sex marriages or unions
  Statute bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

Just because people use stripes doesn't make them a good idea. They're a leftover from when everything was printed in black and white. In any case, to the right, I've posted another version I think is superior to the current one, addressing your concern about the distinction between various forms of civil unions. I actually think this one may be even clearer. Newsboy85 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that the use of stripes prevents a casual editor from being able to make changes because of the complexity involved. Like I said before, this version can be edited by anyone. Even if they don't have Adobe Illustrator, the free Raven utility at Aviary can handle the task. Newsboy85 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, I would like to say that I like the idea of having a color "scale" as opposed to arbitrary colors. In other words, I like the range from dark blue to light blue, and light red to dark red, as opposed to black, orange, green, blue, etc. Just my two cents. It is easier to see general trends that way. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Per the discussion below, I changed the color of Maine on both. Newsboy85 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Foreign marriages: The color scale on the second map is very nice. I feel that the recognition of foreign marriages is an important distinction to make, because Washington D.C. will have this in addition to New York in a month if nothing happens out of the ordinary.
Loss of information: The map as it is imparts a lot of information, not just about the state of same-sex marriage, but about its future. You know that same-sex marriage will pass easier in Maryland than in Colorado because Maryland has a statuary ban while Colorado has a constitutional ban. It is a map of laws, not one that tells same-sex couples practically where they can marry.
Verifiability over instantaneity: I am concerned about your changes to make the editing easier in an svg editor. It is completely subjective and depends on your own SVG editor and level of expertise with it. The difficulties that editors have with the stripes are not unique to this map, but extend to editing vector images in general, as they are (in this form) not yet well known to the general public for tragic reasons. The trend in the law is moving from more stripes to less, so their creation will be less of an issue. Besides, this map would have been more accurate if Iowa had been delayed a little bit, because the court ruling needed some time to take effect. This map has zealous maintainers.
Prose: There are fifty states and the District of Columbia, and many of those with stripes fall into easy broad categories. California and Oregon and Washington. What can you gather from the map? That the west coast prefers strong domestic partnerships with constitutional amendments banning marriage, while the northeast likes marriage or no bans to think it over later, and that the Midwest is schizophrenic. That is instantly apparent, and is much more effective to the casual reader than prose. The accompanying articles, due to the work of highly motivated trolls, I might add, are horrendous.
p.s.: The current colors are not random. They are the colors of the rainbow, in order! Fortuynist (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I'd like to touch on each of your points.
  • I think I also prefer the color scale version because it's easier to see the state of same-sex unions in the United States at a glance. However, as for recognition of foreign marriages, I think the possibility of a change in Washinton, D.C., is actually an argument against including it as a category on the map. I don't know any effective way the map as it stands will pull off indigo and light blue stripes on a dot.
  • I understand your concern about a loss of information, because I am eliminating some from it. However, I would argue that the average reader will glean more information from the new version than the old one because it is less complex and confusing. It doesn't take nearly as much effort to interpret. This isn't to say we should cater to the lowest common denominator, but there is something to be said for simplicity.
  • I can't attest to how this file looks in raw text form, but it should be as easy as a paint bucket in any visual editor. If anyone who makes changes using a text editor would like to take a look, I would appreciate it.
  • In my mind, nothing is instantly apparent on the current map, hence why I created new ones. Even after you've looked up what the various colors mean, you've still got enough stripes running around to make things confusing. I just don't think the additional information is worth the tradeoff for clarity.
  • While the rainbow of colors may be fitting, to a colorblind user, Colorado is already a single color and matches Utah - red, orange and green all appear the same to a red-green colorblind user. I don't know enough about colorblindness to know if the color scale is an effective solution, but it still seems clearer.
If anyone has any suggestions on changes I can make, I'm open to modifications. I can take a shot at four colors on each side if you want me to - an additional blue for New York and an additional red for Michigan, Nebraska, Virginia and South Dakota, which have bans on domestic partnerships as well - but trying to get four distinct levels is tough. The stripes are deleted from my version of the file, and they're my biggest issue with the map as it stands anyway, so they're not coming back on my maps. Newsboy85 (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, four colors really just doesn't work. If you're curious, I uploaded the file at File:Same_sex_marriage_in_USA_new3.svg. There's just not enough distinction, and the pink looks strange. Plus, I'm sure this doesn't solve anything for colorblind users. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

  Same-sex marriages
  Unions granting rights similar to marriage
  Unions granting rights limited/enumerated rights
  No specific prohibition of or allowance for same-sex marriages or unions
  Statute bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

Here is my proposed version. I based the color scheme on version 2, and I used the code from the original map, preserving the stripes. The recognition of foreign same-sex marriages is not shown. Also note that I show same-sex marriage to be legal in Maine. This is on purpose, and I have explained myself further down the page.

