File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rhode Island[edit]

So now that Rhode Island has legalized funeral rights for same-sex partners, should it be colored in a very light blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but one designation barely feels "limited". It feels more like nothing than anything else. Especially considering that the one designation is funeral arrangements. --haha169 (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Rhode Island should be change. Ron 1987 03:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so, the legislation is minimal and isn't even LGBT-specific. Hekerui (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I always thought Rhode Island had some de facto recognition of US SSMs. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

RI should be light blue ---- haha169 try telling someone who losses their partner that this legal right "feels like nothing." Sometime change is slow and when this group made Maryland Blue there were only 3 rights in Maryland law (one of which was funeral rights). And as for the law not be lgbt specific then why is Colorado colored as having some pro-lgbt rights? The CO laws are not lgbt specific either. Please be consistent and make RI light blue. (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The funeral arrangements are not designated domestic partnerships or part of another package. Nothing substantial, ergo no colour. Hekerui (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with Hekerui. RI's laws are very similair to MD's law from a legal standpoint. Hekerui is right that RI laws did not make a domestic partnership registry but the RI law does provide for a way to prove of the relationship to gain the funeral rights. Similarly, MD's law did not create a domestic partnership registry but provides for a way to prove of the relationship to get the bundle of rights that MD now provides. I don't care if MD and RI are light blue or not.....but whichever it is both MD and RI should be the same in this map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've also looked into the legal schemes of Maryland (where I'm from) and Rhode Island and they seem very similar, yet different from everything else on the map ---- because neither state has a domestic partnership registry. I agree with the other two users that RI and Maryland should be the same color.DaveIseminger (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"vote" - any responses to 1/30 post? (2/7)[edit]

Should we take some kind of "vote" to determine RI? (Oh yes, I abstain) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I oppose Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The color change as the new right is very very small compared to the bigger picture of limited rights. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. RH should be changed. Maryland also implemented very limited rights and is light blue. Both states should be the same colour.Ron 1987 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons I stated above. Hekerui (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Support per the reasons I said above. It isn't about a state reaching a specific threshold of a number of rights for a color to appear on this map --- my understanding of this map has always been to showcase when a state recognizes same-sex relationships and RI now does, albeit in a very limited manner. Neither Maryland or Rhode Island has an established domestic partner registry - instead they have requirements/paperwork listed in a statute to grant very limited enumerated rights. The point is that RI does have a way that same-sex couples can get some rights (funeral rights). While RI's laws are not same-sex specific neither are Colorado's or Washington' arguments about RI not being same-sex specific bring up a host of more problems with the standards for colors on the map. I vote that Maryland and RI are the same color --- I don't care if they are gray or blue. (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Support RI should be changed. DaveIseminger (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Is there any reason why this is a vote and not a consensus poll? So far I have seen two "RI should be changed" things, if it should be changed, why? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well there isn't any consensus, so nothing is going to change on the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    DaveIseminger gives no argument. This change is nonsense - RI has one law about burial that applies to everyone. Hekerui (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. i dont know what is going on in Maryland, but Rhode Island should not be blue. There is no recognition of a union including any sort of tax benefits/penetalities or hospital visiting rights.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hekerui - here is my argument. Read the other posts arguing for "support." No one has responded to the legitimate arguments in support made by others. I researched the other posters' points and was convinced (and note I made a minimal argument before the call for a "vote"). It seems that rather than researching many are making opinion decisions without looking at the relevant information.

1) The main argument I read for "oppose" position -- that the law is not lgbt specific -- calls into question other colors already present on this map. CO's law applies to "everyone" and is not lgbt specific. WA State's law is also not lgbt includes opposite-sex couples where one is over the age of 62. Finally, MD's law is not lgbt specific and in structure is almost identical to RI's law. Both MD and RI's laws set out a method, but do not establish a formal state registry, for any two people (there is a lack of lgbt specificity in BOTH), to prove a relationship to get a bundle of rights. The only difference between RI and MD, after reading the statutes, is that RI includes 1 right and Maryland includes roughly 10 rights. In order to get the rights in both MD and RI you have to show certain pieces of paper that prove the connectiveness of the relationship. Under both MD and RI's laws an unmarried opposite sex couple could get the enumerated rights by showing the same type of evidence. See the 2008 MD bill summary and note that is says "two people" and not "same-sex couples"

