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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Both Virginia and Michigan have "complete" consitutional bans on same-sex marriage, same sex unions, domestic partnerships, receprical benifits and any other unmarried union between two persons. The color is currently red on the map, but I think that it should be black on the map - what do you think?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In Iowa, when does the same sex marriage verdict become effective? When will officials hand out marriage licences to gay couples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
enough said. add another purple color change to the to-do list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.123.131 ( talk) 16:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! And green stripes should be abolished, since civil unions won't be any longer performed from september on. Finedelledanze ( talk) 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Today, the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. [1] So I think a light blue should be added there. -- Solicitor2 ( talk) 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Today the City Council voted to recognize out of state marriages, so it should be light blue as well. [1] -- Sparrowhawk64 ( talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This map is very difficult or even impossible to read for colorblind people (such as me).
"Same-sex marriages" and "Unions granting limited/enumerated rights" look the same.
Also "Unions granting rights similar to marriage", "Constitution bans same-sex marriage" and "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions" look the same.
[ [2]] If anyone could change that, that would be great. Thanks -- 86.213.166.168 ( talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1. "Statute bans same-sex marriage" not listed. 2. "Foreign same-sex marriages recognized" not listed. 3. Your distinction between "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions" and "Constitution bans any type of reciprocal benefits for two people of the same sex" seems arbitrary. I feel they should be in the same category.
Otherwise, it seems perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.58.41 ( talk) 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Works for me, and I think color-blind users should be able to tell the difference. Good job! 98.210.58.41 ( talk) 06:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Problems for me with this new type of map....
1) there is a difference between a marriage and a "union similar to marriage" The states of IA/VT/MA/CT should not be the same as CA/OR/NH/NJ. Civil Unions and SSM are not equivalent and shouldn't be on this map. Separate is not equal or else VT wouldn't have just done what it did. Maybe just having the star and leaving the state gray would work (hmm, then it might get confused with other gray states....hmm)
2) My second problem is that some of the states in the proposed sample need stripes.....WA, NH, ME, MD, and HI all grant positive rights to SScouples but at the same time prohibit SSM by statute (but not by their state constitution). Both positive and negative rights should be reflected on the map! Passing SSM in NY only requires amending marriage laws.....but passing SSM in Maryland requires a simultaneous repeal of another already existing law. Politically these are very different things. 71.217.109.32 ( talk) 09:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
(I'm the original poster) I've been watching the various proposals for colorblind-friendly maps and I'm starting to think it's a little bit pointless now. Because, something that will be fine for people with protanopia probably won't be fine for someone with deuteranopia. When you're gaining some viewers, you're always losing some others. Besides, adding symbols to the map probably isn't the best for the overall clarity of the map. So, to be honest, I have no idea of what the best to do is here. Probably just wait for the entire US to be performing SSMs :-) Anyway, Thanks a lot for all those who put their efforts in there. --
90.13.179.169 (
talk)
13:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not have two maps, one for the status of same-sex marriage, the other detailing same-sex unions? Gavino ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC).
Instead of going through all these loops to fix the color blind issue, could we just switch the color green out for a dark blue? Wouldn't that fix the color blind issue without having to completly redo the map?-- Found5dollar ( talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Gay marriage won't be a reality in Iowa for several more weeks and in Vermont for several more months. Should the map reflect what is true now? Or just what will be true at some point in the future? 216.156.120.62 ( talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- HAHA we wait decades for something like this, and we get blessed with 2 states in a week. I say we disregard the technical things. There is no prop 8 situation in either state. If something were to go wrong, we would change that. But for now, let's just enjoy the new map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.225.232 ( talk) 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does VT and CT have strips??? - it now has full gay marriage so why can't it be just purple the same as Iowa and Massaussetts. - YES FINALLY!!!!!!
I would like to thank the politicians of Vermont for there 100 votes to override the homophobic republican Gov veto!
Very limited benifits in Maryland and Colorado surly they should be included on the map as the blue stripes.
Also Hawaii should be in pink because it does say in the Hawaiian Consitution "the legislature only can make rules on marriage which must consist of two people of the opposite sex".
