Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

IP edit warring in links to every state

Today, an IP editor put in a large number of links to "Same-sex marriage in <state>" articles [1]. Given that these were already link in the infobox, and with guidance from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, I reverted the change [2]. The same IP editor has undone that and put the links back in [3]. Opinions? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Being linked in an infobox should not rule out being linked outside of the infobox. Per the MOS page you link to, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions,footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe in earlier discussion it was agreed not to link every state in a long list of states. In general, this article is very generously hyperlinked already. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Second that. A lot of state links were removed previously because of overgenerous hyperlinking. There are links in the template at the base of the page, and pretty much every state has already been linked somewhere. All these extra added links are superfluous, and there is precedence for their removal. Kumorifox (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No complaint on that from me. If they're linked elsewhere in the article body, that's sufficient; I was only addressing the concern that they are duplicating links in the infobox. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

POV language (edit request)

On November 6th, 2014, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals became the first appeals court to rule in favor of traditional marriage when it upheld the gay marriage bans of Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee.

The word ``traditional here is POV. 2001:468:C80:6102:7CBB:5E8:322B:C53 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Done The language should be more consistent with Wikipedia standards now. Kumorifox (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas

Shouldn't under the STATES THAT LICENSE SSM TABLE - DATE EFFECTIVE heading, Kansas read November 12, 2014 and not November 4? Considering Nov 12 was the date SCOTUS denied stay of ruling and the ruling went into effect? Jono52795 (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Changed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody changed Kansas back to striped, blue and red. I realized that some counties are slow in issuing licenses, due to misdirection from the Kansas AG, but red is inappropriate. I guess we need a new color for contempt of court.

Missouri

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the source provided doesn't seem to support the notion that the ruling only applies to St. Louis City: [4] -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC).
I agree, CNN and most other news sources indicate that gay marriage is legal in all of Missouri. We should be linking to the text of the actual decision, to resolve this.

Other sources point to the decision being St. Louis only. [5]. Here is the order: [6] The final lines state that "Defendant and any future Recorder of Deeds and Vital Records Registrar of the City of St. Louis has the authority to issue marriage licenses", making no reference to any other city. The law might be unconstitutional, but other clerks do not yet have the right to issue licenses (unfortunately). Kumorifox (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I just read the text of the decision, and I believe the decision is in conflict, and provides no direction outside St. Louis. Not only do we have marriage discrimination by state, we now have it by city. Until the Judge clarifies his ruling, which I expect to happen in the near future. A few other counties have already decided to issue licenses.
The decision paves the way for equality in Missouri, but it is indeed quite narrow in its effect for now. Jus vigilantibus scriptum est, however, so thus far, not all of Missouri will be affected until there is a wider ruling. Kumorifox (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dralwik Did we add Boulder County when that rogue county issued same-sex marriage licenses..? No, we didn't! So how is St. Louis County any different..? Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Missouri is recognizing the St. Louis County licenses, Colorado did not. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 22:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I still think it should be mentioned that St. Louis County is a rogue county and that same-sex marriage is illegal there. Prcc27 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe expand the Missouri sentence under the state law section? That'd be a good spot for explaining the situation. (Keep in mind West Virginia is still operating without a specific ruling as well.) Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 22:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, St. Louis County is not a "rogue county". The ruling declared the law preventing them from issuing such licenses unconstituional. "The Court FINDS and DECLARES that any same sex couple that satisfies all the requirements for marriage under Missouri law, other than being of different sexes, is legally entitled to a marriage license." --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The ruling also states that "Defendant and any future Recorder of Deeds and Vital Records Registrar of the City of St. Louis has the authority to issue marriage licenses". It says nothing about clerks in St. Louis County. Ergo, St. Louis County is a rogue county until there is a mandate stating that clerks other than those from the city of St. Louis can issue marriage licenses. Kumorifox (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because he essentially voided the law that prevents the other counties from doing the same. The ruling is much deeper than just its last sentence. Do you have any source stating that St. Louis County is rogue? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course a ruling is deeper than its last sentence; a ruling is all of it. However, the ruling, cited here [7], states that: 1/ the constitutional ban on marriage in Missouri is invalid, 2/ any couple that satisfies the requirements for a marriage license in Missouri (aside from the sex of the couple) are entitled to a license, and 3/ that the St. Louis City clerk is entitled to issue marriage licenses. This means that, while the ban is effectively void in all of Missouri, only the St. Louis City clerk can issue licenses for now. If any other clerks issue them, they go against the ruling, as they are not mentioned. The mandate will have to encompass the issuing rights of all of Missouri's clerks before the rest can issue. Thus, by those criteria, clerks from St. Louis County have no legal right to issue licenses, and are therefore rogue. Kumorifox (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a hunk of WP:OR, and flawed at that. Where in the ruling are other clerks forbidden from granting such licenses? Nowhere - as you say, they are not mentioned. So they are in no way going against the ruling as you claim by doing so. Are they going against the law? Which law - the law that was effectively voided by this ruling as unconstitutional? Doing a Google news search for "Missouri rogue county same-sex" gets no relevant hits. This appears to be your invention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And it is not for us to determine. Some entities are granting licenses. Period. We have not characterized the granting of licensed as legal or not in the case of San Francisco or New Paltz or various New Mexico counties. The characterization is particularly inappropriate in the *summary* of this entry when not properly addressed below. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Prcc27's rogue suggestion is meritless. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I will retract my statements then. This is why I'm glad we have a talk page, as I'm learning more about these issues all the time, thanks to people more in the know :-) Kumorifox (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some relevance to the statement about "rogue" clerks. The issue is complex, as can be seen by reading the Jackson opinion and ruling. The US District judge clearly states he "cannot grant" all county clerks relief as only a county clerk was named in the suit (the state was not named, i.e. the AG or Gov.). The same is not true for the St. Louis case. The St. Louis case lists "The State of Missouri" as the plaintiff (meaning the AG brought the case), which makes the ruling applicable state wide. The Jackson case invalidates SSM bans for the entire state, but can only "grant relief" in Jackson County. The St. Louis case only "orders" the St. Louis registrar to allow marriages. But since it is a State judge ruling as and for the entire State it is a statewide ruling. This is not an individual suing the state, but the state suing an individual. The ruling applies to every county. Basically, this ruling is only saying "hey you are breaking the laws you've sworn to uphold if you don't grant licenses". Basically, the St. Louis City clerk is being called out as a rogue clerk if she does not grant, even though she was prosecuted originally for being a rogue clerk "for granting" them. The suit kind of backfired on the State. Poetic, isn't it? So this order should NOT be read as a "relief" for just the City clerk but as a "warning" that ALL clerks, especially the City of St. Louis clerk, need to grant them. This was a different sort of case from most of the others. You have to consider who the parties at suit are. Who the "plaintiff" is and who the "defendent" is. It's all relevent. Celtic hackr (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nebraska

