File talk:World homosexuality laws.svg/Archive 1

Brazil, Austria and Australia updates

Hi. I've updated the map to better reflect recognition of same-sex couples in Brazil, Austria and Australia. In Brazil, according to Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, same-sex couples have some rights, meaning that there is recognition of unregistered cohabitation. This is also the case for Austria. In Australia, all states and territories recognise same-sex couples as being equal to opposite-sex de facto couples, which are given a series of rights. Furthermore, the Australian Federal government has just announced that it plans to recognise same-sex couples in Federal law (unregistered cohabitation). Ronline ✉ 07:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality illegal

What exactly does it mean that a sexual orientation is illegal? Is bisexuality illegal as well, or just homosexuality? Do you get arrested just for having a certain sexual orientation? I know according to the Sharia, which is the law used in many of the Muslim countries, they require four witnesses to the act, which means it isn't homosexuality itself which is illegal, but having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. Should the map instead say Same-sex relationships illegal and legal, rather than homosexuality? Mentioning only homosexuality and not bisexuality is a form of bisexual erasure. Or do any of these countries actually fine people for having a certain sexual orientation? If they do, that would be interesting and informative. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If no one can answer these questions, I am going to change the wording from homosexuality to same-sex relationships, which is similar wording to what is found on the same-sex relationship page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What if you used homosexual acitivity. It is the action that is illegal in most of these countries. Same-sex relationships makes it sound like being gay is OK, but the government doesn't recognize your relationship. That is miss-leading when people can be inprisoned, etc. The activity would also be inclusive of bisexuals who have both same-sex and opposite-sex sexual acitivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.26.27 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It means that the government can prosecute you for homosexual activity. A (now repealed) Texas law made it illegal for certain intimate sexual acts to be permitted between members of the same sex, under sentence of a fine and possible prison time. Generally, in Western society, it's not a question of being illegal so much as whether or not your union or marriage is recogized by the government. Tomi Undergallows (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

color scheme - POV?

I happened to discover this image and also File:Corporal punishment in Europe.svg within a short time of each other. It interested me that this image about homosexuality has green for legalized, red for illegal, whereas the image about corporal punishment more or less has the color scheme around the other way.

Obviously I don't expect that something like this will necessarily be consistent, but whether by chance or not there is one unifying theme to these two choices of color scheme: both adhere to the usual notion that "green=good, red=bad" if you take each of these issues as it might be seen from the left end of the political spectrum.

For this sort of diagram, there could be something to be said for avoiding a color scheme that uses green and red as its extremes, because this pair of colors has such a strong association with good-vs.-bad that it appears to be expressing a point of view on the issue.

(By the way, I advise against trying to draw any conclusions about my own political views...)

— Alan^✉ 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your premise re "the left end of the political spectrum" appears to imply (1) that gay conservatives either don't exist or don't support equal rights for themselves and (2) that support for equal rights is exclusive to leftists. Did you have a specific suggestion for a better color scheme? (Purple and blue, perhaps? Lavender and ocher?) Rivertorch (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, Alan, but it seems to me the POV issue would be with the other image, not this one. To me at least, green=legal/red=illegal is most intuitive (like a traffic light), as used here. I can see where the corporal punishment would use a reverse scheme (red=bad (also the color of skin after corporal punishment lol), green=good, which may be more intuitive to readers (or maybe the opposite?)) but it does imply POV as you say. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Colorblindness

I understand the value of having a common colorscheme, with similar meanings attached to similar colors, but I think another consideration has to be made. Since Wikipedia is aimed to everyone, it seems wise to avoid combinations of colors that are known to be difficult to perceive by colorblind people. As you can see in the colorblind article, there is one type of colorblindness that affects green and red (they are linked, somewhat), so these colors are confused by individuals with this trait. I happen myself to be unable to easily identify some tones of red and green in this picture. This is why I noticed it and why I am wirtting this now. One more thing: according to the same article, the red-green clorblindness is one of the more common type (7-10% of men). 88.25.69.205 (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

very good point, thanks for raising it. i'm not sure what color scheme would be best to use, i will post a note on WT:LGBT though (maybe there is a member that is colorblind or familiar with color schemes that are colorblind-friendly) Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: As this image is used on 25 different Wikipedias (including 23 non-English Wikipedias), have put a note up at the Commons talk page (where image is hosted) to centralize any future discussion. Commons:File talk:World homosexuality laws.svg Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Image talk links

Why are the image talk links being spammed whereever this image appears on Wikipedia? This is generally not normally done. I figured I would post here before reverting, though. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Intent wasn't to spam but to avoid problems like people (including IP users) posting image update requests to article talk pages (something I noticed when archiving Talk:Homosexuality laws of the world). Since the image was used on several (4 or 5 ish) pages (and requires constant maintenance), figured it would be better(?) to have image update requests centralized instead of on 5 different talk pages. (The best place to do this would be at the Commons talk page — but the File talk page already existed (with elaborate instructions at that), and some people (IP users, and Wikipedia users unexperienced with Commons) might be less likely to go to the Commons talk page). Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the explanation. Is there a more discrete way to do this, like the (v d e) that appears on some portal templates? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh.. methinks small-texted "image talk" is as discrete as you could get in the caption box. It could be converted to v-d-e, but v-d-e would mean nothing to IP editors and new editors (which would defeat the purpose of having a link there at all). The only other alternative would be to replace the "image talk" links with {{notice}} boxes on the respective article talk pages. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar

Myanmar is listed as a "life in prison" country but Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world states: "Penalty: prison sentence from 10 years up to life long". If the latter is right, Myanmar should in fact be listed as "up to life in prison". --85.5.154.155 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

India

In India, the laws on homosexuality are rarely enforced. A couple years ago, there was debate over legalization of homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.192.94 (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New Mexico

New Mexico has never officially recognized any same-sex marriages or civil unions; it should be colored like most of the rest of the United States.

The Same-sex marriage in New Mexico article explains the current situation, with documentation from reliable sources. Textorus (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- changing to grey. (Note: The New Mexico shape will still be present in the SVG graphic, at the appropriate place, in case future changes needed). Apparently(?), foreign marriages are supposed to be recognized (legally), but are not recognized in practice. Template:SSM also does not list NM under foreign marriages recognized. Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Australia

All Australian Territories and States (and two Councils; Sydney and Melbourne) have either or both unregistered co-habitation or a registered partnerships (except for the Commonwealth Government, which still has 60 laws that discriminate same-sex couples by not reginising the relationship only recognising opposite-sex relationships only; Civil partnerships or Unions and SSM's are not legally recognised and are not allowed to be performed under Commonwealth law) - So it should be the appropriate color for all Australian Territories and States.

And what are the appropriate colors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.177.31 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is an inevitable problem with categorising the states of a federation when state law and federal law can issue on an issue. As I have argued before in the case of death penalty maps, the legal situation in a state is the sum of the state and federal laws applicable to it. So if federal law does not treat same-sex relationships equally, then we cannot really consider the state to treat them equally, even if state law happens to do so, because the unequal federal law still applies in the state. In much the same way, even though some US states may not have any death penalty under state law, they are all subject to federal law, and so long as there is a federal death penalty in the US thus all US states/territories should be coloured on maps as retentionist. --SJK (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are still no same-sex marriages or civil unions allowed in Australia. There are some relationship registration systems in some states. Have a look at this image. 60.241.195.240 (talk)

Iceland

Same-sex marriages are legal in Iceland. Please update.

 Not done -- Per Same-sex marriage in Iceland and Template:SSM, Iceland does registered partnerships, but not marriage. Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

There are no same sex unions in Portugal! They've not been legalized yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.160.125 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Template:SSM and country's civil union article, country offers unregistered cohabitation. Other unregistered cohabitation countries are also colored for "civil unions or other arrangements", leaving color unchanged (though legends probably need clarifying on this). Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Differentiation between 'Unregistered co-habitation' and 'Same-sex union'

This map doesn't really make clear the difference between 'unregistered co-habitation'- that is, a couple in a relationship which is not formally recognised in anyway - and an actual 'same-sex union', which implies some sort of registration with the government. For example, in Australia, the federal government has recently announced it will undertake reforms on laws which discriminate against same-sex couples, giving them de-facto relationship status. However, only the states of Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) are implementing registered partnerships. This difference, as compared to the other states, is currently no able to be noted on this map, and I'm sure this would be similar in other countries as well.

Perhaps 'Same sex unions' should be changed to 'Same sex relationships recognised', create a new colour with the title 'Unregistered co-habitation', and change 'No same sex unions' to 'Same sex relationships unrecognised' - you could do this by darkening the colour for 'Same sex marriage' and what's currently marked 'Same sex unions', lightening the current 'No same sex unions' and fitting in 'Same sex relationships recognised' between. In this way, we'd see a differentiation made between the states of Australia, as well as other countries. Terovian (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

North Korea

LGBT rights in North Korea says it isn't illegal. --212.247.27.176 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

North Korea, Panama and Belize

First with Panama, homosexuality is now legal with a new Penal Code (effective from 1 August 2008)

Second Belize re-crimilised homosexuality (both male and female) in the Penal Code in 2003.