I will place bets for same sex marriage being legal in New Jersey next (September of this year), then California (from 1.1.2010), then Rhode Island (2011), then New Hampshire (2012), then Maine in 2013, Maine might increase its domestic partnerships - just like Washington and Hawaii has done. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.148.207.230 (
talk)
15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In CT the supreme court mandated marriage but did not strike down or elimante civil unions - so both currently exist. There is a bill in the connecticut legislature that would elimante civil unions as a further option (but I'm unsure if it converst current civil unions to marriages. In VT the new law autmotaically converst civil unions to marriages and as of 9/1/09 marriage will be the only option available. So techinically, the map should be either yellow/green striped because CURRENTLY you can get a civil union and after 9/1/09 the state should be solid purple as only marriage will be an option then. 128.208.60.197 ( talk) 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Since when did Rhode Island recognize foreign same-sex marriages from abroard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 06:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The Attorney General has no authority to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdictions. All he did was issue an advisory opinion without the force of law (see Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island). California's Attorney General believes Prop 8 is invalid, does that mean California should be purple? Rhode Island should be gray. Theknightswhosay ( talk) 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Governor Ritter of Colorado just signed a bill granting benefits to same-sex couples in the state, so perhaps we should give Colorado a blue stripe. Here's a reference: http://www.examiner.com/x-6256-Denver-Legal-News-Examiner~y2009m4d9-Its-not-marriage-but-its-a-start —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
How about we simply mark them in gray, which can stand for "no marriage laws" or "no specific prohibition" or "not performed, no specific prohibition" — ? Neither of the two recognize foreign marriages at this time. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
English: No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions. Spanish: Ninguna prohibición específica o reconocimiento de mismo - matrimonios sexuales o uniones. German: Kein spezifisches Verbot oder Anerkennung von demselben - Sexualehen oder Vereinigungen. French: Aucune prohibition spécifique ou la reconnaissance de même - les mariages sexuels ou les unions. Italian: Nessuna proibizione specifici o nessuno riconoscimento di matrimoni di stesso-sesso o le unioni. Esperanto: Ne specifa malpermision aux rekoni da gejo edzecos aux unuiĝos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of these translations are incorrect. You should replace them with:
German: Kein spezifisches Verbot oder Anerkennung von gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehen oder Partnerschaften Spanish: Ninguna prohibición específica o reconocimiento de matrimonios o uniones homosexuales French: Aucune prohibition spécifique ou reconnaissance de mariages ou unions homosexuels Italiano: Nessuna proibizione specifica o riconoscimento di matrimoni o unioni omosessuali
Although I only have a basic knowledge of Esperanto , my guess is that you should check for that translation too (it does not quite seem right to me either). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.170 ( talk) 04:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Colorado needs blue/orange stripes, because they have certain/some rights - NOT most or all the rights of marriage (green). Remember Colorado has a consitutional amendment banning SSM, but NOT other unions!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 05:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the map is more complex than it should be, why not remove the stripes and color the states to the broadest right granted? New England looks like a mess with all those stripes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.78.147 ( talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It seems unnecessary and cumbersome to specify the status of civil union laws in a state where full same-sex marriage is recognized. 75.82.129.74 ( talk) 23:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree - where options exist they should be included on the map. There are difference under the laws in most state between domestic partnership or civil unions that are purported to be fully equal to marriage. There are differences and legally they are not interchangeable. There may be reasons a person wants to pursue these different options. As for the number of stripes it is important to remember that some of the colors on the map represent negative rights and some positive rights. A negative right being a legal ban of some sort on relationship recognition under the law (red, orange, and yellow). A positive right is one where affirmative recognition exists (green or purple). Thus, most states with affirmative rights also have a negative law too. And we should recognize the barriers that exist in states to full recognition----In NH a law has to be repealed to enact SSM but in NY an affirmative law is all that is needed. These are important and substantive distinctions. 71.39.140.1 ( talk) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering, should NY and RI be striped part yellow? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Backing up the yellow stripes comment: Remember here in California there was a statutory ban on SSM that was passed by referendum. The legislature twice passed bills trying to work through a loophole on that referendum; Arnold said that the loophole idea did not work and hence vetoed them despite his support for SSM.
Side note: April 2009 appears to be a great month for LGBT rights and a few currently striped states (NH, ME, and possibly CA) may be becoming solid purple this month or next month. Is there any guide converting a striped state unstriped? I tried converting NH to purple just to test it out, but it turned grey. 03:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<g id="Striped-marriage-marriage"> <use xlink:href="#Striped-backdrop" class="marriage"/> <use xlink:href="#Striped-stripes" class="marriage"/> </g>
I completely removed all the "extra stuff" at the top that was associated with NH. I retained the coordinate data and tried to create a <path id="NH" class="marriage" d="...." /> tag (I used the same coordinate data for NH that was provided in section for making stripes) where <use id="NH" xlink:href="#Striped-similar-statute" clip-path="url(#clipPathNH)" transform="translate(1006.68, -122.69)"/> was. I guess I should just used the clean code from the other image next time i experiment with SVG. Anyways well thanks for the info. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am glad that the suggestion of making NH, MD, HI, WA,and ME only one color (green or shade of purple) was not taken ----- I feel it is vital that the affirmative rights granted AND the negative bans in place BOTH be represented on these maps. To color NH green, for example, would imply there is no statutory ban on SSM. We can't "assume" if a state doesn't have yellow that there is a ban in place......because of NY, NM, and RI!