On the map (at the right corner of In litigation section) Nebraska is colored like "Current litigation in federal district court". But is there any federal case in Nebraska about SSM? M.Karelin (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Waters v. Heineman was filed today. Here is the suit, along with a Lincoln Journal-Star article. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 16:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh, it's happened today ! Now I see, thanks a lot ! M.Karelin (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Montana ban struck down - No stay

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/assets/2014/11/Montana-Decision.pdf S51438 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina

South Carolina is not in States with stayed rulings for same-sex marriage section's table yet. Why? M.Karelin (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And why SC is still red on the map? M.Karelin (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The map is fixed. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 19:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks a lot now I see it :) What about table? (after Missoury) :) M.Karelin (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The table is fixed as well. Remember that these edits take some time, especially with table formatting, ruling sourcing, population totals etc. (this is one reason why I supported adding the remaining states to a table, it would make transfer so much easier). Kumorifox (talk)

Probably an almost moot point but news sources (like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/same-sex-marriage-south-carolina_n_6185180.html) are saying that marriage licenses have been issued, shouldn't this be added to the list? Shoeless Ho (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's one that mentions a wedding... [8] --☑ SamuelWantman 10:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina will be added to the count and table once the state-wide ruling is in force. If the Supreme Court does not grant some sort of stay, that is this afternoon. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 12:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas ban struck down, decision stayed a week.

Breaking out of Kansas. Decision stayed until 5 p.m. CST November 11, 2014. S51438 (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the WBC of all people are attempting to lodge appeals in the Marie v. Moser suit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't their entire plea in violation of the 1^st amendment? [9] Kumorifox (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

One can plead anything; that accords with first amendment freedom of speech. I am dubious that their "we have a right to butt in on other people's matters because we always try to butt in on other people's matters" logic will hold much stead, mind you, but being a religious organization does not mean that they aren't free to make their case to be heard. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I meant that every point on their plea refers to the Bible. I might have gotten the amendment number wrong, but I thought pleading on the basis of religion is not allowed in order to pass or maintain laws. I could be very very wrong, however. Kumorifox (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone removed Kansas from states with legalized same-sex marriage and one of the graphics still hasn't turned Kansas blue. While some counties are being rogue counties the court has ruled and it is the law even if the AG and counties are disobeying it.173.24.82.245 (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, KS has legal same-sex marriage regardless of what the AG thinks. They should be in the list without the parenthetic comment. Difbobatl (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Local marriage table

We should have a separate table for states with same-sex marriage at the local level. Prcc27 (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Historically we have tracked this by states. As for Kansas, the district court has ruled - and the circuit court and SCOTUS have refused to hear an appear - that SSM is legal and should be recognized period. There is no different law county by county, so there is no need for a count or a local marriage table IMHO. Difbobatl (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas and Missouri. M.Karelin (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
However, as I mentioned before, there is a big difference between this states. M.Karelin (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas 2

Gay marriage is legal in Kansas:

Kansas is subject to the precedents set when the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Oklahoma.

A U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the state's ban on same-sex marriage, which became effective on November 12, 2014, after Supreme Court declined to intervene.["Supreme Court allows gay marriage to proceed in Kansas - kfgo.com". Reuters. November 12, 2014. Retrieved November 12, 2014.] The case is still subject to appeal.

Some counties have not issued licences to same-sex couples, and state government agencies are not taking actions to recognize same-sex marriages.["Kansas agencies not recognizing gay marriages yet - ljworld.com". AP. November 20, 2014. Retrieved November 20, 2014.]