And thirdly, in North Korea there is no mention of homosexuality being a criminal offence between consenting adults in private (unless it is in the military, then it is classed as sexual harrassment with a big penalty). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.14.237 (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

France

Shouldn't France be coloured light blue? I'm pretty sure they recognise same-sex marriages performed outside of France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.227.55 (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreign same sex marriages recognized

What is the meaning of this? Does it mean that the country is ok with gay couples who are foreigners, or is it that the country don't care if their gay citizens gets married in foreign locations?--Anoopkn (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It means it recognizes foreign couples, but there is no law regarding it's own citizen's rights to marry or any other recognition. --haha169 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This website doesn't cite Afghanistan or Somalia as countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, and the article on Somalia doesn't mention anything about death either. Is this a mistake? Thankyoubaby (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Japan

As of a few days ago, Japan is recognizing foreign marriages and even giving certificates to Japanese nationals to allow them to marry in any foreign country where same-sex marriage is allowed, so Japan should, as of today, be colored in light blue to signify that it recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. Liberal92 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

unless I'm mistaken (and the Template talk:SSM people seem to have come to the same conclusion), this would allow Japanese nationals to marry abroad, but the marriages would not(?) be recognized at home. Or at least no news source I have come across states they would be recognized at home. Leaving unchanged unless someone else has more info. Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nepal

The high court of Nepal has approved same-sex marriage. Can someone change its color? --GMMarques 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Despite the court adivices, I think it is yet to be made into a law--Anoopkn (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ref: [1]

A couple of mistakes in South America

a) There´s a confusion between Buenos Aires city that allows civil unions and the Province of Buenos Aires, which doesn't. However, in the current map the last also appears painted in green.

b) Colombia has not civil unions legalised. Gay couples have acquired some economic rights in particular cases, but they are exceptions to the rule.

Conclusion:

- Buenos Aires autonomous city in green (it's just a little point) - Buenos Aires Province in light green. - Colombia in light green.

Example: http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8226/rughtswh9.jpg

French Guyana is also light green even though it should be green like France, it is the same country, with the same laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeSchloss (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Argentina

I see the map shows that in Argentina the provinces of Río Negro and Buenos Aires allow for same sex unions. That's not totally correct. The only 3 districts recognizing same-sex unions as "civil unions" in Argentina are the following: (1) the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (not the province of Buenos Aires); (2) the province of Río Negro (that one is correct on the map); (3) the city of Villa Carlos Paz, in the province of Córdoba.

Civil union for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples was legalized in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires by law Nº 1004, passed by the Autonomus City's Legislature on Dec. 12, 2002. That month also Río Negro passed a law in the same sense. Finally, same-sex unions were permitted in Villa Carlos Paz, a well-known touristic city in the province of Córdoba, on Nov. 23, 2007. The above applies only to residents of those districts, subject to some conditions proving effective residence.

Could this be shown in the map?

Maryland

Shouldn't the US State of Maryland be changed to the color of dark green because, apparently, it is allowing domestic partnership which constitutes a transfer to dark green on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maryland

Maryland should be light blue - just like Colorado currently is, because they both have unregistered cohabitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the Europe-only map (File:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg), this map doesn't distinguish between registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation. All forms of same-sex union recognition except same-sex marriage are coloured in middle blue. Light blue is reserved for jurisdictions that recognise foreign same-sex marriage but do not perform it locally (e.g. New York). Ronline ✉ 12:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Burundi

The country of Burundi has banned homosexuality http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGAFR160042009&lang=e

map needs update —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidoragon (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Burundi was updated in January (though it is a small country and not very visible at normal image sizes). Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Somalia, Afghanistan, Nigeria

The death penalty is no longer in effect in Afghanistan since the US/NATO invasion, which completely removed homosexuality as a reason for capital punishment which was placed in by the Taliban. In Somalia, the death penalty is no longer in effect due to the collapse of the government, though regions under Sharia prescribe the death penalty. As for Nigeria, the Northern part has the death penalty (as they are under Sharia Law), but the southern only has prison time up to 14 years. VoodooIsland (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any url's for the Afghanistan & Somalia info? I checked the latest ILGA report (is from May 2008, so the information might be dated). Its listing for Nigeria matches your info. Afghanistan and Somalia below:

• Afghanistan, page 7: "Islamic Sharia law, criminalizing homosexual acts with a maximum of death penalty, is applied together with the codified Penal law. However, no known cases of death sentences have been handed out for homosexual acts after the end of Taliban rule.". If the post-Taliban Afghan government is still applying Sharia, wouldn't the country still qualify for death coloring?
• For Somalia it cites a law from 1964 (not sure if the current government uses this penal code?) with up to 3 years as a penalty. According to this news article from 26 April 2009 though, the Somali government is implementing Sharia.

Wikignome0529 (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Somalia: We might as well leave Somalia in dark red, as the soon-to-be (unless it's already happened; if not, shortly) implanting of Sharia Law will bring the death penalty for homosexuality.

Afghanistan: Thanks for the link :), I did not know that. Afghanistan does seem to be a confusing case, as the government has ordered (?) (more so "announced") that homosexuality will not result in the death penalty, but as your link provides, it is still "legally in the books." Akin to how homosexuality is technically still illegal in Fiji, despite the fact that the police have been specifically ordered not to arrest Fijians for consensual homosexual activity.

Nigeria: As for Nigeria, I'm not sure what we should do for this one. I know stripes can be a bit confusing, but I feel that it is important to make a distinction between the north (Sharia states) which applies the death penalty, and the south (non-Sharia), which only offers a large penalty, i.e., a lengthy imprisonment. I suppose we could cut Nigeria in two, coloring the top half dark red (death penalty) and coloring the bottom half orange (large penalty). You might have a better suggestion though, and I'd love to hear input for anyone else who has an idea for a clarification solution. VoodooIsland (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nepal

Nepal is grey here, but does now protect LGBT people 亮HH (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nepal seems to be a case like South Africa all the way back in December 2005, where the South African Supreme Court ordered the government to legalize same-sex marriage, though the government had not yet officially legalized it. Nepal is just about identical to this ruling, with the Maoist government of Nepal needing to draft a bill legalizing same-sex marriage (which will likely result in its legislation in 2010). Like South Africa, where same-sex marriage was "predicted" to be legalized in 2006, there was yet to be an official date, unlike other countries/states (such as Vermont), and currently, in Nepal, there is no confirmed date of when same-sex marriage legislation will take effect, as it is still developing within the government. VoodooIsland (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine

MAINE ALLOWS MARRIAGE!!!! http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6410642.html VoodooIsland (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine has always allowed marriage... :P --haha169 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine always allowed marriage between two people of the opposite-sex (as with every other country in the world), and from 16 Sepotember 2009 - same-sex couples can legally marry as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.90.222 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Benin

Shouldnt Benin be orange ? On the main page it is written that homosexuality in Benin is illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16Dream.Ton y (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Benin is apparently legal now, according to the 2009 ILGA report. Updated LGBT rights in Benin & Template:LGBT rights table Africa to match the map. Thanks for catching the mixup -- Wikignome0529 (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevada

Nevada needs to be included on the map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wisconson

Wisconson should be blue on the map, the same color as Colorado, Maryland and Hawaii (the state is next to Iowa).

Hawaii

Since other states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Colorado are colored blue because of their limited relationship recognition, Hawaii should also be considered to become blue with its reciprocal beneficiary agreements (like Colorado). Article can be found on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnerships_in_Hawaii 68.60.76.178 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hawaii is already blue, though is hard to see @ smaller zoom levels. A newer map is under development which might help this issue (among others) though. Wikignome0529 (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

According to http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55P3JF20090626 Ireland is going to be instituting civil unions with a limited number of benefits. Will the map reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebt (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• see Commons:Commons talk:WikiProject LGBT maps#Ireland, Wikignome0529 (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

India

Whoever updated this map for India has been rather quick. [[2]] says that the ruling only applies in New Delhi. 140.90.131.108 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• The article was just badly worded. The court was in New Delhi, but the ruling applies nationally. [[3]] 67.242.42.126 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yeeha! I was about to comment about it. Congratulations to India! Update it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is applicable in all of India except Jammu and Kashmir. Please correct that --[[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.82.46 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Asked about Jammu and Kashmir @ Talk:Homosexuality in India#India on homosexuality laws maps. Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ecuador

Ecuador should be coloured grey, not blue. While the Constitution mentions that "de facto unions" should include both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, there is no enabling law to implement this yet. See Civil unions in Ecuador. Ronline ✉ 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – —the Homosexualist (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New Color scheme suggestion

Due to the scarcity of the usage of light blue (foreign marriages); only present in tiny places like Israel, DC, and New York; I think that the color should instead be used to denote countries that provide equal protection guarantees but not civil unions or marriage. --haha169 (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii

Why did the color that Hawaii did have, get taken away? 68.60.76.178 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be a lighter shade of blue like Wisconsin, Colorado, or Maryland. Can be seen here on Wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_in_the_United_States.svg Yankhill (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii still isn't the right color of blue (or blue at all, I believe). I thought it had changed to blue, and now seems to be back to gray. 68.60.76.178 (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes

There are a lot of mistakes on the new map. (e.g., Oman and Bahrain should be orange; Maldives should be red; Liberia should be yellow, Bhutan should be yellow) VoodooIsland (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think someone should revert back to the old map, there are simply too many mistakes at the present. VoodooIsland (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is still a lot of mistakes after you fixed Switzerland...for example-homosexuality is still illegal in Maldives, Sinagapore and Liberia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16Dream.Ton y (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

For example in countries like Oman or United Arab Emirates homosexuality is illegal. Nuclearvacuum changed countrycolour incorrect to grey. GLGermann (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I recolored all those. (Singapore orange because I am not sure if 2 years in prison constitute a large or small penalty and decided on large) Are there any more? the Homosexualist (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

okay that's better than before. But you forgot to colour orange United Arab Emirates, where homosexuality is illegal. GLGermann (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

UAE is now orange. —the Homosexualist (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

According to [5] United Arab Emirates should be BROWN not orange. Pitcairn Islands should be blue( the spot nearest to Chile). Seychelles, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Cook Islands,Tonga and Tuvalu should be orange. When it comes to Oceania, it is very hard to locate states and territories, but I think that the only orange spot is Samoa. I am not good in changing this, so I hope that someone else can do it instead of me. For help, use the map [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16Dream.Ton y (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to change the colors, but if in the USA and Mexico you distinguish between states, you shoudl do teh same for Argentina and Brazil. It now looks as if you have civil partnerships in the whole countries, but it's actually just the state of Rio Grande Do Sur in Brazil and Buenos Aires (and another small city) in Argentina 195.54.254.19 (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Ale

Ecuador

Can anyone cite a source that a civil union was performed in Ecuador in September? , dated September 23, 2009, declares that these unions have still yet to be put into practice. VoodooIsland (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Maine needs to be updated

The law allowing same-sex marriage in Maine has been repealed. Maine's domestic partnership law remains in effect. –BMRR (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Terms

It is difficult to understand what the term "life in prison" means: any imprisonment or life imprisonment (i.e., continuing till the end of the life of the imprisoned person). Therefore this phrase has been translated into different languages with different meanings (e.g., as imprisonment in Russian, but as life imprisonment in Polish). It is necessary to clarify and correct. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

District of Columbia (United States)

Same sex marriage was legalized in Washington D.C. on 12/15/09 and should be included in the map for the United States. Effective March 2010. Aurora30 (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mexico City

Same-sex marriage became legal in Mexico city therefore it should change from light blue to deep blue. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h4_uOzElZivyqR7ZpWRTnJdAJ5dg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.173.223.223 (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nepal

Once Nepal's new constitution is ratified, which is set to occur in May, sexual minorities will be granted equal rights, and thus same sex marriage will be legalized. For the time being, no change should be made to Nepal. However, when the date of ratification is determined for Nepal's new constitution, Nepal should be colored dark blue from that date onward. Source: Hindustan Times and Telegraph.co.uk --Wbush89 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please revert back. Nepal's constitution isn't finalized yet. It is only expected to be completed in May. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxenricfan (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree Nepal should be reverted back, nothing is set in stone until the ink fully dries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

- It appears that the issue has been resolved for now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I created any confusion. I only meant to bring attention to Nepal, and for Nepal to be changed only once the constitution is ratified in May. --Wbush89 (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting in all US states

This is a great map that could easily be used for some other purpose on Wikipedia. However, there is one problem, namely it lacks all the US states. How did the original states get put in? How might I go about adding the rest? Khin2718 (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Eventually I did find a way to do this, namely make my own map using GeoTools. Of course you have to know Java ;) —Khin2718 22:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia

Australia should be edited to show blue only for Victoria, South Australia, ACT and Tasmania. The rest of Australia allows equal rights to de facto partners, but has no official register for same sex couples. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia for details Member N (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

There is also a flaw in the key regarding Australia, asides from state to state differences. There is a federal law passed by the previous government to ensure that only heterosexual foreign marraiges are recognised. The problem with Australia is that while some states and a territory allow unions, colouring the country to represent this, might give some people the impression, without further research that Australia also recognises, say, gay marraiges from the Netherlands. Perhaps the key needs updating to reflect this properly?--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

New York

Am I seeing this wrong? New York appears gray. But it does recognize foreign same-sex marriages. I would change the map myself but I have no idea how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatHeadedEagle (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Portugal

Portugal legalized same-sex marriage. I'm guessing nothing is going to stop this from happening, so it might be safe to change its color.74.73.89.107 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Same sex marriage in Portugal has been legalized but it is NOT yet a law, so I feel that the color change should be reverted. "It will become law if the Portuguese President does not veto it or the Parliament confirms it after a presidential veto." To take a guess on if or if not it will become law is crystal balling. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Portugal's president ratifies gay marriage law: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ik3aX3N0ru0tZv_wqU87GX6lm4lwD9FOPGBG1 Please, change its colour :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaonunolx (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland

Same sex marriage has just been made legal in Iceland. Please update the map. --Cessator (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• The law will not go into effect until June 27. Tryggvia (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't matter. The convention so far has been to update the map as soon as the law is passed, rather than when it goes into effect. Other maps have already been updated: see, for instance, the map at Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe. Ronline ✉ 09:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I supports Ronline's position. Ron 1987 16:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. The accompanying text actually says the map "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet". Aviad2001 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Please change Iceland to dark blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.147.193 (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Blue dots in the Carribbean

I see a couple of blue spots in the chain of the Lesser Antilles (not sure which islands are which) but there don't seem to be any Caribbean countries listed in the "Legal recognition of same-sex couples" template. Is this a mistake? Or does the UK's civil partnership law extend to some of its overseas territories? Other UK overseas territories (e.g., Bermuda, the Caymans) are gray colored. --Jfruh (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Argentina

Buenos Aires has issued a same-sex marriage certificate due to a court decision, and the mayor of the city has apparently invited more same-sex couples to challenge the existing laws confining marriage between a man and a woman. Apparently it looks like gay marriage will soon be legalized in Argentina However to reflect recent developments, since on the list of countries / regions where same-sex marriage is performed, Argentina (C) is listed, shouldn't the capital region be coloured dark blue as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.216.65 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

NO dark blue for Buenos Aires, because it's only marriage allowed for one couple. I guess some states in United States of America have had that situation, I think I read something of Iowa, there were a gay couple legally married before it was legal in the state because they stablished a lawsuit. There are Nationwide "unregistered cohabitation" because gay couples from all country can claim pension (only that, it is clearly inferior and unequal from heterosexual couples) anyhow, ALL Argentina should be MID-Blue. (Mid-blue includes, recognition, no matter if it is inferior) http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/08/19/argentina.gay/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.52.36 (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[7]: The first gay couple has married in Ushuaia, capital of Tierra del Fuego with the support of the provincial government. Should the eastern side of the island be dark blue now? --190.160.24.136 (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Argentinian Senate has approved the same sex marriage bill and President Kirchner will sign it without a doubt. So, I don't think it would be too presumptuous to color Argentina dark blue at this point. --Wbush89 (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

All country should be blue (of foreign marriage recognized) due to there is no DOMA law in that country, so the marriages performed in Mexico City are recognized in the other mexican states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.6.145 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the map of Mexico on the Recognition of Same Sex unions in Mexico indicates. One of them needs to be changed. Until Mexican law establishes precedent, such as a court ruling, government announcement or established fact of foreign couples' experiences, I would suggest coloring Mexico at the state level as on the Mexican Unions article. 75.187.57.238 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

United States federal government now recognizes same-sex marriages

Same-sex couples who hold a marriage license issued by Massachusetts will now have their marriages recognized by the federal government, wherever they may reside. The ruling in Massachusetts v. Dept. of Health and Human Services was automatically stayed for two weeks once the decision was announced and it has now been two weeks since the decision was released with no word of appeal from the Dept. of Justice. What color will most accurately represent this? There are two layers of same-sex union recognition now in the U.S.: the state and federal level. As this is a map of the world, I think we should defer to the federal policy as is done on the capital punishment map (all red for the U.S. on the world map due to federal policy, with each state's policies shown only on the U.S. map). Because a same-sex couple may be married in the United States and have its marriage recognized with the full force of federal law in the United States, the United States as a whole should be colored dark blue, deferring to the U.S. map to show individual state-level policies. 72.92.239.138 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are getting ahead of things. First we need to know that this is applicable beyond MA. Everything I have seen so far suggests that it isn't. Secondly, this is likely to face appeal, and until then, lets not change the map. So far I have seen and heard nothing about Federal recognition actually being applied. 192.135.179.248 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The ruling only applies to same-sex marriages issued by Massachusetts. Massachusetts will issue marriages to couples from out-of-state. All news sources at the time the decision was announced mentioned that the ruling would be stayed for 14 days. It has now been 14 days and I haven't heard anything that the stay was extended, although I also curiously haven't been able to find any news source that mentions the ruling has actually gone into effect. So I no longer know exactly what is going on with this ruling.