ONE CONCERN - I still think that CT should have civil union stripes. In September no more civil unions will be granted in Vermont and all of them will be converted to marriages. Thus pure purple makes sense for VT. In NJ the way the civil unions were created and domestic partnership registry changed DPs aren't really an option anymore so a solid color for NJ makes sense too. However, in CT the law on the books and the options available to SS couples include BOTH marriage AND civil unions. If wikipedia is about accuracy then I would think CT should remain striped. Think about the instance of CA......for a brief while BOTH domestic partnerships AND marriage existed so this map had DP AND SSM stripes on it. It was important to list both because the DP law was still on the books and all DPs stayed valid and were not automatically converted over to marriages. When Prop 8 passed the validity and legality of the DP laws was not changed. So there IS a difference and real reason to include stripes of affirmative rights on this map. I move that CT go back to striped.
Also while Governor Gregoire has pledged to sign the DP expansion bill she has not done so yet! ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009) I want to know what standards exist for updating this map. SSM in Vermont isn't legal until 9/1/09, SSM in Iowa isn't legal until 4/27, and the DP expansion in WA won't be legal until late July. So why is this map reflecting future events rather than CURRENT ones???? 128.95.18.68 ( talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Washington state should be green with yellow stripes now because the "all but marriage" bill got passed by both the House and the Senate and then got signed just recently by the lady Gov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 07:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Washington got changed back to "limited rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.34.24 ( talk) 07:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It would make more sense for green to represent civil unions granting limited rights, and blue to represent civil unions with all the rights of marriage, since this would better follow the rainbow color progression associated with marriage rights that has been loosely established in this map. It would be more logical if the much more common pattern of red-orange-yellow-green-blue-purple were used to convey the progression from least marital rights to most marital rights, instead of red-orange-yellow-blue-green-purple. By this logic, this color coding may be confusing to some, who would assume blue conveys more marital rights than green. -- Wbush89 ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your request was logical, so I granted it.
I changed the legends on the pages under the file links section on the English Wikipedia already Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Could the stripes be made to be a bit narrower? They're fine for states like California and Colorado, but for the states in the Northeast, especially Maryland, and Hawaii as well, they're a bit too fat relative to the size of the states and their irregular shape, which makes it harder to read and interpret. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with you on this. Though, different states with different stripe widths would make a mess. However, I don’t see anything wrong with making the stripes a little narrower. I get so confused in the New England states. Andrew Colvin ( talk) 09:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks good. Its pleanty legible; lets just hope Deleware or Rhode Island dont need stripes. (Or maybe we should hope?) Andrew Colvin ( talk) 04:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That does look better for the northeast states, although for Hawaii some of the islands are still almost all one color, which might be confusing to somebody. I think it's probably fine though. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 06:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The NJ does not offer SSMs nor recognize foreign ones for a reason. I believe there is a statue against SSM in NJ. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You are misreading, they don't. They recognize foreign unions and civil unions and DPs
In
Lewis v. Harris it was determined that the separate, but less than "equal" DP system was unfair. The legislature ultimately determined that separate, but "equal" civil unions work just fine and, so they do have laws banning SSM.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (modified 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
http://www.state.nj.us/health/vital/marriage_apply.shtml
“ | Requirements for entering into a Marriage:
For two persons to establish a Marriage in this State, it shall be necessary that they satisfy all of the following criteria: 1. Not be a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriage in this State or recognized by this State; 2. Be of the opposite sex ; and 3. Be at least 18 years of age, except that applicants under the age of 18 may enter into a Marriage with parental consent. Applicants under the age of 16 must obtain parental consent and have the consent approved in writing by any judge of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family part. |
” |