SCOTUS has ruled that Kansas cannot enforce its ban. 216.105.240.4 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The "States that license same-sex marriage" should be updated to include Kansas, no?

If only it was that simple. There have been a number of states that ignored circuit precedent and persisted with their own court cases (Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Alaska, Arizona, North and South Carolina), so precedence is not a sign that a state actually follows it. Also, the Attorney General in Kansas is trying to put his foot down and claims the ruling only affected a few counties, so correct legal information is difficult to come by. It's just delaying tactics though, they can't win this. Trying to dishearten people within sight of the finishing line, just legal bullying. I would call this contempt of court, but I'm not a legally trained person, so we'll see where it leads. Kumorifox (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The state Department of Health and Environment was a defendent and has complied with changing the paperwork to accomodate same-sex marriage recording in Kansas. The problem is neither the AG, nor the Governor, were named as defendents, but two County Clerks were. That is the AG's loophole. The problem is the Department of Health and Environment does not control the issueing of licenses, just the recording of them. The AG is just playing technicality games. Since the state Department of Health has to record them, they are actually valid statewide. The plaintiff's lawyers will fix that loophole soon. Celtic hackr (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Since a marriage license issued in one county is good anywhere in Kansas. Kansas should be moved back to the blue (with a footnote). Gay marriage is legal in Kansas, you will just need to drive a little farther to get a license. Do we really want to have Gay Marriage in the USA by County. Those 19 counties that are issuing licenses add upt to 64% of Kansas population.

We had this discussion about Missouri as well, and the consensus was to keep the other colours for now. The state has not released any statement that the marriages are recognised, so for the time being, we're assuming they are not; not until the AG gets with the game and finally tells the truth, in any case. Also, next time, add four tildes to sign your comments. Kumorifox (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of obtaining a license. This news article from Nov. 19 says "state agencies are not offering them [same-sex couples] the same treatment as newly married heterosexual couples". So the license is just a piece of papre as far as the state of Kansas is concerned.

How do we characterize this situation? SSM is "legal" but illegally obstructed at least in the short term by state officials. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the 19 Kansas counties that issue licenses to same-sex couples contain more than 60% of the state's population. Kansas has 105 counties that vary wildly in size of population. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Kansas is not in any of 2 Tables. OMG did we just lost the Kansas? LOL. Put it at least in the Table with states where decesion of court suspended (where Texas and several other states are). M.Karelin (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no court order suspended in Kansas, so that makes no sense. I would put in the table for states where SSM is legal with a note that says state officials are resisting. Legal....but. Carefully drafted, of course. Marriage license forms have been altered, and most Kansas live where they can get a license. Beyond that all bets are off. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kansas should be in at least one of the tables. I think the confusion bled over into the page. Kumorifox (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I support putting Kansas in the legal table. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 19:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I vote to put it in the legal column. Only four counties have refused to issue a license. In the other 82 counties, nobody has tried, and some counties only have a few thousand people.

^^^Very good point. If we're still counting the number of counties issuing is now up to 21: https://www.facebook.com/EqualityKansas/posts/10152963779774369

- I agree with Bmclaughlin9 - we should put Kansas in the table for states where SSM is legal with a note that says state officials are resisting. M.Karelin (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with M.Karelin. Difbobatl (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 50.201.192.16 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I added this note to the table entry for Kansas:

Implementation of legalized same-sex marry remains problematic. Marriage license forms have been modified to accommodate same-sex couples and most Kansas live in jurisdictions that license same-sex marriages, but state officials continue to enforce Kansas's ban in all other respects.

I was trying to describe what's happening at the moment in terms of the reality of SSM "on the ground" without getting into the different court decisions and who was ordered to do what. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why should Kansas be added to the table when same-sex marriages aren't recognized when Missouri isn't on the table and same-sex marriages are recognized despite ssm being legal in both states at the local level..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Because there is a federal court decision in Kansas (about legalazing SSM) which is NOT suspended. No such thing in Missouri. M.Karelin (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's late and I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. To address only Kansas, it appears that same-sex couples can marry, pretty much without exception. The fact that some state officials have gone rogue and say that they will continue to implement the state's ban until SCOTUS itself rules doesn't make SSM less legal. Some couples will have to go back to court to force some officials to deal with them properly, but the district court has already said what their rights are. They have the right to SSM. (If I consider the map, I'd find another color for "SSM rights vindicated in court but implementation problematic". Striping legal/not legal doesn't quite describe what's happening I don't think.) I can't speak to MO at this late hour. Sorry. Lights out.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: The ruling only applied to 2 counties. Prcc27 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The ruling clearly states that the entire ban violates the 14th amendment and is unconstitutional, statewide. The whole state is under the circuit court precedent and was refused SCOTUS appeal. This is a straw-man argument. Difbobatl (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Crabtree's order was directed at specific individual defendants, not his ruling. To be clear, Crabtree wrote a Memorandum and Order. The order was one paragraph long at the end of a document that established that Tenth Circuit precedent made it clear that Kansas's ban is unconstitutional. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Michigan and other states now red instead of that golden yellow?