civil uniouns now legal in Ireland

can you please update this map with ireland in the light blue colour. Rctycoplay (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage now legal in California

As per the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger in U.S. District Court, the State of California is immediately and permanently enjoined from enforcing the provisions in Proposition 8. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL (Final Paragraph) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.7.144 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

Could someone please update Ireland to the civil union/ partnership blue? The new Civil Partnership act was passed by the Irish upper house on the 8th of July. It now has to be ratified by the Irish President, however she was a keen supporter of the bill so it's likely to be signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: The Irish President has signed the law today, could someone please update the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Irish President ratified the civil parternship of 2010 the 19th of July of 2010- Please update the world map, as the european one has already been updated- different information on two maps provided by the same provider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.68.190 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please update Ireland —Preceding kcflood comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcflood (talk • contribs)

Mexico

Now that same sex marriages performed in Mexico City must be recognized by the whole country (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grJesfflOb0tjV_flyYRem81BVMwD9HGRI5G0), same-sex marriage is defacto legal in Mexico and the map should be changed to reflect that in some way. 63.229.32.99 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Somalia

According to LGBT rights in Somalia Somalia should be orange and not brown. Ameki (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Illinois

Any word on when the State of Illinois will be shaded in light blue? Civil unions bill was passed and expected to be signed by Gov. Quinn sometime in early February (Springfield sources say, off the record). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.237.153 (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Illinois just legalized civil unions today, and should be colored medium blue.129.49.235.94 (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Illinois still hasn't been shaded. 71.239.250.61 (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New colour?

Some countries (such as Namibia) have Homosexuality as illegal but virtually uninforced. Could we maybe have another colour for this? Similar to how the death penalty map has a colour for nations "who have not used capital punishment in the last X years"? Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Afghanistan should be orange. Another Wiki article indicates that Homosexuality was only a capital crime under the time of the Taliban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.143.184 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan

Japan should not be in light blue. It does not recognize same-sex marriages performed abroad. It allows Japanese nationals to have gay marriages abroad (by issuing them with the necessary paperwork), but these marriages are not recognized back in Japan. 121.1.172.67 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits.

Mozambique should be GREY. Afghanistan should be ORANGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.143.184 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Color scheme confusion

The colors for "same-sex marriage" and "death penalty" are a little too close. I spent a few moments just now being confused about South Africa in particular. Dylan Thurston (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The two grays are also quite confusing. I can't tell if only one is used, or if I just can't tell the difference. And if only one is used, I can't tell which one is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.98.49 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to second Dylan's concern and add that color perception makes Spain and South Africa appear different than the Western hemisphere gay marriage legalizers since they are next to a bright orange.--Carwil (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitcairn

Considering there is nothing they like more than buggering 12 year olds in pitcairn I am very skeptical that this map seems to show homosexuality as illicit there. It is almost certainly not the case (even if the statutes say otherwise - statutes are not be all and end all) Egg Centric 19:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka should be orange because of fines and prison up to 10 years. See LGBT rights in Sri Lanka - Ameki (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Chile

Now has civil unions this needs to be updated.Longthicknosnip (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

India

I think India's colour should be changed to 'unregistered co-habitation' one. Though it is not explicitly allowed it is neither explicitly outlawed. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#South_Asia ). If nothing is said about something in law it means that it is legal, is the general consensus and recently Gurgoan court recognized this. (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-29/gurgaon/29828761_1_gurgaon-court-lesbian-marriage-legal-marriage ). So if not 'marriage allowed' category (for which recognition has to be given explicitly defining registration procedures, divorce etc.) 'un-registered co habitation' is the one that describes India better. Akilan (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Change the colour

I suggest to change the colour for "same-sex marriage" to green (e.g. rgb(0, 200, 0)), because it can be easily confused with "death penalty". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.40.24.196 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The color codes do need to be changed for clarity. Above reason is sound, also because darkest blue area have the most rights, the logical impression one gets is that medium blue areas have the next-most rights. For example one would think that Wisconsin residents have more legal rights than residents of Mexico. However domestic partnerships conferring only 1/4 as many rights as marriage are allowed in Wisconsin, whereas residents of any part of Mexico who have filed marriage papers in in Mexico City are granted full legal recognition and protection in every Mexican state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.208.27 (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, grey for both "no information" and "no recognition" is very confusing. Consistent with other WP maps "no information" countries should be coloured white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.94.108 (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Somalia

The color is somewhat wrong. It is punishable by death penalty in the North (LGBT rights in Somaliland) and common penalty in the UN-recognized South (LGBT rights in Somalia). Lguipontes (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Difference between Minimal and Large Penalties

What exactly is the difference between minimal and large penalties? Everything else is defined, but how do you judge whether a penalty less than life in prison is "minimal" or "large". What is the dividing line? Thunderstone99 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone change Quintana Roo in Mexico to dark blue?

On November 30, the Mexican state of Quintana Roo began offering same-sex marriages (see http://chflawyers.com/603/same-sex-marriages-in-quintana-roo/). I would change the image myself, but currently Mexico is a single path, and I am not talented enough with SVG to figure out how to "cut out" Quintana Roo from the Mexico path. Can someone help me do this? Xnux 23:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's too soon, see the discussion on Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico. Hekerui (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Separate unregistered cohabitation/other type of union

Civil union/civil partnership/domestic partnership is much more significant than just having a common law marriage. Those things should be separate on the map. Also, maybe there should be a star on Mexico since only marriages performed there (where legal) are recognized throughout the country. 174.58.138.200 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian State of Alagoas approves Gay Marriage. Someone help me change the colour of the state?

"On January 6, 2012 a judge in the Brazilian state of Alagoas ruled that same-sex marriages will be performed in the state instead of the Civil Unions, making this the first state in Brazil to grant the married status to gay couples in a broad manner. Marriages performed in this state will then be recognized throughout the whole country. Former Alagoas state judge Maria Berenice Dias, who currently directs the National Commission on Sexual Diversity of the Order_of_Attorneys_of_Brazil, sent the text with the decision of the Court of Alagoas to the other states in an attempt to extend the measure across the country. She said the state of Paraná must adhere to the decision of Alagoas soon."

Can Someone change the colour of the state of Alagoas in Brazil to Dark Blue? Denisxavier (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed it back (actually, just tucked it under the country image, so it can be recovered if anyone wants), as this appears (per talk on the main page) to be simply a matter of unions being converted to marriage, not open marriage for all. Though I do think some indication of marriage would be useful -- maybe blue rings, like the brown rings for local imposition of the death penalty. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mexico - Quintana Roo

Note that the Mexican state of Quintana Roo has legalized same-sex marriage. --- Sebastianus (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Blue rings

Does a judge in a particular jurisdiction simply have to grant permission for a couple to marry in order for that jurisdiction to be denoted on this map with a blue ring? If so, many other cities in Brazil and the Mexican state of Oaxaca need to have blue rings. Xnux 21:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As well as Uruguay. Xnux 16:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So is there a reason for the blue rings? I dont think they work esthetically. Can't we just fill in where gay marriage is legal? Hihellowhatsup (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oregon and Washington state

Dark blue ring on Oregon should be removed. That is a mistake. Washington state should be reverted to the medium blue colour. Referendum 74 was officially certified. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there an Indian tribe in Oregon that has ssm, i think the blue ring should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.152.189 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) no it should be gone you assumed wrongly

Maryland and Washington state are both in the same position (SSM law passed but suspended, possibly to be overturned by voters in Nov. without ever being implemented), so either both should be dark blue or neither. --Jfruh (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Russian Legislation Updates? Can you help to change color code?

Several regions in Russia, most recently St. Petersburg, have passed new legislation penalizing speech on LGBT topics. As reference, I've added what I believe to be well-documented info on the Talk page for the Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#Russia. Documentation includes text and name of the law. But I'm finding it too challenging to also edit this map. Would appreciate your help, as the St. Petersburg Economic Forum in June 2012 will likely drive many to this page as a reference, and up-to-date information will be important. Thank you. Posnie (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Posnie (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as they don't criminalize homosexual activity itself, the map correctly describes all of Russia as grey. Or do you propose to change the colour coding for the whole map to include such "indirect criminalization"? I think I'd support that, but it should be discussed here first. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've since learnt that they do also outlaw some homosexual activity (namely holding hands in public), so St. Petersburg et al. should be coloured at least yellow already with the current colour coding. Could someone do this? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Namibia

I see now that Sri Lanka has a new colour for "illegal but unenforced" green. Can we also change Namibia to green since the law is very much the same there? :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

Similarly, Mozambique (which has been brought up here several times) should be changed to at least green, if not grey. --Calebfwlch (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian Kashmir in Orange?

Indian Kashmir follows the same laws as the rest of India (where homosexuality is not a crime). It is highly unlikely that a local court would have handed down a punishment to a same sex couple in violation of national laws. Tigerassault (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Washington State and Maryland incorrectly colored?

Why is Washington State color-coded as recognizing same-sex marriage, while Maryland is color-coded as not recognizing any form of same-sex unions?