2) The second "oppose" argument is a purely subjective one -- does the # of rights a state recognizes dictate the initial coloring of a state as light blue? I agree with others that "just because it is one right doesn't mean it is an insignificant right." When did we create a hierarchy of rights as a standard for coloring a state light blue on this map? If the "one right" granted was the right to visit a loved one in a hospital would we be having this debate? When did being recognized under state tax laws become the determining factor as Found5dollar appears to suggest? I don't see the value of debating the merits of which rights are "enough" to color a state light blue. The bottom line is if you compare RI with the many states (see all the red colored states on the map) the citizens of RI have "more rights."

3) Further, the U.S. same-sex marriage Wikipedia page itself regarding MD and RI are in the same box under "unregistered co-habitation." Thus, the content of the main page where this map is housed does not match the pictorial representation of the same information.

This is why RI should be changed on the map. I'd love to read an argument for "oppose" that is based on actually looking at the statutes first-hand. Ignoring that argument, which was on this post before I even said support, does not negate it. I saw no reason to waste anyone's time by restating it but now I hope a debate about its merits can ensue. This is not meant in an angry tone ---- it is frustration at the apparent lack of research on this issue and drafting of a logical and formal argument for reasons to "oppose" this change. The arguments for oppose have been more than adequately refuted and simply restating the original points of opposition does not rebut the "support" argument outlined here.