I see that only Texas and one other state are the dark yellow, meaning the ban has been struck down. Why did we change Michigan and a few other states from this yellow to the simply banned red? I know for a fact that these overturned bans were not reinstated during the appeals process. Anyone know what happened there? VisaBlack (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The yellow is specifically for rulings against the bans that would be in effect, if there wasn't a current stay pending appeal. Since the Sixth Circuit has now cancelled out the pro-marriage rulings from the district courts, those rulings no longer apply and there isn't such a situation as staying the upholding of the bans pending SCOTUS review. We could try maybe a different color (black?) for bans upheld by an appellate court, but that's an idea for the map talk page. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 14:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The governor of Mchigan has voided the SS mariages that were performed there. That should be mentioned in the article. Sorry, I don't have the link handy. Celtic hackr (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added a line about that to the narrative at November 14. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Federal Government still recognize the marriages in Michigan. The ACLU is seeking to have the void overturned. The Governor cant rewrite history, and neither should Wikipedia. The chart needs to be turned back to yellow, with a comment.

Ongoing litigation

How is it determined when litigation stops? I saw the list of states with ongoing litigation, and I was not sure about some of these cases, such as Hamby, Sevcik, and Geiger, as the appellants or the would-be intervenors have been denied by both Appeals and Supreme Courts. Could someone shed some light on this issue for me? Kumorifox (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer your general question, but I think requests for stays or initial hearings en banc have been denied in a few cases, not the appeals per se.

In Sevcik, I believe the Coalition to Protect Marriage, which intervened in the original lawsuit without opposition from the plaintiffs, is still awaiting a reply from the Ninth Circuit.

Alaska is appealing Hamby and has been denied its request for an initial hearing en banc. But still appealing.

I'm confused myself about Geiger. The Ninth Circuit denied NOM's request to intervene weeks ago, but only today it denied NOM's request for an initial hearing en banc. According to Geidner at BuzzFeed here, NOM could still file with SCOTUS.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Does litigation ever stop? I doubt it! But the way I interperet this article is that it implies that the litigation is about legalizing SSM, as that is the current flow of events, and historically, rights are not often removed because of litigation. This could be made more explicit in the article, but it seems pretty clear that the litigation is about legalizing SSM and not about making it illegal. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Litigation goes both ways. In Michigan in DeBoer v. Snyder, the district court struck down the state's ban on SSM. The Sixth Circuit overturned that decision and Michigan now argues earlier SSMs are void. We had a huge reversal on Nov. 6. The small graf in the summary simply acknowledges that this story isn't all about forward progress and not everyone who suffers a loss in court just walks away. And it balances our coverage a bit, too. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It was more a question in response to the "ongoing cases" summary footnote in the main article, mainly directed at the Sevcik and Geiger cases, as I was not aware of any other motion in these. Cases where appeal is immediate, such as the 6th Circuit to SCOTUS, or what happened with most of the 9th and 10th Circuit, are easy enough to know. But in cases that have been accepted and not stayed, and when there seems to be little news on them (at least to me, I'm not sure how to use media sites and the like for keeping up to date so I rely on other sources), I was not sure how they are kept track of. Same with Geiger currently. After NOM's latest defeat, they can appeal to SCOTUS for intervening, but from what I know, if they are refused, that's the end of it. I don't know if they are on a time limit within which they must appeal to SCOTUS though, so I was curious when the case could be considered closed if they don't appeal but there is no mention of this. 3 months or so before the case is considered closed for Wikipedia purposes? Or more? What about the real world of litigation? Those were my main questions in this case. Kumorifox (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A great comprehensive course even for minor court activity is the twitter account @EQCF Equality Case Files and their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/EqualityCaseFiles Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem with the main SSM state table

It appears that the District of Columbia is being excluded from the total population number at the bottom. This is inappropriate as the estimate we are going by for the total United States population includes the district of Columbia. I have attempted to edit it myself but have been rebuffed, likely because I am not a member. Please make the edit. Thank you. 104.159.163.24 (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You were "rebuffed" twice by two different editors (once by me) because you provided no explanation. You just changed a number and left the comment field blank. Even then, I'm not sure you made the change correctly. Here's the original (without some coding):

202,240,738 (percentage|202240738|316128839|1|pad=y of the U.S. population) TOTAL US POPULATION ESTIMATE IN 2013 IS 316,128,839

Here's your version (also without some coding):

202,240,738 (percentage|202887187|316128839|1|pad=y of the U.S. population) TOTAL US POPULATION ESTIMATE IN 2013 IS 316,128,839

Note that the population of jurisdictions with SSM appears twice, first simply to display and then as part of the percentage calculation. Why change one and not the other? Are you certain that the total population estimate we are using includes DC?

I've never worked on these numbers, but someone who has should review your work and decide whether the change is appropriate. I'm sure they'll comment here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And now you've made the edit again, but you haven't explained why you have one figure for display and a different one for the calculation of the percentage. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't sure what you meant at first. I'll make them the same.

Much better! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I worked on the most recent version of these numbers prior to your edits, fixing other errors. I had forgotten DC when doing that. I checked your numbers and it works. Locke411 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede sentence

The lede begins "Same-sex marriages are ... granted by 34 states", but states don't grant marriage licenses; local jurisdictions do (counties, cities, towns.) Perhaps the first sentence should be changed to "Same-sex marriages are ... granted in 36 states" ? 209.6.114.98 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. But no government entity state or local "grants" marriage. That's really not a word normally used in this context. States grant marriage rights, not marriages. Some old versions of the lede have been rather verbose/legalistic, but I don't think grant does the job well.