If, in the case of Washington, it's because the state legislature passed a law extending marriage to same-sex couples, then Maryland should be the same color. However, in both states, the law in question is being subjected to a voter referendum, and won't take effect unless voters sustain the law. That means currently, as far as I'm aware, Washington recognizes other types of partnerships and should be color-coded as such, whereas Maryland is correctly color-coded.

I realize this comment will be moot after elections in the United States this Tuesday, but I figured it was worth chiming in anyway. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 11:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right (except that MD is actually coloured as "Foreign same-sex marriages recognized") but there's a long-running dispute about whether we apply a colour when a law is passed or when it comes into effect. Since changing either way will reopen this argument, personally I'd rather just wait 36 hours and see. - htonl (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting; I thought that dispute was resolved a long time ago. But fair enough, the situation will resolve itself soon. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 00:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal in the US?

The US area doesn't seem right. At least 15 states still have laws that criminalize homosexual conduct or sodomy, which can still be successfully practiced, despite supreme court rulings. http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_12790543 LieAfterLie (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article that indicates that the people could be successfully prosecuted for homosexual conduct. One (presumably uninformed) cop said they could be, but you'll note that one of his superiors walked that back, basically saying that they could only be prosecuted for not leaving private property when told to.

Discrimination against gay people in the US is still a huge problem in many parts of the country, but there's also a big difference between discrimination by private individuals and uninformed police officers and explicit criminalization of homosexual conduct. This map only deals with the latter.--Jfruh (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he means that many states (like Texas) still explicitly ban consensual homosexual conduct. But to answer that question, its no longer enforced, so it doesn't apply to this map. Many people don't know that Alabama still has Jim Crow on the books - doesn't mean its enforced. --haha169 (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that it's "not enforced" -- it's legally unenforceable, due to SCOTUS ruling. It isn't the law of the land. --Jfruh (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

All anti-gay sex and anti-sodomy laws still on the books in the U.S. and U.S. territories are similarly unenforceable. The U.S. supreme court ruled they were unconstitutional in 2006 or 7. It was a texas couple that sued. Texas v. Soloman i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longthicknosnip (talk • contribs) 05:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're talking about Lawrence v. Texas. That case was decided in 2003. AstareGod (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Pacific

I would suggest changing Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Island countries from orange to green. Homosexual activities there face strong public condemnation (these tend to be very conservative Christian countries), but are not actually prosecuted. People are not sent to prison for engaging in (consensual adult) gay or lesbian sex in any of those countries. Aridd (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source? — kwami (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting changes to mpa

Homosexuality Death penalty - Somaliland and UEA

Area currently controlled by al-Shabaab in Somalia as 4 September 2012. Also fix Somaliland's de facto borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Somalia_map_states_regions_districts.png

Homosexuality De jure penalty, but de facto not enforced in Namibia, Singapore, and Lebanon.

Added domestic partnership registries in counties and cities in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_counties_in_the_United_States_offering_a_domestic_partnership_registry

Unclear whether or not homosexuality is illegal in Maldives or São Tomé and Príncipe.

Homosexuality is NOT illegal in Mozambique. Penal code does NOT apply to homosexuals.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201103020024.html

Homosexuality illegal in Benin and except for Muslims in Marawi City, Philippines.

http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2012.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Female bodybuilder enthusiast (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Making the changes in the few cases you provided sources. Not illegal in Benin. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Malawi suspended anti-gay laws

Malawi suspended its anti-gay laws . The color should become white. GMMarques (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

White? Nothing is coloured white except the ocean - do you mean grey? In any case, it should be green at best until the law is actually repealed. - htonl (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mean grey. I think green is for when it is legal to convict but the law is not used. In this case since the law is suspended I think it is no longer legal to convict. GMMarques (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see the executive (either the Justice Minister or the President) has instructed not to prosecute: the laws are still enforceable but, at the moment, they are not going to be enforced. - htonl (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not sure. GMMarques (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Since we're on the topic of colors, can someone capable of editing the map please go through the LGBT rights by country article? I think that with the new green color several countries need updating. From what i've read it appears that the following countries should be changed to green: Namimbia, Sierra Leone, Botswana, Lebanon, Maldives (not sure if a law even exists there), Singapore. Also I think Guyana in South America doesn't enforce their "buggery" law. I'm not sure what color would be appropiate but Syria has also suspended their laws due to the civil war. Lastly, homosexuality isn't criminalized in Mozambique so it should be grey. chase1493 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Namibia (again)

Can someone please explore the situation in Namibia. As I understand, it is "de jure" illegal but "unenforced" which would result in Namibia being the same colour as Mozambique, Sri Lanka and Malawi. Although there have been some recent attacks on them and statements by MPs about it's illegality, many LGBT organisations operate openly in Windhoek and I was wondering if someone could please change the colour to Green :) See the page on Homosexuality in Namibia for further reference. Bezuidenhout (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Blue ring on State of Bahia/Brazil

Can someone add a blue circle on the State of Bahia, Brazil? According to latter news, today (26 November) is the day scheduled in Bahia to initialize granting same-sex couples marriage licenses. http://badalovip.com/bahia-diz-sim/--Rafavargas (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian State of Bahia approves Gay Marriage. Someone help me change the colour of the state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.214.231.222 (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been too much confusion about the Brazilian case, actually, only in the state of Bahia (officially from November 26, 2012) are same-sex marriages legal statewide and can be recognized without the certified validity by a state judge, while in Alagoas notaries are required to recognize a marriage between same-sex couples but the final decision is still made by a judge... so the right map should be, circles in Sao Paulo and Alagoas and dark blue for Bahia (like New York in the United States, for example)

Light blue ring in France

This was added recently, why? What is the evidence for it? Apologies if I've missed a news item, but I've not seen anything. 90.222.98.250 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless it is this article: http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2008/09/05/la-france-reconnait-le-mariage-d-un-couple-d-hommes-neerlandais_1091846_3214.html

From Same-sex marriage in France. 90.222.98.250 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Caribbean

I suggest that I zoomed in version of this area should be offered somewhere on the map, it seems to hard to really understand what country has what law from the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.25.101 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Dark blue on four Brazilian states

New changes have been made by me in order to improve the Brazilian same-sex marriage situation page. All of them have been approved by the editors of the topic. Now, the map needs changes. I'd be glad if someone paints Alagoas, Bahia, Piauí and São Paulo states for me in dark blue in the world map. Thanks. --187.113.197.112 (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. See [8], [9], [10]. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Support (Tigerghost (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC))

Ceuta & Melilla

The two cities are Spanish enclaves on the Moroccan Mediterranean cost and as such the two African cities implement full Spanish legislation. Same sex weddings have been taking place since 2005. Could someone please add two dark blue circles to the two cities on the map? J2V (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources: [11] City of Melilla <[12]. City of Ceuta [13]J2V (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (South America).svg

Could anyone change Alagoas, Bahia, Piauí and São Paulo on this map? Ron 1987 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dark blue in Brazilian Federal District

The Distrito Federal in Brazil has same-sex marriage. Please, include this on map, is only pending this on Brazilian map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.224.13 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

India

Note: these comments were originally inserted into sections elsewhere on this page in such a way that they improperly modified other editors' comments. I have moved them to their own section here. - htonl (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Hindu Marriage act of India states that no legal permission is required for marriages to be approved between 2 individuals and they are deemed to be married if it is performed as per the tradition of either of the couple. The rule does not talk of a Man and women hence India's colour should be changed to 'unregistered co-habitation' one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_India)

Also the colour of the northern most state of India Jammu and Kashmir should be made uniform with the rest of India. Homosexuality is legal in that state too as in rest of India and there is no special law applicable there.

The colour of the northern most state of India Jammu and Kashmir should be made uniform with the rest of India. Homosexuality is legal in that state too as in rest of India and there is no special law applicable there and it is impossible for the local court to pass a ruling that is opposed to the central courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.252.156 (talk)

Can you address this, then:

In most of India, the Indian Penal Code is applicable. In 2009, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was given a more limited interpretation, lifting the ban on same-sex sexual activity among consenting adult men. However, in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Penal Code is not applicable, but rather the Ranbir Penal Code (adapted from the Indian Penal Code) is applicable. Since the judgment of the Delhi High Court applies only where the Indian Penal Code is applicable, it does not change comparable provisions in Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, Section 377 of the Ranbir Penal Code remains in effect, prohibiting same-sex sexual activity. If Section 377 of the IPC is struck down by the Supreme Court, then the pari materia provision in the Ranbir Penal Code will be automatically struck down as well - following precedents of the case Jankar Singh v State.