DaveIseminger (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Is anyone working on a counter argument? I can't imagine silence should be consider agreement and I feel my points are pretty substantial in showing why RI should be changed.DaveIseminger (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Im going with no consensus for this one based on what i see. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that was Dave's question Knowledge. Heikuri called Dave out for not providing an argument. Dave did and now no one has responded. There was a lack of consensus declared before the above post on 1/30 but no discussion since then. I for one think Dave has a point and spelled things out more clearly than when the "lack of consensus was declared." I think the onus is one someone to explain why the above reasoning is flawed rather than just saying "No." That is exactly what Dave was chastised for doing so it is now a double standard for someone to not explain in the same level of detail why the change should not happen. (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not enough for a change. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't it "enough" though ---- if most people on here believe it is not "enough" then let us articulated a standard now to know when "enough of a change" happens. Let's not feel our way through each situation. Let us make a STANDARD. (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've usually respected the discussions on this board and am highly disappointed that no one has taken the time to rebut the argument I included weeks ago. The points I raised are very legitimate ones and to have not received any response ---- one based on logic and not just mere emotion ---- simply disappoints me. I agree with everyone is just going to say "not enough" then when is "enough" reached?????DaveIseminger (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this section lacks editors to be honest, either that or nobody wants to take the time to go over your points and address them which I agree is disappointing if an oppose arguement is to be made. If you really feel that the change should be made then be WP:BOLD, go to wikimedia commons and change the map. Before you do that though I would bring up this discussion here: Template talk:Same-sex unions as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't respond because of WP:TLDR. Sorry. Hekerui (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
If I knew how to edit the map I would be bold. So first I was criticized for not providing an argument. Now I am criticized for providing too long of an argument. How can I win??? Why would you call me out for not responding and then when I did ignore it --- where is the logic in that? If you actually read it you would be hard pressed to find much that could be deleted. It is comprehensive but not excessively verbose. To make you happy I went back and edited it though. DaveIseminger (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I read it and remain opposed. This is a single issue bill and in Maryland couples got several rights with the clear intent of simulating some marriage rights. Allowing funeral arrangements is not substantive enough for inclusion - it only goes into effect with one person dead. If there is a disconnect to the box then the box should be fixed. Hekerui (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding with something that I feel gives a clearer logic reason for opposing. I can understand the requirement of death as being an unappealing requisite for the recognition of the relationship. Still, in countless states even in death a same-sex relationship is not recognized. Maybe our disagreement is I see this a "relationship recognition map" and you see it as a "marriage recognition map?" Not sure if I characterized that correctly but I thought this map should reflect any recognition of same-sex relationships and not just marriage or marriage-like recognitions. That is my interpretaion of light blue's "Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights." And while we disagree on which way the box/map should read I agree that they should be consistent. DaveI (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages?
Native94080 (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The law discussed above was passed because RI didn't recognize the marriage of the couple where one was not released to the other after dying, so I doubt the description (which is also very qualified with regard to effect). Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that Rhode Island is now listed under the recognition table. Shouldn't it be changed to a darker grey on the map to reflect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the main article, Rhode Island, has created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer a subset of "the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions." Furthermore, it states that Rhode Island recognizes same sex marriages performed abroad. Therefore, either the color of Rhode Island should be changed, at least to dark gray, or else the main article should be edited to remove these references if they are not true. What do you think? Adamlance (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Will someone please at least change RI to dark gray? I think the fact that they recognize foreign same sex marriages is not in debate. Adamlance (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I dispute this, the HRC notes at that the recognition is based on a non-binding opinion and that "this question will most likely be answered by the courts". When they don't recognize American same-sex marriages as described above I have serious doubts they recognize foreign ones. With such uncertainty we should not change the color and possibly misinform. Hekerui (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, then my previous question stands. Can someone change the main article, which states that Rhode Island recognizes same sex marriages performed abroad"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamlance (talkcontribs) 06:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't Maryland still have a pink stripe, since same-sex marriage is prohibited by statute there? Light blue for limited partnership rights, pink for marriage prohibited, dark gray for out-of-state marriages recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to triple stripe. The general rule on striping that we used for DC a while back applies here. A 50% grey stripe overrides the need for a pink stripe. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Native94080 (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really: "The opinion does not enable same-sex couples to wed here. It also does not carry the weight of law, but is meant to guide judges and state agencies." [1] Hekerui (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I found this.[2] [3]. It is similar to New York Governor's directive. Ron 1987 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
"Gansler: Effective immediately Md. recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere" Native94080 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated. MD's pink stripe became a 50% grey stripe. Side note: It seems rather pointless for same-sex couples to register CUs/DPs/RBs/whatever-they're-called in MD now, so I see no point in the light blue stripe being there, I have left it there for the mean time. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here, I can't find even one report about same-sex couples getting out-of-state equality that has power of law - there's no report at all. There's only this one headline by a Washington Post blog, other coverage is much more restrained about the available options. Hekerui (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
For those continued skeptics, please refer to Recognition of same-sex unions in Maryland.
Native94080 (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The article cites the same sources given here, is not persuasive at all. I replaced the cited blog and TV station coverage with substantive legal analysis from a major Maryland newspaper. Hekerui (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
"With the ruling, state agencies will be required to extend all benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy to married gay couples. These could include health insurance expansion, spousal legal immunities, property rights, the ability to file wrongful-death suits and perhaps some tax benefits, experts said yesterday",0,3256281.story Ron 1987 11:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
"Gansler's ruling does not carry the weight of law" - from the same source. Hekerui (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read that the Governor more or less supports the ruling and that he wants state agencies to follow the opinions of the AG. (source: CNN, too lazy to get URL again) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

California - Prop 8[edit]

For now at least, Proposition 8 is not the law of the state, so I turned us blue on the map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast, the ruling will be stayed! There is no chance that marriages will resume before the 9th circuit court has a look into this - the opposition to same-sex marriage has filed a precautionary request to stay the ruling. Let's first wait for a reliable source that states marriages have resumed for same-sex couples. Hekerui (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Hekerui. -epicAdam(talk) 21:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed that on CNN. They said it was enjoined, but then they said it was stayed... sigh... they got me excited for a bit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The poor Wiki server lol Hekerui (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you think perhaps we should create a new color with the key reading next to the new color, "Same-sex marriage ban currently enjoined" as is done on the "abortion in the United States" page w/ the parental consent/parental notification law map?? Liberal92 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruling was stayed or not? hmmm... [4] Proponents of Proposition 8 had asked Walker to block enforcement of his ruling immediately, but Walker declined. The proponents of the ballot measure said they would immediately appeal Ron 1987 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, no new colours etc. until this is clear. The NYT says Walker stayed his ruling. There seems to be some confusion and I read some networks revoked their remarks regarding "no stay". Let's be cautious and try not to misinform people. Hekerui (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Update, this isn't a clear cut stay, this is a stay to determine whether there will be a real stay [5]. On Friday, there will be a new hearing where they determine if there will be a real stay. I think we probably should wait until that decision before we make further changes. Anyways, the original ruling says that nothing happens until the 19th anyways. While, I would love to change CA to full blue, given the details that have emerged after my initial recoloring, we should wait until something happens. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is given a full stay during the appeal though, we should at least consider turning California's red stripe black again, (but once again we should wait until a final stay decision is made) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Black? I thought we had disposed with this "legal question" color because it's confusing. Hekerui (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it being tangled up pre-trial is a bit different than it being tangled up between trials. Being tangled up pre-trial made the red stripe not inaccurate, but if it is in legal limbo for the next few months/years we may want to recolor it to make that legal limbo clear