States "license and recognize" would make more sense to me and would not make the sentence too cumbersome, I don't think. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like someone has changed the lede to states that recognize marriage. I don't think this has been vetted. Difbobatl (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

How about "granted under the laws of XX states"? Because state law is what we're trying to discuss there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Very confusing and possibly redundant map

This map appears in the Jan–May 2014 section. It is extremely confusing, and my guess (although I can't be sure since it's practically indecipherable, with its ugly colors, weird rings and inscrutable legends) is that it adds nothing to the far more understandable but very similarly patterned map earlier in the article. This one should either be removed as redundant or radically revised so that it is usable by a living human being.--74.65.25.24 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@74.65.25.24: This map unlike the U.S. same-sex marriage map deals with federal law, local law, tribal law, rogue jurisdictions, previous performance/recognition, individual cases, and "intention to legalize" which means if a judge announces that they will strike down a same-sex marriage ban sometime in the future— the state would be colored yellow. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This map is confusing and we'd be better off without it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Support removing map. It was made with good intentions, but it is simply trying to cram too much information from a point of over-thinking on this subject. We should be trying to streamline the information on this page, not giving multiple presentations of near-identical data. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 04:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Support removing map now redundant to the other maps and info already present in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Support removing map - this is the crazy map Prcc27 made. It used to be much higher in the page leading to even more confusion. It is best if this redundant map is removed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Support removing map. The intentions were good, and it showed its purpose at the time, but right now, it has become redundant with the detail of the main map and the article. It might be useful on another article, but on this one, it just leads to more confusion right now. Kumorifox (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Support removing map. Difbobatl (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The map was already removed. Prcc27 (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, 34 or 35 states?

Guys, the sections of the article need to be consistent. The lede mentions 35, then 34, then 35 states (within an hour), the SSM table has 35 states, but an editor has changed the section on "State Law" to 34 states. To prevent confusion, there should be one number for all sections. I am in favor of 35. What do you think? Titus III (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, my apologies for not discussing the changes I made re Kansas in the opening section. However, I believe Kansas in on par with Missouri in legality, and this should be reflected in the article. Both Kansas and Missouri allow issuing in only select jurisdictions as of this time, and Kansas does not even recognise the marriages performed, unlike Missouri. So I'm saying MO and KS should be treated equally in the text, and one of these two methods would be most appropriate, in my opinion.

KS and MO are totally different. In the case of KS you have a circuit court precedent which the SCOTUS has not stayed. MO has a state government that has agreed (based on court findings initially below the circuit court level) to recognize SSM from other states. Additionally they have a jurisdiction that is offering (and recognizing) SSM. This is not the same as the KS question, where there is a decided legal ruling but not local recognition. Difbobatl (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Add both Kansas and Missouri to the intro, the table of legal SSM, and the state law section, with notes on select jurisdictions
In the intro, make these two states separate from the main 34 (there is a note for MO and not for KS, so make notes for both and remove KS from the body)

Kumorifox (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Titus III: I'm in favour of either 34 or 36, but not 35. KS and MO should be treated the same when it comes to counting, IMO. Kumorifox (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: I'll leave the technicalities to you, Bmclaughlin9, and others. But a consensus on a single number for all sections should be made asap, especially with Mississippi coming up next week. I'm sure media will use Wikipedia as a source, and it will be confusing if the number of states is 35, 36, or 37. :( Titus III (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi was stayed indefinitely today, so no impending developments there. Although the request to lift the Texas stay is still pending...

My preference is 36 (with a brief summary of the Kansas and Missouri situations somewhere in the lede). Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 00:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're anticipating the next domino to fall, keep an eye on Arkansas Supreme Court. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We use the short-cut "SSM is legal", but

Kansas licenses SSMs (very widely) but does not recognize SSM

Missouri licenses SSMs (in very limited jurisdictions) and the state recognizes those SSMs and those from other jurisdictions

therefore, 34 or 36 (no preference) with clarifying additional statements for these 2. Wherever these two states land on the tables, explanations need to be provided. Note that the two states are not identical in handling SSMs. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are 14 states where it is definitely not legal as of the present. So it does seem that 36 is the best number. However, the two Tables, as well as State Law section, will have to be updated. At the very least, I suggest the State Law section should cite the same number in the lede. (Right now it doesn't.) Titus III (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