Is this not correct, or has the Supreme Court now ruled on section 377, or what? - htonl (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dark blue in state Brazilian Federal District (Brasília)

The Distrito Federal in Brazil has same-sex marriage. Please, include this on map, is only pending this on Brazilian map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.224.13 (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.134.169.122 (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Two more states to go dark blue in the map

Last year, several states in Brazil allowed gay couples to obtain marriage licenses through notaries. But two of them are missing in the map. Sergipe and Espírito Santo should be shifted into a darker blue to match with the decision made. The changes are all in the page of Brazil's situation on gay unions. --Rafavargas (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dark Blue in the Brazilian States of Mato Grosso do Sul (Center-West) and Paraná (South)

Dark blue in the states of Mato Grosso do Sul and Paraná in Brazil. The state courts of this states approved the same-sex marriage in April 2013. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.234.140 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.42.121.113 (talk)

Brazil

States in Brazil should be divided like in the USA, because each state has autonomy to pass legislation regarding gay marriage by itself. Bahia has passed autonomous legislation to allow gay marriages to be registered in notaries state-wide, with recognition being country-wide. The law will be in effect starting November 26.

Not only that, the information that São Paulo and Alagoas currently allow gay marriages as default are false. Couples in those regions are still required to have their relationship analysed by a judge before getting their rights, so it is not yet the law, nor a local difference. Any couple from any state in Brazil can currently get a civil union registration and then request analysis from a judge for gay marriage, so there should be circles everywhere in the country if the case was different for Alagoas and São Paulo.

Sources:

Source in english about Bahia's legislation News on Bahia (Portuguese) News on Bahia (secondary source - Portuguese) Alagoas makes gay marriage easier, not yet allowed (Portuguese)

Onwalkerin (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mato Grosso do Sul and Paraná states should be included in Brazilian states that allowed for same-sex marriage.

Sources:

[23]

Onwalkerin (talk) 21:07, 09 April 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.133.152.199 (talk)  

Dark Blue in the Brazilian State of Rio de Janeiro (Southeast)

On 19 April 2013, the Corregedor Geral de Justiça of Rio de Janeiro authorizes marriage between persons of the same-sex.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.234.140 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand

New Zealand has legalized gay marriage (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/04/17/new-zealand-legalises-same-sex-marriage/), so prepare to change the map soon. :) -- Francis Christian (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We're just waiting for the Royal Assent. - htonl (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Royal assent given, NZ should be dark blue: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/133170/marriage-legislation-becomes-law Hihellowhatsup (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Paraíba: 13th Brazilian state

Source

PS: Rio de Janeiro's situation is still not clear. Better leave it the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niltonbr (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, can someone please change Santa Catarina and Paraiba to same-sex marriage please? Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Rondonia

Rondonia should be refilled in blue. Somebody forgot it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dark Blue in the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina (South)

Santa Catarina has same-sex marriage since 29 April 2013.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.234.140 (talk) 03:34, 01 May 2013 (UTC) [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.214.186.10 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.214.186.10 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay

Uruguay should be reverted back to medium blue colour. The ruling recognizing foreign same-sex marriage was challenged. See [25] Ron 1987 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Uruguay should be changed to dark blue as marriage equality has passed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.154.96 (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The president just signed. Now there is really no reason not to change the color of Uruguay. Incidentally, Rondonia, Santa Catarina and Paraiba in Brazil should be changed into dark blue as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.82.202 (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay still not blue?

Law was already promulgated by the President last May 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.55.19.99 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay was changed to dark blue on the map yesterday. If you are still seeing it as a different colour, you may need to bypass your cache. Also, make sure you aren't confusing it with the neighbouring Rio Grande do Sul province of Brazil. - htonl (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor correction. We have them as states since our official name was changed to United States of Brazil with the coming of the Republic 10 years and some months before the start of the 20th century (it became Federative Republic of Brazil, with the federal district and municipalities now composing it in the same level with states according to law with right to their own local decisions, if I'm not wrong in the 1967 military dictatorship's new Constitution, so that AFAIK Brazilian states are MUCH less and Brazilian cities are much more powerful individually than American ones; Rio de Janeiro was at the same time a city and a state until 1975 after the federal district was moved to Brasília, so that even though I'm fluminense, it is more accurate to say that my parents are guanabarinos, even though we're all cariocas xD).

Also, why someone colored São Tomé and Príncipe, Djibouti, Bahrain and Maldives green even though it was consensus to not include such color, as its connotation is more positive than grey and it is bad for color-blind users? Even better, people did not revert it (I would not because even though Rondônia got deleted from the SSM list, Somalia finally got the correct sharia areas). Lguipontes (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazil should be blue (May 14)

"The Supreme Court decision 'is binding' and should be followed by the lower courts..." This means that same-sex marriage is legal in Brazil, even though Congress has still not passed a law explicitly allowing or forbidding it. Thus I have reverted the image to make Brazil blue. Path to gay marriage in Brazil cleared Dempf (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota: change to dark blue (May 14, 2013)

Minnesota should now be dark blue. Same-sex marriage law was signed on May 14, 2013 by Governor Mark Dayton.

Done. You may need to clear your cache and so on to see the update. - htonl (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

France signs gay marriage into law

http://www.france24.com/en/20130518-france-gay-marriage-law-adoption

France and all of its overseas territories should be dark blue. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, and French Polynesia

All of France's overseas territories legalized same-sex marriage, including its South Pacific territories. They should be changed to dark blue. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

São Tomé and Príncipe

São Tomé and Príncipe should be gray. See LGBT rights in São Tomé and Príncipe. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Colombia

Shouldn't it be dark blue? (http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2011/c-577-11.htm, http://www.elpais.com.co/elpais/colombia/noticias/desde-21-junio-notarios-tendran-firmar-contrato-solemne-parejas-mismo-sexo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.34.242.46 (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Should dark blue rings be added in Colombia? Thevastdarkness (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Russia

I believe that Russia should be painted yellow — with the ban on “propaganda of homosexualism among minors” and recent arrest of hugging girls in Saint Petersburg metro (see a short news article). — kf8 12:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC) All of the Russian territory is not painted yellow - the isles above Japan are also Russian.

The Kaliningrad Oblast between Poland and Lithuania is also part of Russia. --LiterallySimon (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

California & U.S. Federal Government

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, same-sex marriage is now recognized at the federal level. So, the color of the U.S. (besides the states that have legalized same-sex marriage) should be the same color as Mexico and Israel. In addition, Prop. 8 was also declared unconstitutional so same-sex marriage is legal in California again, so change it to dark blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermiand. (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No as to colouring the rest of the US like Mexico. The thing in Mexico is that the other states also have to recognize marriages from the D.F. Section 2 of DOMA has not been struck down, so states in the US are still free to ignore same-sex marriages from other states. - htonl (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

US has stopped deporting foreign gay married couples from other countries. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/new-york-immigration-judge-halts-deportation-of-married-gay-man/ As for the issue of state law, the thing is, the state is still going to have to give federal benefits to gay couples from other states or countries with gay marriage/unions. So even if a state has a gay marriage ban, federal befits will still be granted, even if there are no state benefits. http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20130626gay-marriage-supreme-court-decision.htmlGay conservative (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not at all clear that gay couples married where it is legal but living where it is not, will in fact get federal benefits. That is the subject of some dispute. Secondly, even if it turns out that they do, matters of civil/personal status (like marriage) are principally questions of state law, and most of the rights and benefits of marriage are state benefits, not federal. Before DOMA was struck down, we displayed some states as having legal SSM even though they did not have the federal benefits. It is therefore entirely consistent that we should now display the other states as having no recognition, even if they maybe do have the federal benefits. - htonl (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the US should be in a different color, not like Mexico, but maybe a lighter blue?? or purple, I don't know. While some 29 states have banned same-sex marriage, if a couple legally married in California or New York move to let's say Alabama or Mississippi, and they apply to benefits etc and be denied, then there will be the issue on whether the state is denying their rights, because the federal government recognize their marriage. We still don't know the scope of this problem. We still don't know how will this decision will affect other states. Either they will have to recognize them or they will have to legalize same-sex marriage by a Court. like this couple plan sue Alabama. --Vrysxy! (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The entire United States should not be colored in. The federal government can only recognize those unions performed in the currently shaded states. The rest of the country is free to deny same-sex couples recognition, and the government is not obliged to give them recognition. They are only obliged to give recognition to those states that have chosen to do so. Therefore, the currently colored map is misleading. And what is with this new coloring for Russia? How are you supposed to "prove" that restrictions on LGBT freedom of speech only happens in Russia, and not in other countries? This is not criminalization of homosexuality; it is criminalization of freedom of speech. Similar, but different enough to not belong on this map. --170.140.206.74 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. Only state benefits from states where same-sex marriage is not legal is where they could be denied. Federal bennefits such as income tax from the federal government, getting the US citizenship if you get married in any of those states where is legal. Even if you move to another state where is illegal, you can still get any of those benefits, because the federal government would still recognize your marriage even if the state refuses to do so. --Vrysxy! (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not at all clear. DOMA being struck down does not mean that the federal government is required to recognize any marriage recognized by a state for every purpose whatsoever. It simply eliminates the one man/one woman requirement for marriages it would otherwise recognize. So it appears to fall to the default rule on whether federal recognition is given to a marriage not universally recognized which may vary based on the benefit in question. Immigration benefits, for example, look to the "place of celebration"--if the marriage is valid where entered into, it will be recognized for federal immigration law. But for tax purposes (unless the IRS comes up with a rule change in the future) it follows a "place of residence" rule--if the marriage is valid where the parties reside, it will be recognized for purposes of federal tax law. So a couple married in NY but residing in PA would be recognized by the federal government as married for immigration purposes but probably not for tax purposes. And honestly, more benefits follow place of residence than place of celebration, so I agree the shading is very misleading or at best premature before the DOMA ruling has been fully implemented by the relevant federal agencies and applied by the courts. Bomewrlhr (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Botswana

Could Botswana possibly be changed to "not enforced yellow"? Although the law is de facto homosexuality is illegal, the law has never actually been used and the constitution recently brought in anti-LGBT discrimination in the workplace. Odd, as homosexuality is still illegal de facto. I think it is probably unenforced and the government just doesn't want to enact upon any legislation?