Also, here is another source regarding the stay. [6] At least one law professor thinks there won't be a full stay, given the tone of the ruling. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a complicating issue here which has not been addressed. On this map, red means "Constitution bans same-sex marriage"; that is clearly no longer the case in California. The judge in this case has already ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and therefore there is no longer any prohibition on same-sex marriage in the state. Period. A higher court could overturn today's ruling at a later date but that does not change current law.
The issue now is whether California must issue same-sex marriage licenses. Currently, the judge has temporarily stayed his own ruling ordering the state to issue the licenses. We therefore have a current legal situation whereby the state does not have a legal prohibition on same-sex marriage but is not issuing same-sex marriage licenses. To me, that means that state should be shaded the same color as New Jersey. If the judge's stay is lifted and not imposed again by a higher court, then we can change California to deep blue. Best, epicAdam(talk) 00:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, I de-striped California to just intermediate blue (i.e. like NJ). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, yesterday's ruling is not final and stayed. Until it has the force of law, marriage is still prohibited. Prop 8 is not legally valid unless the opposition or the higher courts decline to appeal and the stay is removed. It's close to impossible that this won't be appealed. Hekerui (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's quite right. I think overturning Prop 8 and the legalization of same-sex marriage are two separate issues. Thegreyanomaly did not change the map to show that gay marriage is legal, only that it isn't illegal. As far as I've read, the only thing the judge stayed was his order to California officials to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses. His stay does not change the core of his ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Unless and until another court overturns Judge Walker's ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 8, California no longer has a prohibition on same-sex marriage. However, it is not our place to speculate what a higher court may or may not overturn. As of right now, California does not have a prohibition on gay marriage but that does not mean that the state is issuing licenses. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the opposite is true, we should not speculate that a ban was lifted when the court decision has not attained final legal validity. Currently no marriages are performed and no marriage licenses are handed out for same-sex couples, which can only be explained by Prop 8 still being enforced. Hekerui (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that seeing there is a good chance this will reach the supreme court with the appeal no action should be taken on the map until or even if prop 8 is fully repealed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the ruling is not stayed and there is a period of time when SSM licenses are being issued, during that time CA should be deep blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly (talkcontribs) 19:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but only if we can prove that the licenses that are granted are legally valid and not just for show. Hekerui (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

California - Prop 8 Stay Lifted[edit]

The stay has been lifted, but given the volatility of the issue, we should wait till the 18th (when the ruling takes effect) before we deep-blue CA as there may be a stay from another court before then. Anyways, assuming nothing happens between now and then, I will turn CA deep-blue sometime on the 18th (assuming I have internet access that day) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the current version should be reverted until everything is said and done, the legal system is complex and there is no evidence as of yet of marriage licenses being handed out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Marriage licenses are to recomence on the 18th. Fry1989 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not the 18th yet though and courts can stil lissue a stay on the ruling. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

Why do people just change stuff without reading a news story first? I reverted to the previous version because this is not over according to NYT etc. Hekerui (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea some people read just what they want to read and get over excited about what stands out to them I guess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. Hekerui (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Not just that, I think some people figured that the current situation fell under Note 1 ". (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Note 1 should probably be removed, or at the least reworded. It is not true for any of the states that are currently dark blue, and the state that it would apply to there is consensus to not change.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Note 1 is meant for cases where a final decision has been made, but hasn't gone into effect. Examples include when a state supreme court legalizes SSM and says the ruling goes into effect on a specific date or a governor signs a bill legalizing SSM/CU/DPs and there is no referendum process to stop it. California does not fall into jurisdiction of note 1, as it is unclear if Walker's decision will be the final one (though precedent indicates that the 9th CC and the SCOTUS would not take up the appeal due to Yes-on-8's lack of Article III standing) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Either EqCA or Courage Campaign (or some other group) sent me an email saying the 9th circuit stayed the decision. (currently too busy to get an actual source as I am reinstalling Windows 7 on my other computer) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The AP reports that the decision was stayed pending appeal - which shows why it's good not to rush. Hekerui (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Thank you for handling this appropriately, all. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions are recognized in the State of Wyoming.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 (talkcontribs) 18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