One county in SC is still refusing to issue licenses, isn't it? If we don't count MO or KS, wouldn't it be consistent to also not count SC? Or do we allow an unstated number of exceptions before we consider a state to not allow SSM? — kwami (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I support the "34 states" wording with explanations on Kansas and Missouri, and I also think Kansas should be removed from the table. ~~Same-sex marriage is legal statewide in South Carolina, regardless of rogue counties; it is not comparable to Kansas and Missouri where same-sex marriage is only legal in select jurisdictions.~~ Prcc27 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: You have a good point about South Carolina. The main difference between SC and KS is that same-sex marriage is recognized in South Carolina and unlike SC, the AG of KS says that same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide. We have went with the state's interpretation of the law many times: we counted Oregon as a recognition state when the AG said same-sex marriage could be recognized despite the blatant ban on same-sex marriage recognition, we counted West Virginia as a marriage state when the governor said the circuit court precedent was binding in the state even though WV's ban wasn't struck down yet, we counted California as a marriage state when the AG said that the prop 8 ruling didn't just apply to 2 counties because it applied statewide and was binding for all 58 counties of CA; the governor then directed all counties to comply with the ruling. So why aren't we respecting Kansas's interpretation of whether same-sex marriage is legal or illegal..? It is the state's job to interpret the law, not ours. If there are reliable sources that say same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide in South Carolina then I would consider not counting South Carolina as a marriage state. Prcc27 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Kansas has not yet crossed the line. Thirty-four for now. Czolgolz (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we are now consistent at 34, but I haven't touched the tables. So not entirely consistent. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I support 35 states in the lede. There are different questions in different sections, that therefore may have separate numbers. If the question is entire states in which SSM is legal (which I think is what we've historically put first) the number is 35. By judicial findings SSM is legal in KS, even if the state does not recognize it. If we want states that recognize their own SSM (an odd question) we get 34. If we want states that recognize other state's SSM we get 35 (35 - KS + MO). Difbobatl (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is not about entire or partial states. It's about what we mean when we say "legal". I would say "Same-sex marriage is Kansas is far from legal" as long as there's no second parent adoption, change of name at marriage, spousal health benefits, two men's or women's names on a birth certificate, inheritance rights, etc.

Is the statement Same-sex marriage is legal in Kansas true or false? Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

IMHO, the answer is true; however, same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide which is why it shouldn't be included with the other states and should instead be included with Missouri. Prcc27 (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify the first statement I made, as I did not explain it properly. For the purposes of the map and the article, I think KS and MO should be treated equally. That is not to say they are identical in practice, people are correct there and I apologise for causing confusion by inferring it. But for the maps and article, both MO and KS only legally issue licenses in select jurisdictions. The KS injunctions refer to 3 counties only; the fact that other counties issue does not mean the ban is struck state-wide, I learned from discussions on here (much as I'd like to think KS is ban-free). MO has only one legal jurisdiction, St. Louis. MO even tops KS by recognising its own marriage at state level. Thus, if people insist on adding KS to the lead sentence and the tables and state law section, I am of the very strong opinion that MO must be included in them as well. For all intents and purposes on Wikipedia, they should be treated the same. Hence, my call for either 34 or 36 states in lead, state law, and tables, and most definitely not 35. Kumorifox (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: Do you prefer 34 or 36? Prcc27 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Florida might be in the same boat as Kansas and Missouri [10]. Prcc27 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the inconsistencies listed by Prcc27 above (including Oregon, West Virginia, and California), we need to get some consistency going. Are we going to use the state's interpretation of the law (coming from the Governor, AG, or other officials), the practice of the law, or the court rulings as precedent for the article? Personally, I say we use practice of the law, with additional notes if it goes against the interpretation and/or court rulings (so that includes KS and SC). Using that interpretation, I am in favour of 36 states as both KS and MO issue marriage licenses, and I vote for keeping SC in the list, as unless SCOTUS rules differently, their rogue county isn't going to win (though it might be a protracted battle). If the stay ends in FA and people are getting married, and these marriages can be performed by travelling to a different county (like in KS and MO), I'd be inclined to add FA to the general number as well once the time comes. Same with every state where the current situation is similar (so ignoring Arkansas for the moment, since despite marriages having been performed they are currently not). Kumorifox (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it peculiar that you say the rule you'd follow is "the practice of the law" and then that on that basis SSM is legal in Kansas. The facts are the ground -- what I'd call "the law in practice" -- are these: same-sex couples can obtain a marriage license that is exactly as valuable as a blank sheet of paper. You are not following the practice of the law at all. You are reducing "is SSM legal?" to "can a same-sex couple get a marriage license?". Isn't marriage more than a license? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: A marriage is what people themselves make of it. If you were to go by the criterion of "what is a marriage", then you will never get consistency, as everyone will say something different for what it means. Legally, however, a marriage is pretty much condensed to a license, as without that piece of paper, the marriage is not deemed valid for legal purposes. There are 3 counties in KS where marriage licenses are issued legally, meaning people can get married there. Other counties have followed suit, regardless of the general KS law. To me, that is what I mean by "practice", though my terminology is more than likely flawed as I'm not at home in legal jargon. But would I be correct in saying that the licenses issued in the 3 KS counties or in St. Louis are legal, regardless of where in the respective state the license holders live? If not, then my reasoning above was flawed, and in that case, I'd retract my statement and am open to better suggestions. Kumorifox (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I think the facts are different. Two KS counties have issued licenses on the order of a federal judge. Another 30+ counties have issued licenses on order from a number of state judges, who were within their rights to order those licenses issued. The state supreme court said that it is within the jurisdiction of a district court judge like Moriarty (not only Moriarty) to authorize the licenses. All are equally valid licenses. (So I think there are far more valid licenses issued to same-sex couples in KS than you do!)