The above unsigned comment (that is, the first paragraph in this section) seems to have been added by Bezuidenhout (talk) circa 12:21, on 21 January 2013‎ ; (according to the "history" page). THIS comment -- (not "unsigned") -- was added by someone else a few days later... ((please refer to this ".sig": --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC) ))

Colima, Mexico

The Mexican state of Colima now has civil unions. <http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/07/04/congreso-de-colima-aprueba-uniones-civiles-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo Thevastdarkness (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

These are other links i found to support this. There still has been no change to the map as of September 3rd 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach143 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23502039

http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/07/29/el-congreso-de-colima-declara-validos-los-matrimonios-gay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach143 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/colima-mexico-civil-unions_n_3679604.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach143 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/130730/mexican-state-colima-allows-same-sex-civil-unions

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=15984&MediaType=1&Category=24

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/30/mexico-state-of-colima-legalises-civil-unions-for-same-sex-couples/

Thailand

The map displays homosexuality in Thailand as illegal and punishable by life imprisonment. This contradicts the article on homosexuality in Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.226.80 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that's Burma/Myanmar that's coloured as illegal/life imprisonment. Thailand is correctly coloured grey for legal/no relationship recognition. - htonl (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Chihuahua

The Mexican state of Chihuahua has legalized equal marriage and should be added to the map. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey Update

Gay marriage just legalized, Christie vows to appeal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/nyregion/new-jersey-judge-rules-state-must-allow-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

Please update relevant charts/graphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.242.61 (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/nyregion/same-sex-marriages-in-new-jersey-can-begin-court-rules.html?_r=0

Vietnam

According to Decree 110/2013/ND-CP, Vietnam remove fines on same-sex marriage. Same sex couples are not allowed to register their marriage, but they can cohabit as a couple and share a household registration book, meaning they are allowed binding relations in terms of property, children, and related rights and obligations. So I think you should change the status of Vietnam's Homosexuality legal to unregistered cohabitation. http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/13750/vietnam-to-remove-fines-on-samesex-marriage

I'm sorry because there are many pages which need to be changed and the wiki code is quite complicated for me so I can not do it by myself --138.25.202.174 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

---I tried to play around with the map to "blue" Vietnam to reflect this change, but I didn't know how. And I still don't know after reading the tutorials on wiki.

Oregon

Oregon will now recognize Same-sex marriages performed out of state and Oregon should now fall under the category "Marriages from other jurisdictions recognized". http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Oregon-to-recognize-out-of-state-gay-marriages-4903957.php --Prcc27 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey Was changed back to civil union why ???

Same sex marriage begins on Monday in New Jersey. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/nyregion/same-sex-marriages-in-new-jersey-can-begin-court-rules.html?_r=0 --Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory

The Australian Capital Territory just legalized same-sex marriage. The map needs to be updated.--Francis Christian (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The talk page in general

I would like to suggest if maybe we could clean up the talk page? Alot of these subjects, such as Illinois civil union's and Argentina's same-sex marriage bill have been settled law for a couple of years now. Why not remove these section's so that we can condense the conversation to news and changes that are happening or are subject to change in the immediate future? Just an idea, I could be missing something that would make these archives significant but for all intents and purposes they seem like a waste of space now. Chase1493 (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A problem I'm having with the talk page is that people are being ignored. New Mexico and the Australian Capital Territory have NOT been added yet. I understand why the Australian Capital Territory might not have been added (maybe they just haven't gotten to it yet) but New Mexico's issuing of same-sex marriage licenses has been going on for quite a while now. And if you disagree with New Mexico being added then TALK about it on the TALK PAGE. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico

Shouldn't there be some sort of recognition that a few counties in New Mexico now allow same-sax marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.235.6 (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There should be but the people who do the map changes are slacking considering they haven't added Colima Mexico's civil union yet ether.

Nor removed the brown on Russia. (See above discussion.) -- Lejman (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree! 6 New Mexican counties issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Since the attorney general of New Mexico has stated that "Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction acts, a marriage license issued by a county clerk in New Mexico is preemptively valid" the 6 counties which perform same-sex marriage should be added to the map. They need to stop slacking..--Prcc27 (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't New Mexico been added to the map yet? (or at least the counties it is now legal in) --Prcc27 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone gonna add New Mexico? --Prcc27 (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the New Mexico section to the bottom because NOBODY ADDED NEW MEXICO TO THE MAP! IT'S BEEN WAY TOO LONG, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO. If you don't think New Mexico should be added then please discuss it on the talk page instead of ignoring all of us! Thank you. Sincerely, --Prcc27 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand why all of you are frustrated, hence why I suggested cleaning up the talk page. In regards to New Mexico, since only eight of the 33 counties have begun issuing marriage licenses we can't really add the entire state as dark blue. However, I will change the map and add a ring where the state is. Hopefully this will add some clarity to the issue. The New Mexico State Supreme Court is currently reviewing the issue and should settle the matter permanantely within the near future. Until then, we cannot add the entire state when the legal situation clearly shows us that this is not the case. In regards to other issues such as Colima, I will add the civil union status for that state as well. Please, feel free to message me on my personal talk page for any future problems regarding this map. I check it daily and am more than willing to hear and discuss anyone's proposals. Just be aware that if it is a major change, I don't have unilateral authority to change the map wihtout a proper discussion first. Sorry for our "slacking," I just don't want a blowback of negative comments from other users for making changes that didn't reach a consensus first. Sincerest regards, Chase1493 (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions on Freedom of Expression

I see Russia has been colored its own color, relating to its new laws. I have two concerns with this though:

1. "Restrictions on Freedom of Expression" is vague in this situation. All countries have some kind of restriction on Freedom of Expression (eg, you aren't allowed to spill top secret info). Even if you narrow it down to "Freedom of Expression related to sexual orientation or identity" you could argue that any laws against "hate speech" towards LGBT groups are in themselves ristrictions on the freedom of expression. (Which would include countries like Sweden.) If a category for Russia etc is to exist it needs to be defined more specificly. 2. There are more countries besides Russia with similar laws, I think at least one or two of the Baltic countries have similar laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.172.121.73 (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be a more specific designation for Russia to be colored in. What about China? Does the "Three Nos" count? How about Singapore? North Korea? Turkey? This map reflects the legal practices of countries around the world. It is impossible for there to be de facto recognized relationships, but it is possible for de facto restrictions on freedom of speech. That makes this map far too uncertain for my liking. --170.140.214.214 (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

And the new anti-gay propaganda in Moldova?--186.109.248.216 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that having this category is unnecessary. This is a map that is supposed to reflect whether or not one can identify as homosexual openly. In Russia, you can be LGBT and have a relationship with someone of the same-sex (Even though there is no legal recognition). Therefore, I don't see why we should visit an issue that is completely separate from this one (freedom of expression). If we are going to begin down the road of whether or not you can discuss it, it brings to question a host of other issues. Some countries don't have propaganda laws, but certainty have social stigmas or taboos on the topic. I think Russia should be grey, and that there should be another section or page created to discuss circumstances like those in Russia and other countries. Perhaps we could give the societal attitudes towards homosexuality a much needed overhaul? Some of the statistics are outdated and there was a map that dealt with the topic as well. Maybe it could be brought back and changed to denote the social acceptance of LGBT people as well as a color to show what countries have taken steps to institutionalize discrimination in these other areas (Speech, expression, etc.)? Chase1493 (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I made the original (unsigned) post, I apparently forgot to log in. I'll be happy with a removal, I think it the extra color makes this map harder to see anyway. Moving the info to the societal attitudes page works for me. -- Lejman (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oregon vs. Coahuila

The situation in Oregon, US and Coahuila, Mexico is the same: both states offer a form of civil union and both recognize out-of-state marriages. So why are the colors different? 89.74.153.149 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Ya know, I never realized that. I know that higher forms of recognition (and their colors) override lower ones. Although I'm wondering how we can reconcile that without removing any mention of the sub-national Mexican jurisdictions that have moved to create some form of legal recogntion for LGBT couples in their states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase1493 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii and Jalisco

Both should be updated to the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.88.26 (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, could someone either change the map or teach me how to edit the map so I can do it myself? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Download Inkscape; its free to use. Take the outline of the Jalisco shape from the vector image of Mexican states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jalisco_en_M%C3%A9xico.svg, copy and paste it onto this map (resize as you see fit), and recolor it. Hope that helps. --170.140.197.90 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I might try that.. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico Recognition

New Mexico Recognizes same sex marriage. The blue ring should NOT be removed! (Why do I even bother) http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/democracy_for_new_mexico/2011/01/attorney-general-gary-king-issues-opinion-supporting-recognition-of-out-of-state-same-sex-marriages.html --Prcc27 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about Scotland and Jalisco

So I know Scotland does not recognize same sex marriage but if it did or dose in the future I'm just wondering if when it's on the map if we would just combined it with England or put of border between the 2 even though there the same country ? I think we should just combined them when and if that happens but that's just my opinion.