Here are my thoughts:

  • The color scheme is great. In fact, several weeks ago, I came up with almost this exact scheme while playing around with the original map to figure out how to fix it for color-blind people.
  • Some are proposing two new distinctions: marriage/union/foreign, and marriage/similar/limited. I favor showing more information rather than less, so I favor marriage/similar/limited/foreign if this is possible. However, it's very hard to find four sufficiently different shades of blue without having the lightest shade look too close to gray.
  • The marriage/union/foreign distinction kinda jives with the idea that civil unions can never be truly equal to marriage. This distinction seems more meaningful to me, in fact, even though I used the marriage/similar/limited distinction. The code can very easily be retooled, though.
  • On the other hand, the distinction between unions similar to marriage and unions limited in scope seems to matter to a significant number of people. When we passed our similar-to-marriage domestic partnership law in Oregon, people thought it was too similar and tried to launch a referendum to put an end to it. They are now doing the same in Washington.
  • I have mixed feelings about the stripes from a coding standpoint, since I am working with the code in Notepad. But I lean towards keeping the stripes. Someone argued on this talk page that this map is intended to show both the negative (bans on recognition of same-sex relationships) and the positive (laws recognizing). I agree with this view. In fact, I see this map as sort of a combination of File:Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States.svg and File:Defense of marriage amendment types US.svg. If we want to preserve this intention, the only easy way to do this is to use stripes. (That said, it is valid to suggest we retool the purpose of this map—for example, to show the greatest extent to which states recognize the rights of same-sex couples, like version 1 does.)
  • The code from version 2 is horrendous. It is not human-readable, at least to me. And the file is 333 KB, about four times the size of the original. All this extra code adds absolutely nothing to the image. SVG editors, like Inkscape, apparently always do this. This is why there's a notice on the original to only edit using a text editor. The code that I'm working with is very easy to figure out and edit, in my opinion, even to the un-knowledgeable editor. There is a section defining CSS classes for all the various legal situations among the states. The path for every state refers to the relevant CSS classes, which is how it gets colored. When two classes apply, the code makes the state striped so both colors can be shown.

Please tell me what you think. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's funny that what looks simple in Illustrator is enormous in Notepad and what looks good in Notepad is horrendous in Illustrator. In any case, I'm still not a huge fan of the sripes, but I do prefer this version to the current one. It's easier to glean information from at a glance, and as someone pointed out, as the law evolves the stripes will go away. Newsboy85 (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it. The many colors in the current map make the stripes hard to interpret, which might be partly why you dislike them. But a two-color scheme makes it much more legible. I think stripes are the best way to show that a state has a ban on same-sex marriage but also recognizes other kinds of same-sex unions, and with just two colors, I think a viewer can guess that this is what the stripes mean without looking at the legend. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 06:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You can see what the new map looks like to a colorblind user here, which seems acceptable to me. Newsboy85 (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I think it passes. So we know red-blue is a good choice. (Incidentally, I'm suddenly very glad I'm not color-blind.) — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 18:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave the discussion open over the weekend and update the file next week, just so we don't catch anyone with an interest in the map by surprise. In the meantime, I'm going to toy with the file to try to get it to a point it's editable in a text editor or a visual editor. At the moment, in a visual editor, it looks like this when you open it. Newsboy85 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
There should be Consensus on it before any major change to the map is made. In my opinion I like the red blue color of the new map but it is harder to read with the stripes (Most notable on Colorado). Knowledgekid8717:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In Inkscape it looks like this, and that's how it looks in Firefox, Opera, Safari, and the web-based vector-to-raster conversion tools that I have tried. The file is SVG standards compliant. The problem is likely with your editor. Fortuynist (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
More discussion is welcome. In any case, I'm examining the code, and I've at least found where the problem is for Illustrator. The file reads correctly up to where it calls the clipping path for the second striped state, Colorado. (Hence why Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas and California are the only ones showing up.) Unfortunately, I don't have the skills to fix this problem, but if someone else does it would be a nice project. Again, the stripes frustrate me ... :) Newsboy85 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha! When it adds the first clipping mask for California - to keep the stripes in the state rather than as the rectangular patch they actually occupy - it blanks everything behind it. The same thing happens in Raven. That's also where the groupings come from - each set of states, alphabetically, is grouped until the next striped state. That's why it appears to have so many different levels, because each time Illustrator calls a clipping mask it groups all the states filled in on the map up to that point. I still have no idea how to fix this - other than not having any stripes, of course - but it's been an interesting exercise nonetheless. Newsboy85 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Colorado was the only clippath not done by the map's original creator (and the only one with any real expertise with the map), Lokal_Profil. I left a note on his talk page. Fortuynist (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Knowledgekid, do you have another suggestion? Do you agree the new map is superior to the current one? Newsboy85 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No I suppose this one is good, I just dont like how colorado is hard to decypher from a small map image that is posted here (Close up it looks fine I agree)Knowledgekid8721:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I like the new map - it is superior to the current one since it pretty much addresses the color-blindness problem (and I personally like the colors as well). --haha169 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is something else we need to address before we make any change, and that's the translations. While they're largely the same, there is one difference - the line that currently reads "No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions" will now need to read "No specific prohibition of or allowance for same-sex marriages or unions." The change is necessary because New York does indeed recognize foreign same-sex marriages, though it does not have an allowance for them itself. With the new color scheme, there's no room in the spectrum for another shade for New York. Anyway, if D.C. recognizes foreign marriages, it would need stripes, which isn't happening on a dot. The wording change is probably simple enough to make using an automatic translation tool, but we should probably get ahold of a speaker wherever we can. Newsboy85 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Concerning translations, I am familiar with German, Spanish, and to a limited extent French. While a native speaker would definitely be more qualified than I am to write up translations, I can help in a pinch.
Concerning Colorado, are the colors the problem some are talking about? I think I share this problem, actually. It's hard to describe, but it's "shimmering". I'm not sure how to resolve this, short of lobbying Colorado to grant everything-but-marriage civil unions or something.
And concerning the striped clip paths, it might be worthwhile to ask Lokal_Profil to make them for each state. If he's willing to do so, of course. This way, when some change happens in a state that requires stripes, we can reflect that change right away, and not have to pester him every time this happens. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 06:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