But we are not, I don't think, having a discussion about facts. It's more about language and how to assess the facts, and you are as qualified as anyone of us here to discuss that. You think "marriage is pretty much condensed to a license". I think not. Try telling someone in KS who's trying to get a same-sex spouse included on her/his health insurance coverage that SSM is legal there. Tell parent who can't adopt that SSM is legal in KS. Etc. All over WP we make the distinction between licensing a marriage and recognizing the validity of a marriage (normally from another jurisdiction). In this case, KS is licensing SSM but not recognizing SSM. You think that adds up to "same-sex marriage is legal"; I think not. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See, these are comments and arguments that help me understand the depth of this situation. This makes me rethink my previous statement of preferring 36 states. I am now more likely to swing towards 35, by including Missouri and excluding Kansas. Because the way you phrased it, legality is indeed not present in Kansas, which should then not even be mentioned in the lead (and that is one thing I tried to do earlier in the article). Kumorifox (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I still think Missouri hasn't made it to full marriage equality yet because clerks in every single county can deny same-sex couples licenses (which is very inconvenient). Even if we count Missouri as a same-sex marriage state, we should probably leave it out of the table because we didn't add New Mexico to the table until same-sex marriage was legal statewide. But yeah, Kansas isn't a full marriage equality state, and shouldn't be on the table or solid dark blue on the map. AFAIK, same-sex marriage recognition is banned. Prcc27 (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

MO mightn't be full marriage equality, but a license obtained in St. Louis is recognised by the entire state, and St. Louis cannot refuse giving a license, right? If so, then MO has more right to be in the list and tables than KS. I believe that is why this discussion started, anyway, mainly because I initially refused to leave KS in the list, and people reverted those edits as there was no consent at the time. After points made by two people above, I'm inclined to go for 34 states again, and this time I'm sticking with it until all appeals in both KS and MO are exhausted, and the states have full recognition and implementation. Once again, I'm ignoring SC, as that rogue county isn't going to win.

Until the Missouri Supreme Court decides that the ruling in St. Louis applies everywhere or otherwise follows the federal court determination, I would exclude it, with an explanation for St. Louis. Teammm ^talk
_email 02:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A list of names might help here. If people could add their name to what you think is the appropriate action to take?

34 states, excluding both KS and MO: Kumorifox, Teammm, Bmclaughlin9, Prcc27
35 states, including KS and excluding MO (article status quo as of writing this): Difbobatl, Dralwik, 209.6.114.98
35 states, including MO and excluding KS:
36 states, including both MO and KS:

Kumorifox (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we're close to snowballing the 34 states proposal. Prcc27 (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

However, a preponderance of recent reliable sources say "35 states", for example [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] - note that the latter two explicitly list KS but not MO. 209.6.114.98 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As to "snowballing" - please remember that we don't vote, we establish consensus based on the facts. The biggest difference between KS and MO (and why most sources state 35 states have legal SSM) is the precedent from the Circuit Court which exists in KS (and therefore marriage is legal there regardless of whether or not the state will recognize it at the moment), but doesn't in MO - even though MO recognizes out-of-state SSM (and even some of their own). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources most likely go by the lack of appeals in Kansas and the appeal in Missouri. However, as Bmclaughlin9 mentioned above, the state of Kansas does not recognise the marriages performed, and people are not getting their rights as married couples, so indeed, for most legal intents and purposes, those people are not officially married. State agencies have been advised not to recognise the marriages. It is indeed more correct to say that Kansas does not have marriage equality. I don't live in Kansas, and I'm almost certain most of the people who list 35 in those sources are not, either, and don't go through the legal BS going on now. Kumorifox (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The article's current opening text already accounts for this complication reasonably well: "... same-sex marriages are ... legal in 35 U.S. states ... Marriage licenses are widely available to same-sex couples in Kansas, though the state does not recognize their validity." - and Nat's recent suggested change to "granted under the laws of XX states" would further refine the text. Yes, SSM-Kansans aren't yet getting all their rights, but we shouldn't interpret that in a way that trumps and contradicts verifiable RSes for the raw number. 209.6.114.98 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Difbobatl: Officially, precedent might be binding, but clearly it says little in the cases of marriage equality, since a large number of states with precedent still saw fit to carry on their own legal challenges, and keep marriage banned until those cases were completed, and STILL try to bring them to their CoA or even to SCOTUS after all that. Look at NC, SC, KS, WY, AZ, MO, and AK. In all of these states, a ruling at state level was required to strike the bans, as none of these bothered with their respective precedent Circuit rulings. And both AK and SC planned appeals, as is KS right now. Precedent might make their bans more vulnerable, but clearly does sod all for the people in those states. Kumorifox (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There are also sources that say 34 states [16] [17]. Also, please note that some sources might say 35 because Wikipedia says 35. Prcc27 (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"sputniknews.com" ("a major new media brand with modern multimedia centers in dozens of countries … launched on November 10, 2014") and "worldmag.com" ("Journalistic humility for us means trying to give God's perspective") aren't reliable sources compared to NYTimes/NBC/Reuters/CNN. 209.6.114.98 (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know the reasoning behind listing KS in the 35 states by Reuters, NYTimes etc. as officially, the KS ban is still in place. The injunction issued in Marie was preliminary, not final. And AFAIK, a preliminary injunction is issued when the plaintiffs have a strong chance of winning based on the merits of the case, but haven't won yet. Kumorifox (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason is the following quote from the ruling by the District Court (which neither the Circuit Court nor SCOTUS overturned and which is not stayed):