And not to keep bugging people but will Jalisco ever be added ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.88.39 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ohio

Ohio recognizes same-sex marriage (on an individual case basis). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/ohio-must-recognize-marriage_n_3863068.html I suggest adding a ring. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for Libya

The Libyan National Assembly has passed the Sharia law. Al Jazeera. It should be in dark red because sharia imposes death for homosexuality acts. Japanesehelper (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The consequences of that vote are uncertain. As the article says, "The immediate scope of the General National Congress's (GNC) decision on Wednesday was not clear." - htonl (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

India Supreme Court decision 2013

Could someone please update the map following India's Supreme Court decision to recriminalise gay sex? Thanks Udzu (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes according to this source [26], with a 10 year jail sentence the map needs to be updated to reflect it. India to orange. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Jalisco

Jalisco should be added to the civil union column. I think. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Western-Mexico-state-approves-gay-civil-unions --Prcc27 (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: It looks like Jalisco needs a ring. http://purpleunions.com/blog/2013/12/mexico-first-same-sex-couple-marries-in-jalisco.html Prcc27 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Utah

Make the color of the state of Utah dark blue, a Federal Judge overturned the state's same-sex marriage ban today. Couples have already been issued marriage licenses. The governor voiced his attempt to bring the ban back, but it is not certain when that will happen. - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-gaymarriage-utah-20131220,0,4692192.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermiand. (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or does Utah look kinda weird...? Prcc27 (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Nicaragua should be beige

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/nicaragua.html The law in the country is harsher than both the former Moldovan or the current Lithuanian ones. I'm also remembering seeing such a language in an ILGA "state-sponsored homophobia" report (though it doesn't seems to be the 2013 one). 177.195.67.244 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Utah Update

Utah needs to be removed. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Utah still needs to be removed! --Prcc27 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lithuania

Shouldn't the country be turned gray since the law was amended to remove the ban on orientation promotion and add a non discrimination provision? See here. Is there something I'm missing? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 12:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn’t. There is still the infamous "Law on the Protection of Minors". I wouldn’t be against leaving the country gray, but the authorities recently banned a pro-LGBT advertisement citing precicely the clause in this Act, banning public support to same-sex marriage (this is mentioned in the article you cited, one paragraph up).--Ąžuolas (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be turned gray. Lithuanian laws can not be equated to Russian propaganda laws.

"On 22 December 2009 the clauses banning the promotion among minors of "homosexual, bisexual, and polygamous relations" were in fact eliminated, but as a compromise, the paragraph was replaced by a "ban to spread information that would promote sexual relations or other conceptions of concluding a marriage or creating a family other than established in the Constitution or the Civil Code"."

I can't see a discriminating law here. Jonaz777 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What you see or don’t see, is not an issue. The article you cite clearly bans discussions about same-sex families and the authorities have used it to restrict pro-LGBT information.--Ąžuolas (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The discriminatory clauses in the Law on the Protection of Minors have been removed as far back as 2009. The current law states that you cannot promote "a sexual identity," that includes hetero/bi/homosexuality, which doesn't seem homophobic to me. In any case, the Lithuanian law CANNOT be in the same category as the Russian one, they are completely different.

Please change Lithuania to gray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxae (talk • contribs) 20:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your information is incorrect. There is no such law in Lithuania that bans promotion of "sexual identities". On the other hand, the laws laws in different countries don’t have to be EXACTLY the same to be coloured the same. You either remove this "propaganda laws" colour altogether or keep it as it is.--Ąžuolas (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

TRNC

Northern Cyprus needs to be recoloured as same-gender sex was legalised this week. Rossoh (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus still needs to be recolored. 187.34.250.232 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lebanon, Northern Cyprus

Lebanon's law was struck down, so they should be an neutral gray now. I'm pretty sure that Northern Cyprus is still yellow, which also should be turned gray. I would do it but I'm having a lot of trouble editing this map. Can't really figure out what is what here. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As for Lebanon, according to this source, the judge did not struck down the law but ruled that the law did not apply in the case, concerning sex between a transsexual woman and a man. The law is still there and can be interpreted differently depending on the judge. As for Northern Cyprus, I would like to see a source confirming that the repeal of the law has been signed and taken effect. All sources reported on the vote of the parliament only. SPQRobin (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

TRNC's bill was published in the official gazette and took effect on 7 February. See [27]. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the source! I updated the map. SPQRobin (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Campeche, Scotland

Campeche and Scotland should be added to the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.167.84 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam: unregistered partnership

Vietnam shoule be coulored in light blue. Since November 2013 unregistered partnerships are allowed by parliament decision.

• HuffintonPost:Vietnam, Gay weddings. --188.96.176.44 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam should not be coloured light blue; it should remain grey. As the article makes clear, the government has repealed a provision which criminalised same-sex marriages, but same-sex relationships remain unrecognised in law in Vietnam and so should be re-coloured as grey unless someone can show evidence that same-sex relationships now enjoy some kind of legal recognition/protection. Please could another user re-colour Vietnam grey. -- User:Chid12 (talk) 17:14 10 March 2014 (UTC).

Agreed. The only thing that has changed in VN is that a same-sex wedding ceremony is no longer illegal. But there is nothing implying official recognition of same-sex relationships. It should be gray. Frimmin (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Also agree. What are we waiting for? I read the article and the original Vietnamese article and they say nothing about same-sex relationships being legally recognized. Vietnam should be grey. (The article informs that no one in Vietnam can be FINED for holding a same-sex wedding ceremony, but same-sex relationships remain legally unrecognized. Before individuals used to be fined for holding same-sex wedding ceremonies.)90.181.138.240 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I edit my opinion. Vietnam should remain blue. There is actually an older discussion about this in the archive. It gives this relevant link:

• [28]

Relevant part of the article states: 'Accordingly, same sex couples are not allowed to register their marriage, but they can cohabit as a couple and share a household registration book, meaning they are allowed binding relations in terms of property, children, and related rights and obligations, Thao explained.'90.181.138.240 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Unenforced Penalty

What are the references supporting any country deserves this status? India is an example. It has it's own sections so I don't have to bring up the particulars agains. Each country deserves to be recolored according to de jure penalties regardless of enforcement because I haven't seen any evidence of non enforcement anywhere. If non enforcement is proven, it should have the dash pattern of the two colors.

Please respond with each and every country colored as unenforced penalty and justice fixation for it. 70.194.85.173 (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Examples

1. Angola: Hard to categorize
2. Botswana: Imprisonment
3. Guyana: Life Imprisonment
4. India: Life Imprisonment
5. Malawi: Imprisonment
6. Maldives: Death penalty
7. Namibia: Imprisonment
8. Oman: Imprisonment
9. Papua New Guinea: Imprisonment
10. Sri Lanka: Penalty is hard to categorize

Only the pages on Botswana and Namibia claim lack of enforcement. 70.194.85.173 (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I had to add number symbols for a list effect and to make it readable. 70.194.85.173 (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Absurdly, the definition of this category varies by language - e.g. the French and Italian descriptions (as well as many others) claim that yellow means "minimal penalty", not "unenforced penalty"; and I think that the English definition also said "minimal penalty" until some months ago. This discrepancy needs to be fixed ASAP for the map to even have a chance to be accurate for users of all languages. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexico Rings

Rings need to be added for Mexico marriage-equality laws (out of date).svg --Prcc27 (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Quintana Roo

Can someone change the color of Quintana Roo there is no same sex marriage in that jurisdiction base on this article. so it shouldn[t be blue.I believe only the capital allow ssm right now. http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2014/03/11/que-los-gays-se-casen-pero-que-no-adopten-presidente-de-congreso-en-quintana-roo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan120102 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The marriage law is gender neutral. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Michigan

Michigan should have a blue ring like Utah because marriages were performed in both places before a stay was granted. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-strikes-michigans-ban-gay-marriage-23012280 --Prcc27 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

About this map

If this map is about "World Homosexuality Laws" then why doesn't it include laws that prohibit GLB discrimination..? That definitely qualifies as a law that pertains to homosexuality and is very important to the GLB community. Furthermore, same-sex marriage doesn't necessarily have to be between homosexual/bisexual people because anyone regardless of sexuality can get married to the same-sex. Plus, there's already a same-sex marriage map anyways. At the very least I suggest that laws that prohibit GLB discrimination should be added to this map; but I also think that the marriage/partnership laws have got to go! I will be posting this same message on the other talk page since this page has two talk pages for some reason.. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)