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A new change to the edit page of this talk page (and of other en.wiki talk pages for images) is discouraging its use for requesting deletion, contact, or corrections in a big red box, saying that talk pages here are not watched by many users. Is this the time to move the discussion to Wikiproject LGBT maps on commons, like other LGBT related maps? Or are there more advantages in keeping it here? Fortuynist ( talk) 13:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Utah courts have ruled that Utah's amendment doesn't ban domestic partnerships. Salt Lake City and County currently have them. Utah's Governor has even indicated that he believes the amendment doesn't even ban civil unions since they aren't the same as marriage but courts would need to decide. Please fix this. 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you back this up with some sources? Andrew Colvin ( talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Utah courts have ruled that Utah's amendment doesn't ban domestic partnerships. Salt Lake City and County currently have them. Utah's Governor has even indicated that he believes the amendment doesn't even ban civil unions since they aren't the same as marriage but courts would need to decide. Please fix this. 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
So I'm not sure how you'd color UT. Perhaps orange since domestic partnerships have already been found to be allowed by the courts, and civil unions are thought by many including the governor to be allowed as well under the amendment. And maybe a speck of green for Salt Lake City and County for its current domestic partnership registry? 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think the multicolored states are confusing as heck. I'm for simplification. Czolgolz ( talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The stripes are confusing as heck as one person put it, why not have one map that shows the stats of same sex unions in the USA and one that shows the stats of Same Sex Marriage. now I dont know how to make one of these maps myself im just proposing an idea here. Knowledgekid87 11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
While the map is perfect in every other aspect, there is one trait that has been bugging me for quite sometime. I feel that a second color should be added for "Constitution bans all forms of same-sex unions banned" (which includes Michigan, Nebraska, Virginia, and South Dakota — as all four ban marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) while the others (such as Texas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, etc) only ban marriage and civil unions, not domestic partnerships. Secondly, if we make such a change, I think we should change the current (red) category "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions" to "Constitution bans same-sex marriages and civil unions", as the majority in red at the moment do not ban all forms of same-sex unions. VoodooIsland ( talk) 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Or how about dark red? I don't know if those who are color blind can make it out, but here's what it looks like:
Bans same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons
The comments above are incorrect. While the WA legislature has passed a bill to fully expand the DP in the state the Governor has not signed it yet. While she is expected to sign it and has stated she will sing it she has 20 days excluding sundays from the date the legislature adjourns to sign the bill. I'm just as excited as the next person but for pete's sake the bill hasn't even been signed yet so why does the map indicate it is law already? See http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009. When the Governor signs it that will be listed on the provided link.
I know people are excited but this isn't even a signed bill yet and as we all know anything can happen in the world of politics up to and including a governor's signature. DaveIseminger ( talk) 08:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC The bill passed the legislature on April 15, 2009 and is awaiting Governor Gregoire's signature expected to occur on May 18,1009. [2] and http://heraldnet.com/article/20090505/NEWS01/705059848
Since Maine's governor just approved same-sex marriage, it should be changed to purple. Although signatures (55,000 are needed) will no doubt be gathered for a peoples' veto which would suspend the law until a vote can be held on the issue, this has not yet been done. -- 205.208.125.202 ( talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The map should acknowledge that Wyoming recognizes same-sex marriage; read the article on LGBT rights in Wyoming if you don't believe me. Hihellowhatsup ( talk) 05:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If the people of Maine get the same-sex marriage bill put on to the ballot, it will be put up to the People's Veto. This essentially means SSM will not begin until people vote and decide if they want it. If and when the right-wing of Maine gets enough votes for the People's Veto to be put on the ballot, should we revert Maine's coloration on the map back to yellow and green? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No for WA. That is simply a domestic partnership of California's Prop 8. If it passes then we will do something, otherwise we have to ignore it. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
New Hampshire and Vermont have no proposed referendums on marriage or civil union statutes - Maine has a pending people's veto. States are much too liberal and the ability to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in NH and VT is very difficult, seeing (not 100% sure about VT) that you need the legislature to approve the ban first, and the legislatures implemented the same-sex marriage laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btleroy ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
However, this news site puts it well: http://www.wmtw.com/news/19506277/detail.html The burden right now is for the supporters of the people's veto to have enough signatures to put it on the ballot. Paraphrasing, this news page stipulates that the law won't be stayed UNTIL they say they've submitted the required amount of signatures. Then the secretary of state has 30 days to certify the signatures, and if they are, then the stay is continued until the election.
Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire will sign the "everything-but-marriage" bill into law on Monday 18th May, 2009 [10]. "I always put '(not DC)' to show Washington is a state!!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 12:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no constitutional ban on gay marriage in washington. solely a DOMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btleroy ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to do anything on Wikipedia! It's much to confusing! Feel free to delete this but I just wanted to make it known that there is an error on the image. I tried to figure out how to do this the right way - But I'm just not very computer literate. Sorry!!!!! Let's try the tilde thing Btleroy ( talk) 18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Both Virginia and Michigan have "complete" consitutional bans on same-sex marriage, same sex unions, domestic partnerships, receprical benifits and any other unmarried union between two persons. The color is currently red on the map, but I think that it should be black on the map - what do you think?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In Iowa, when does the same sex marriage verdict become effective? When will officials hand out marriage licences to gay couples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
enough said. add another purple color change to the to-do list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.123.131 ( talk) 16:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! And green stripes should be abolished, since civil unions won't be any longer performed from september on. Finedelledanze ( talk) 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Today, the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. [1] So I think a light blue should be added there. -- Solicitor2 ( talk) 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Today the City Council voted to recognize out of state marriages, so it should be light blue as well. [1] -- Sparrowhawk64 ( talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This map is very difficult or even impossible to read for colorblind people (such as me).
"Same-sex marriages" and "Unions granting limited/enumerated rights" look the same.
Also "Unions granting rights similar to marriage", "Constitution bans same-sex marriage" and "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions" look the same.
[ [2]] If anyone could change that, that would be great. Thanks -- 86.213.166.168 ( talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
1. "Statute bans same-sex marriage" not listed. 2. "Foreign same-sex marriages recognized" not listed. 3. Your distinction between "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions" and "Constitution bans any type of reciprocal benefits for two people of the same sex" seems arbitrary. I feel they should be in the same category.
Otherwise, it seems perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.58.41 ( talk) 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Works for me, and I think color-blind users should be able to tell the difference. Good job! 98.210.58.41 ( talk) 06:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Problems for me with this new type of map....
1) there is a difference between a marriage and a "union similar to marriage" The states of IA/VT/MA/CT should not be the same as CA/OR/NH/NJ. Civil Unions and SSM are not equivalent and shouldn't be on this map. Separate is not equal or else VT wouldn't have just done what it did. Maybe just having the star and leaving the state gray would work (hmm, then it might get confused with other gray states....hmm)
2) My second problem is that some of the states in the proposed sample need stripes.....WA, NH, ME, MD, and HI all grant positive rights to SScouples but at the same time prohibit SSM by statute (but not by their state constitution). Both positive and negative rights should be reflected on the map! Passing SSM in NY only requires amending marriage laws.....but passing SSM in Maryland requires a simultaneous repeal of another already existing law. Politically these are very different things. 71.217.109.32 ( talk) 09:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
(I'm the original poster) I've been watching the various proposals for colorblind-friendly maps and I'm starting to think it's a little bit pointless now. Because, something that will be fine for people with protanopia probably won't be fine for someone with deuteranopia. When you're gaining some viewers, you're always losing some others. Besides, adding symbols to the map probably isn't the best for the overall clarity of the map. So, to be honest, I have no idea of what the best to do is here. Probably just wait for the entire US to be performing SSMs :-) Anyway, Thanks a lot for all those who put their efforts in there. --
90.13.179.169 (
talk)
13:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not have two maps, one for the status of same-sex marriage, the other detailing same-sex unions? Gavino ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC).
Instead of going through all these loops to fix the color blind issue, could we just switch the color green out for a dark blue? Wouldn't that fix the color blind issue without having to completly redo the map?-- Found5dollar ( talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Gay marriage won't be a reality in Iowa for several more weeks and in Vermont for several more months. Should the map reflect what is true now? Or just what will be true at some point in the future? 216.156.120.62 ( talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- HAHA we wait decades for something like this, and we get blessed with 2 states in a week. I say we disregard the technical things. There is no prop 8 situation in either state. If something were to go wrong, we would change that. But for now, let's just enjoy the new map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.225.232 ( talk) 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does VT and CT have strips??? - it now has full gay marriage so why can't it be just purple the same as Iowa and Massaussetts. - YES FINALLY!!!!!!
I would like to thank the politicians of Vermont for there 100 votes to override the homophobic republican Gov veto!
Very limited benifits in Maryland and Colorado surly they should be included on the map as the blue stripes.
Also Hawaii should be in pink because it does say in the Hawaiian Consitution "the legislature only can make rules on marriage which must consist of two people of the opposite sex".