"Consequently, this Order applies the following rule, adopted by the Tenth Circuit in Kitchen v. Herbert, to the Kansas facts: We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment [to the United States Constitution] protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. Because Kansas’ constitution and statutes indeed do what Kitchen forbids, the Court concludes that Kansas’ same-sex marriage ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Difbobatl (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Kansas confusion is due to the state being pedantic about the wording, not the preliminary injunction status. A preliminary injunction carries the same weight as a final one; it is temporary but it is not weakened. For example the Wyoming marriages are still running off a preliminary injunction and the final one is still pending (at least it was last week). The state is trying to hold out due to the appeals still going on and their interpretation of only the two counties affected, but the Marie order, legally at least, has full force. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. As I said before, I'm not well at home in these judicial circles, so thank you for educating me all the time. I'm assuming we are just listing de jure states in the lead section and the tables then? Because in that case, while KS needs to be added, I would definitely highlight those states where de facto marriage is still not in place, or at least add a much clearer line stating that, while de jure legal, de facto marriage is not legal. KS is taking a very exceptional position. Kumorifox (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting an education as well. My understanding is indeed that the tables/lead count is the de jure count, but I do think we need to have Kansas explained thoroughly to make its status as clear as we can. Also to back up my Wyoming statement, here is the request for the final injunction in Wyoming. Note that it's dated November 24, and marriages have been happening there since October 21. No word yet on the actual final injunction. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is still possible for a judge to rule that a state's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional but only have the ruling apply to certain jurisdictions i.e. Cook County, Illinois. Also, I believe the state of Wyoming (either the governor or AG) was named as a defendant so they have to recognize same-sex marriages whereas the state of Kansas was not so they're arguing that they don't have to recognize same-sex marriages because they weren't listed as defendants. Prcc27 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, Kansas is stalling by being pedantic about the ruling. I'm hopeful we get a clarification before the Supreme Court grants cert and freezes all federal case work, but I have a feeling Governor Brownback will not acquiesce until given a SCOTUS ruling. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 01:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting, I'm not sure if it would make the entire case moot or just the part about the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. I guess we'll have to see how this one plays out. If the case isn't dismissed it could be a sign that the ruling doesn't just apply to the defendants listed... Prcc27 (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is intriguing; my guess is that the plaintiffs will file to get his successor listed. I am curious why the plaintiffs just don't file against Brownback, especially since he won re-election and thus won't be removed from the situation anytime soon. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 02:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that there are 3 additional plaintiffs and 3 additional defendants involved in the suit since the decision issued. This is just Moser wanting out. His document more of less disparages "the plaintiffs who seek relief against Dr. Moser" (not all plaintiffs) and asks the court to rule that "Dr. Moser should be dismissed from this litigation". It about him, not the case. Perhaps more interesting is that it presumes the validity of licenses now being issued in KS. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Also note that Moser was sued in his "official capacity", meaning that whoever succeeds him in office replaces him as a defendant. He is arguing that the only thing that involves him is the design of the license application and that's done, so there's nothing for his successor to do at this point. Brownback, of course, would also be sued in his official capacity, so even if he died or resigned the suit would continued. Why they don't just sue him remains a mystery. I tried to get a reporter interested in that question without success. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Now the county clerks are asking to be dropped. Without Moser and the clerks, this turns into a state recognition case. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Defence under the 11th was tried and dismissed before with SSM cases (can't remember the exact state, unfortunately), so there is precedence for dismissing that claim. Sticking their heads in the sand will not resolve the problem, I just hope Kansas will find that out before long.
Kansas did set precedence in their claim, however, as Florida officials are also attempting to make the court ruling limited to the plaintiffs, rather than striking laws state-wide. I wonder if this is going to be the next step by the remaining nay-states to make life difficult until the SCOTUS ruling. Kumorifox (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not have another Kansas situation..! Prcc27 (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody does, except the naysayers. But with the way the state defences are trying, anything is possible right now. Texas tries using the 10th, Kansas tried (and already failed in Marie) the 11th, who knows what the remaining states are going to use? Kumorifox (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

New Chart for Court Cases

I see no reason for this chart, and I don't see how it makes the cases more understandable and easier to read. I think the way it was structured before was not only sufficient but was also easier to read. Prior to the 2000s the court cases were more simplistic and had little if any impact, except Baker v. Nelson and Baehr v. Lewin of course, but they are covered throughout this article and others. I am open to new ideas, but I don't see how this chart helps. But I won't revert it without consensus. Any thoughts from others? Gabe (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Rather impairs legibility, adds quantities of whitespace, and underlines more than necessary the significance of this material -- and it's only partly done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- While the idea was definitely well-intentioned, I found it very difficult to oversee the cases properly in the chart. I say we stick with the listing for the time being, unless people can make a more overseeable chart (maybe in the page sandbox?). Kumorifox (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)