I haven't chimed in yet but I regularly provide updates and answer questions on this and help people understand the complexity of the laws on in various states on this issue. As an soon to be attorney and lobbyist I have to say I think the long discussion here has come to the right point - which I why I didn't chime in until now. I think the red-blue gradation is good and I am 100% for keeping the positive AND negative rights on this map. the color scale helps convey all this information is pretty clear fashion and shows a reader the trouble/ease of the SSM movement in various states. Just offering my support - I don't do coding or anything so I can't help on that end. I just provide update requests and highlight when people provide misinformation here.DaveI (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the map in Illustrator when I get home and see if I can figure out the problem. Regarding the colour change, although I like it, please remember that this map is used on several wikipedias other then the English one. So if you change the colours then either update the colours in those articles or at least drop a note on the talk pages. The problem with image updating is that it doesn't show in an articles history, thus the error can otherwise remain for a long time. /Lokal_Profil 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently constructing a map where all the states are striped. Once that is done it could easily be adapted to replace this one. I'll give a shout here when it's done./Lokal_Profil 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
New code basis with all states striped based on map to the right. Please double check that no errors have sneaked into the colouring. Even DC can be striped if so wished. Hopefully this will fix the Illustrator issue, and if it hasn't then I'll blame Illustrator and ask why you weren't using a text editor instead =P (this translates into "I couldn't figure out why Illustrator was messingup the old code). Anyhow give me a shout on my user talk if there are any problems. /Lokal_Profil 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks a lot. It still doesn't work in Illistrator - it only displays Alabama - but I'm giving up on that one. I'll drop in the colors tonight and upload it over the version Athelwulf did, since it will be visually identical but with improved code. Newsboy85 (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. You can see it above, though it looks identical to the old one but should be easier for anyone to edit, even if stripes are called for in new states. A couple of the colors, such as the dark red, changed slightly to web-safe shades. It's only noticeable in comparison between the two versions. In any case, I propose uploading this new map over the current File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. Newsboy85 (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just stick with the text editor - its free :). So is Inkscape. :) --haha169 (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait a couple more days on this and replace the old one with the new one Saturday, barring any major objections or changes. Consensus seems to be that this new map is superior to the current one. As for the translations, I'll change all the color schemes then comment out the ones I can't take care of. (Which, admittedly, will be most of them.) Athelwulf mentioned he can take care of a couple, and I'm sure there are people watching this page who can handle most of the rest. Newsboy85 (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I prefer the new map as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg/Archive_3&oldid=932647868"