I will place bets for same sex marriage being legal in New Jersey next (September of this year), then California (from 1.1.2010), then Rhode Island (2011), then New Hampshire (2012), then Maine in 2013, Maine might increase its domestic partnerships - just like Washington and Hawaii has done. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.148.207.230 (
talk)
15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In CT the supreme court mandated marriage but did not strike down or elimante civil unions - so both currently exist. There is a bill in the connecticut legislature that would elimante civil unions as a further option (but I'm unsure if it converst current civil unions to marriages. In VT the new law autmotaically converst civil unions to marriages and as of 9/1/09 marriage will be the only option available. So techinically, the map should be either yellow/green striped because CURRENTLY you can get a civil union and after 9/1/09 the state should be solid purple as only marriage will be an option then. 128.208.60.197 ( talk) 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Since when did Rhode Island recognize foreign same-sex marriages from abroard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 06:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The Attorney General has no authority to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdictions. All he did was issue an advisory opinion without the force of law (see Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island). California's Attorney General believes Prop 8 is invalid, does that mean California should be purple? Rhode Island should be gray. Theknightswhosay ( talk) 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Governor Ritter of Colorado just signed a bill granting benefits to same-sex couples in the state, so perhaps we should give Colorado a blue stripe. Here's a reference: http://www.examiner.com/x-6256-Denver-Legal-News-Examiner~y2009m4d9-Its-not-marriage-but-its-a-start —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
How about we simply mark them in gray, which can stand for "no marriage laws" or "no specific prohibition" or "not performed, no specific prohibition" — ? Neither of the two recognize foreign marriages at this time. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
English: No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions. Spanish: Ninguna prohibición específica o reconocimiento de mismo - matrimonios sexuales o uniones. German: Kein spezifisches Verbot oder Anerkennung von demselben - Sexualehen oder Vereinigungen. French: Aucune prohibition spécifique ou la reconnaissance de même - les mariages sexuels ou les unions. Italian: Nessuna proibizione specifici o nessuno riconoscimento di matrimoni di stesso-sesso o le unioni. Esperanto: Ne specifa malpermision aux rekoni da gejo edzecos aux unuiĝos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of these translations are incorrect. You should replace them with:
German: Kein spezifisches Verbot oder Anerkennung von gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehen oder Partnerschaften Spanish: Ninguna prohibición específica o reconocimiento de matrimonios o uniones homosexuales French: Aucune prohibition spécifique ou reconnaissance de mariages ou unions homosexuels Italiano: Nessuna proibizione specifica o riconoscimento di matrimoni o unioni omosessuali
Although I only have a basic knowledge of Esperanto , my guess is that you should check for that translation too (it does not quite seem right to me either). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.170 ( talk) 04:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Colorado needs blue/orange stripes, because they have certain/some rights - NOT most or all the rights of marriage (green). Remember Colorado has a consitutional amendment banning SSM, but NOT other unions!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 05:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the map is more complex than it should be, why not remove the stripes and color the states to the broadest right granted? New England looks like a mess with all those stripes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.78.147 ( talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It seems unnecessary and cumbersome to specify the status of civil union laws in a state where full same-sex marriage is recognized. 75.82.129.74 ( talk) 23:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree - where options exist they should be included on the map. There are difference under the laws in most state between domestic partnership or civil unions that are purported to be fully equal to marriage. There are differences and legally they are not interchangeable. There may be reasons a person wants to pursue these different options. As for the number of stripes it is important to remember that some of the colors on the map represent negative rights and some positive rights. A negative right being a legal ban of some sort on relationship recognition under the law (red, orange, and yellow). A positive right is one where affirmative recognition exists (green or purple). Thus, most states with affirmative rights also have a negative law too. And we should recognize the barriers that exist in states to full recognition----In NH a law has to be repealed to enact SSM but in NY an affirmative law is all that is needed. These are important and substantive distinctions. 71.39.140.1 ( talk) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering, should NY and RI be striped part yellow? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Backing up the yellow stripes comment: Remember here in California there was a statutory ban on SSM that was passed by referendum. The legislature twice passed bills trying to work through a loophole on that referendum; Arnold said that the loophole idea did not work and hence vetoed them despite his support for SSM.
Side note: April 2009 appears to be a great month for LGBT rights and a few currently striped states (NH, ME, and possibly CA) may be becoming solid purple this month or next month. Is there any guide converting a striped state unstriped? I tried converting NH to purple just to test it out, but it turned grey. 03:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<g id="Striped-marriage-marriage"> <use xlink:href="#Striped-backdrop" class="marriage"/> <use xlink:href="#Striped-stripes" class="marriage"/> </g>
I completely removed all the "extra stuff" at the top that was associated with NH. I retained the coordinate data and tried to create a <path id="NH" class="marriage" d="...." /> tag (I used the same coordinate data for NH that was provided in section for making stripes) where <use id="NH" xlink:href="#Striped-similar-statute" clip-path="url(#clipPathNH)" transform="translate(1006.68, -122.69)"/> was. I guess I should just used the clean code from the other image next time i experiment with SVG. Anyways well thanks for the info. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am glad that the suggestion of making NH, MD, HI, WA,and ME only one color (green or shade of purple) was not taken ----- I feel it is vital that the affirmative rights granted AND the negative bans in place BOTH be represented on these maps. To color NH green, for example, would imply there is no statutory ban on SSM. We can't "assume" if a state doesn't have yellow that there is a ban in place......because of NY, NM, and RI!