See discussion at Template talk:Same-sex unions#Wyoming, the HRC says no and the status is not at all clear. Hekerui (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


According to the Map, Wisconsin is two colors. Dark brown (Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions) and also light blue (Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights). My question is this: how can it both be true? It seems to me that brown states ban everything, so there couldn't be any limited rights. Adamlance (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See Ron 1987 03:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Ya, I think it is a gray area, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to hear a case against the registry. [7] CTJF83 chat 03:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Now that both of Illinois' legislators have passed a Civil Unions Bill and the Governor has promised to ratify it, should Illinois be striped Medium Blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait until it's signed. Hekerui (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The bill is pretty much going to be signed, the question is just when. We need to determine whether we want it to be medium blue or light blue. This article [8] is making me think medium.

Also on another note, we need to watch New Hampshire. The Republicans have veto-proof majorities in both chambers and may be planning on repealing the SSM bill Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the bill text Section 20 which states "A party to a civil union is entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses, whether they derive from statute, administrative rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law." It's an "everything but marriage" bill and Section 60 recognizes SSMs from elsewhere as CUs, so medium blue it is. Hekerui (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

[9] - I'm not sure if this is worth anything, but we are now guaranteed that the bill will be signed since he already has a bill signing ceremony prepared. --haha169 (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of preparation: once he signs it, the state should be striped like Washington state, because the law forbidding same-sex marriage is still in effect. Agreed? Hekerui (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly went ahead and did it. I don't think it's official yet, no matter what the CNN report says (why cite that in the edit summary if you know better?), but I think it's fair because it's only Gov. Quinn who needs to move to sign this bill to have it become law. Hekerui (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The link I gave was not the ideal one I meant to give, there are plenty of articles out there that note that county clerks are beginning to prepare for the general forms and bureaucracies associated with CUs. We know the Gov will sign it, he may have signed it already, I have been searching the news every day and nobody seems to really care much about this bill to talk about when it was or will be signed; given that and that we know Gov. Quinn supports the bill, I figured I should have striped the state. Whether he signed it the day it passed the senate or he signs it whenever or it becomes law without a sig, on June 1st CUs will begin. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Following passage he has stated he will sign it in a ceremony in the new year, so no, it's not signed yet, that would have made the news. Hekerui (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the bill's page on the IlGA website [10]. My guess is when it is signed it will update. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The bill was signed by Governor Pat Quinn on 1/31/2011, and will go into effect on 6/1/2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico[edit]

I just read online that New Mexico Attorney General issued legal opinion concluding that the state can recognize marriages between two people of the same sex performed outside of the state. Does that mean we can change the state to dark gray, or it is it too early? (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's too early. The discussion was started earlier here, please check it out. Hekerui (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

[11] This is completely analogous to the situation in Maryland. There, the AG issued a non-binding resolution and now foreign SSMs are valid there. Analogous situations should mean same coloring. I updated the map already (forgot to check here first) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You should revert your change as the two shades of gray had two diffrent meanings.
Dark Gray: Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized
Light Gray: No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions
Currently there is no specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions in New Mexico unless a law is put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I wouldn't. I think NY is in the exact same situation, where there is foreign recognition but no state law.
The unofficial policy is that we don't stripe multiple shades of the same "color". For example, when some states had both SSM and CU/DPs, those states were only darkest blue (not striped). Also, in Florida, there is both a statue and an amendment, but Florida is not striped. Similar logic applies here. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The thing that bothers me though is that in the reference it states that "Governor points out court must rule on issue" that being the case it sounds like it does have to go through something to have New Mexico offically reconize same sex marriages preformed elsewhere, unless its just one person's opinion. I dont know the whole thing in New York but I do know that laws are diffrent in each state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)