ONE CONCERN - I still think that CT should have civil union stripes. In September no more civil unions will be granted in Vermont and all of them will be converted to marriages. Thus pure purple makes sense for VT. In NJ the way the civil unions were created and domestic partnership registry changed DPs aren't really an option anymore so a solid color for NJ makes sense too. However, in CT the law on the books and the options available to SS couples include BOTH marriage AND civil unions. If wikipedia is about accuracy then I would think CT should remain striped. Think about the instance of CA......for a brief while BOTH domestic partnerships AND marriage existed so this map had DP AND SSM stripes on it. It was important to list both because the DP law was still on the books and all DPs stayed valid and were not automatically converted over to marriages. When Prop 8 passed the validity and legality of the DP laws was not changed. So there IS a difference and real reason to include stripes of affirmative rights on this map. I move that CT go back to striped.
Also while Governor Gregoire has pledged to sign the DP expansion bill she has not done so yet! ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009) I want to know what standards exist for updating this map. SSM in Vermont isn't legal until 9/1/09, SSM in Iowa isn't legal until 4/27, and the DP expansion in WA won't be legal until late July. So why is this map reflecting future events rather than CURRENT ones???? 128.95.18.68 ( talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Washington state should be green with yellow stripes now because the "all but marriage" bill got passed by both the House and the Senate and then got signed just recently by the lady Gov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 07:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Washington got changed back to "limited rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.34.24 ( talk) 07:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It would make more sense for green to represent civil unions granting limited rights, and blue to represent civil unions with all the rights of marriage, since this would better follow the rainbow color progression associated with marriage rights that has been loosely established in this map. It would be more logical if the much more common pattern of red-orange-yellow-green-blue-purple were used to convey the progression from least marital rights to most marital rights, instead of red-orange-yellow-blue-green-purple. By this logic, this color coding may be confusing to some, who would assume blue conveys more marital rights than green. -- Wbush89 ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your request was logical, so I granted it.
I changed the legends on the pages under the file links section on the English Wikipedia already Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Could the stripes be made to be a bit narrower? They're fine for states like California and Colorado, but for the states in the Northeast, especially Maryland, and Hawaii as well, they're a bit too fat relative to the size of the states and their irregular shape, which makes it harder to read and interpret. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with you on this. Though, different states with different stripe widths would make a mess. However, I don’t see anything wrong with making the stripes a little narrower. I get so confused in the New England states. Andrew Colvin ( talk) 09:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks good. Its pleanty legible; lets just hope Deleware or Rhode Island dont need stripes. (Or maybe we should hope?) Andrew Colvin ( talk) 04:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
That does look better for the northeast states, although for Hawaii some of the islands are still almost all one color, which might be confusing to somebody. I think it's probably fine though. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 06:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The NJ does not offer SSMs nor recognize foreign ones for a reason. I believe there is a statue against SSM in NJ. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You are misreading, they don't. They recognize foreign unions and civil unions and DPs
In
Lewis v. Harris it was determined that the separate, but less than "equal" DP system was unfair. The legislature ultimately determined that separate, but "equal" civil unions work just fine and, so they do have laws banning SSM.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (modified 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC))
http://www.state.nj.us/health/vital/marriage_apply.shtml
“ | Requirements for entering into a Marriage:
For two persons to establish a Marriage in this State, it shall be necessary that they satisfy all of the following criteria: 1. Not be a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriage in this State or recognized by this State; 2. Be of the opposite sex ; and 3. Be at least 18 years of age, except that applicants under the age of 18 may enter into a Marriage with parental consent. Applicants under the age of 16 must obtain parental consent and have the consent approved in writing by any judge of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family part. |
” |
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A new change to the edit page of this talk page (and of other en.wiki talk pages for images) is discouraging its use for requesting deletion, contact, or corrections in a big red box, saying that talk pages here are not watched by many users. Is this the time to move the discussion to Wikiproject LGBT maps on commons, like other LGBT related maps? Or are there more advantages in keeping it here? Fortuynist ( talk) 13:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Utah courts have ruled that Utah's amendment doesn't ban domestic partnerships. Salt Lake City and County currently have them. Utah's Governor has even indicated that he believes the amendment doesn't even ban civil unions since they aren't the same as marriage but courts would need to decide. Please fix this. 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you back this up with some sources? Andrew Colvin ( talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Utah courts have ruled that Utah's amendment doesn't ban domestic partnerships. Salt Lake City and County currently have them. Utah's Governor has even indicated that he believes the amendment doesn't even ban civil unions since they aren't the same as marriage but courts would need to decide. Please fix this. 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
So I'm not sure how you'd color UT. Perhaps orange since domestic partnerships have already been found to be allowed by the courts, and civil unions are thought by many including the governor to be allowed as well under the amendment. And maybe a speck of green for Salt Lake City and County for its current domestic partnership registry? 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think the multicolored states are confusing as heck. I'm for simplification. Czolgolz ( talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The stripes are confusing as heck as one person put it, why not have one map that shows the stats of same sex unions in the USA and one that shows the stats of Same Sex Marriage. now I dont know how to make one of these maps myself im just proposing an idea here. Knowledgekid87 11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
While the map is perfect in every other aspect, there is one trait that has been bugging me for quite sometime. I feel that a second color should be added for "Constitution bans all forms of same-sex unions banned" (which includes Michigan, Nebraska, Virginia, and South Dakota — as all four ban marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) while the others (such as Texas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, etc) only ban marriage and civil unions, not domestic partnerships. Secondly, if we make such a change, I think we should change the current (red) category "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions" to "Constitution bans same-sex marriages and civil unions", as the majority in red at the moment do not ban all forms of same-sex unions. VoodooIsland ( talk) 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Or how about dark red? I don't know if those who are color blind can make it out, but here's what it looks like:
Bans same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons
The comments above are incorrect. While the WA legislature has passed a bill to fully expand the DP in the state the Governor has not signed it yet. While she is expected to sign it and has stated she will sing it she has 20 days excluding sundays from the date the legislature adjourns to sign the bill. I'm just as excited as the next person but for pete's sake the bill hasn't even been signed yet so why does the map indicate it is law already? See http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009. When the Governor signs it that will be listed on the provided link.
I know people are excited but this isn't even a signed bill yet and as we all know anything can happen in the world of politics up to and including a governor's signature. DaveIseminger ( talk) 08:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC The bill passed the legislature on April 15, 2009 and is awaiting Governor Gregoire's signature expected to occur on May 18,1009. [2] and http://heraldnet.com/article/20090505/NEWS01/705059848
Since Maine's governor just approved same-sex marriage, it should be changed to purple. Although signatures (55,000 are needed) will no doubt be gathered for a peoples' veto which would suspend the law until a vote can be held on the issue, this has not yet been done. -- 205.208.125.202 ( talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The map should acknowledge that Wyoming recognizes same-sex marriage; read the article on LGBT rights in Wyoming if you don't believe me. Hihellowhatsup ( talk) 05:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If the people of Maine get the same-sex marriage bill put on to the ballot, it will be put up to the People's Veto. This essentially means SSM will not begin until people vote and decide if they want it. If and when the right-wing of Maine gets enough votes for the People's Veto to be put on the ballot, should we revert Maine's coloration on the map back to yellow and green? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No for WA. That is simply a domestic partnership of California's Prop 8. If it passes then we will do something, otherwise we have to ignore it. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
New Hampshire and Vermont have no proposed referendums on marriage or civil union statutes - Maine has a pending people's veto. States are much too liberal and the ability to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in NH and VT is very difficult, seeing (not 100% sure about VT) that you need the legislature to approve the ban first, and the legislatures implemented the same-sex marriage laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btleroy ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
However, this news site puts it well: http://www.wmtw.com/news/19506277/detail.html The burden right now is for the supporters of the people's veto to have enough signatures to put it on the ballot. Paraphrasing, this news page stipulates that the law won't be stayed UNTIL they say they've submitted the required amount of signatures. Then the secretary of state has 30 days to certify the signatures, and if they are, then the stay is continued until the election.
Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire will sign the "everything-but-marriage" bill into law on Monday 18th May, 2009 [10]. "I always put '(not DC)' to show Washington is a state!!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 12:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no constitutional ban on gay marriage in washington. solely a DOMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btleroy ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to do anything on Wikipedia! It's much to confusing! Feel free to delete this but I just wanted to make it known that there is an error on the image. I tried to figure out how to do this the right way - But I'm just not very computer literate. Sorry!!!!! Let's try the tilde thing Btleroy ( talk) 18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |