![]() | 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 | → | Archive 10 |
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12532.html
Maine should be reverted to its former striped form as this law may possibly never be activated, as there won't be Maine SSMs unless the people vote NO on their ballots Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I accordingly fixed back Maine. Side note: soon we will have to purple NH as the governor has said would sign a modified version of the SSM bill. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Guys, it seems the petition has not yet succeeded. Apparently the only thing that is different today is they have the official, master petition now, with which they will now start to collect signatures. Proof:
“ | Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap and staff from the Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions completed work today on the master petition for citizens wishing to reject the recently enacted law that would legalize same-sex unions.
[ . . . ] If an apparent number of signatures are turned in by the 90th day after adjournment. A stay is then put on the effectiveness of the law, and the secretary of atate has until 30 days after the 90 days after adjournment to certify the submitted signatures. If the secretary of state rules sufficient signatures have been affixed on the instrument of petition, the stay continues until after the voters decide on the question at a statewide election. |
” |
The article is explaining the petition process in detail. This implies to me that the process has not been completed, and the author intends to let the reader know what to expect in the future. There wouldn't be much point in explaining it if the petition process was completed and the people's veto was certified. It wastes valuable space when printed in a newspaper.
It has only been two weeks since that paperwork to start the people's veto campaign was filed. I think it's impossible to complete this petition process in just two weeks. I think Maine should be reverted to show that same-sex marriage is still currently expected to become legal. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently just realized that I misread the news. I thought I read something that said they had the signatures already, sorry about my edits. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Washington also needs to be reverted back please because of the filing of Referendum 71, just recently after the "everyting-but-marriage" or the proper name - Omnibus Domestic Partnership Resposibilities And Obligations Act 2009 got signed into law, by WA Gov Chris Gregoire [1] [2] [3].
I have argued in the above sections that Maine should not have been reverted to green/yellow, and that Washington should remain blue/yellow. Other people have made similar arguments elsewhere on this page. So I was bold and reverted Maine to what I think is its rightful state. But if there is still any strife, I invite a discussion on the question.
The current practice is, once a court decision or a law has officially created a certain legal situation in a state, the map reflects this, even if that legal situation is not actually in effect yet (see Colorado and Vermont). However, challenges to the legal situation have apparently been very rare, so it's not immediately clear how to handle the challenges to the legal situation in Maine and Washington.
Here is the most logical way of handling it, in my opinion: Challenges should only be reflected when those challenges have officially altered the legal situation. Otherwise, we are crystal-balling. Maine's and Washington's referendum petitions have not yet forced referendums. The new laws in each state have not yet been stayed. The legal situation in each state has not changed. So Maine should be purple, and Washington should be blue/yellow. They should remain this way unless and until the referendum petitions succeed.
I reached this conclusion after looking at how we handled California. This file was first created just two days after the In re Marriage Cases decision. The statutory ban on same-sex marriage had been ruled unconstitutional, but the ruling did not take effect for another month or so. Nevertheless, California was colored purple to show that same-sex marriage was legalized. This is how Iowa was treated, and this is how Vermont and Colorado are currently being treated.
Two challenges to the California Supreme Court's ruling happened subsequently: The court was asked to stay its ruling pending a vote by the people on the issue, and Proposition 8 qualified for the ballot. The map never changed. This is because the fact of the day did not change. Neither challenge altered the legal standing of the court's ruling. Things only changed when Proposition 8 passed. Only at this point was same-sex marriage officially banned.
Challenges to the legality of Proposition 8 were filed immediately after election day, and we still await a decision from the California Supreme Court on the question. Requests to delay the initiative's enforcement were also filed, but subsequently rejected. The fact that Proposition 8 is/was challenged does/did not render it ineffective. Same-sex marriage is/was still banned by the constitution for the time being. Because of this, California is blue/orange.
It's clear to me from how we treated California that we only consider challenges official when they have altered the legal situation. This has not happened yet in Maine or Washington. Until it does, or until I see that there is no consensus on this point, I will revert any improper changes to Maine or Washington if I notice any. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 09:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
How come New Hampshire is not purple and why? Same sex marriage passed the NH legislator seven times just in a month with ongoing amendments (relating to religion and religious freedoms), the map is currently wrong. Speaking of "referendums", is there one planned for Vermont? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The Californian decision on "prop 8" will be on Tuesday 5pm Pacific time.
I am preparing a file with the CA in purple on my computer in case it is needed (I hope it is needed) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have prepared the file. I will wake up earlier than usual tomorrow, and if need be, I will update it Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless the Federal Supreme Court decides to stay prop 8 (there is a new case in case you haven't heard), CA should remain the same way. The legal situation at the moment dictates that it needs to be striped orange, dark blue
Illinois should be blue/yellow on the map, because Illinois recently legalized civil unions [4] [5] [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 13:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have heard in several right-wing media quaters there is a proposal for a Consitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in Iowa - can that be confirmed or corrected? Iowa has had gay marriage for a month now, but for how long - Just like California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 04:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The New Hampshire Senate and Legislature have now approved same sex marriage. The governor has stated he will sign the bill, likely this evening. Please change New Hampshire to purple! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.121.42 ( talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090603/NEWSBLOG/906039907/-1/XML15
The New Hampshire legislature has passed the same-sex marriage bill today. Once the governor signs it into law, but no sooner, New Hampshire can be changed to show that same-sex marriage is legal there. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The governor has just signed same sex marriage into law. Someone can go ahead and change NH to purple. -- 128.135.121.42 ( talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
THe bill has been signed, please change New Hampshire purple. : ] -- cooljuno411 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is video of the signing: http://www.wmur.com/video/19648652/index.html -- 128.135.121.42 ( talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
On Monday 18th, May 2009 Governor Chris Gregoire signed the "everything-but-marriage" bill into law [7] [8]. In response, Referendum 71 (2009) was filed, which seeks to qualify for the November 2009 ballot. The measure would get rid and abolish the 2009 (stage 3) expansion, possibly delaying the law from taking effect in addition as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Nevada needs to be changed from Orange to blue/orange stripes because the NV legislator passed the Domestic Partnership Responsibilities Act 2009 [9]. Since 2002 Nevada has a Consitutional amendment banning marriage that does not consist of a "union between a man and a woman". The domestic partnership will not change that, it is the exact same as the Oregon and California models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.159.204 ( talk) 07:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. What color dot should the map use for DC? Ideally, the dot would have stripes of light blue (recognizes marriages performed elsewhere) and dark purple (grants rights similar to marriage). The problem being, of course, that the dot is small and would be difficult to show both, unless a box was made off to the side. Thoughts? Best, epicAdam( talk) 13:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
But Alaska isn't contiguous to the United States - D.C. is. I think it would look rather odd. -- haha169 ( talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Support for civil unions/foreign marriages isn't available, however. -- haha169 ( talk) 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I striped DC for the time being. If Maryland ever updates their DP laws, then DC will be hard to distinguish, but for the time being it works. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually I just realized, if MD updates its laws, the color order for yellow-blue is opposite the color order for yellow-green, meaning there should not be any DC confusion in such case
I know of a way to fix the problem with DC issue on the map - put a small white ring on the outside of the circle with the very nano and tiny blue/purple strip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it just a visual trick, or are Rhode Island and New Mexico different shades of grey? shouldn't they be the same?--
Found5dollar (
talk)
21:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that we have two shades of grey, this segment may confuse new talk page readers, so I am striking it out Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is Nevada a striped orange/blue color?, it should be a green/orange color because it has a FEW rights that come with the domestic partnership. Because the Gov. (Republican) vetoed the bill? Also if it was overridden by ONLY the Senate NOT THE HOUSE - For an override It HAS TO BE AGREEDED TO BY A MINIMUM OF THE 66PERCENT VOTES BY BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 03:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The New Hampshire House and Senate will vote next week on Thursday on a new bill called the Civil Marriage and Religious Business Protection Bill 2009 that will legalize same-sex marriage. Until then it stays yellow/blue on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The New Hampshire Legislature just passed the marriage bill (again) and it goes ot the Governor. Someone keep a close watch for if the Governor signs it soon for an update. See http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/06/breaking-nh-passes-marriage-equality-on-to-governor/ for source. DaveI ( talk) 20:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Wyoming recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. According to the Casper Star-Tribune, "Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states." However, this fact seems far from widely accepted; for example, the Human Rights Campaign either doesn't know about this or doesn't agree.
This was discussed before. The relevant discussion is now in the archives. But apparently no one took action. We should pursue what the official legal opinion is on this, and perhaps stripe Wyoming yellow and light blue if indeed this is true. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As a substantial amount of users have showed their support for a new map color design to replace the old one in the near future, I think it would be wise to base the new form of this map, as it's quite likely that Guam will enable same-sex civil unions by the end of the year, mainly due to the strong support throughout the senate. It wouldn't surprise me if Puerto Rico stepped up in the next few years as well, so it would be handy to have the islands already included in the map so we don't have to start from scratch if such occurs. I've read through the statutes throughout all the US territories on the map, and only Puerto Rico has a statutory ban on same-sex marriage. The others are in the same category as NY, NM, RI: No ban whatsoever, yet no same-sex marriage. I personally feel that it would be a worthy element on the map; especially since Washington DC is included. VoodooIsland ( talk) 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, this thing has needed some work for a while now, so I went ahead and took care of it. I've uploaded a new version to Commons, which I've included to the right. I've attempted to fix some of the concerns about color blindness. I realize the orange and red still pose a problem, but the categories are similar and the map is still much more usable than the current one.
I've also eliminated the distinction between various forms of civil unions because it was just causing clutter. Striped states have also been removed - even if a prohibition on marriage exists in the state, I think the more important information is that some sort of unions are recognized. The state recognition of foreign same-sex marriages is also gone. While both of these points are certainly information that should be included in a state-specific article, trying to cram them all onto one map was getting silly.
Finally, I've cleaned up the file for the map itself. Colorado and Oregon didn't even exist anymore - the borders were incomplete, meaning changing their color would have been difficult in an svg editor. I've also removed what appeared to be a bumch of random groupings. It should be easier to make changes from now on, although I've only tested it out in Illustrator. Those of you who edit the raw code will have to let me know how it looks, but changes can now be made with just an svg editor and the paint bucket. I've also added an outline to D.C. now that it and Maryland are both blue. Let me know what you think, and if consensus prefers it, I can upload it to replace the current map. Newsboy85 ( talk) 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because people use stripes doesn't make them a good idea. They're a leftover from when everything was printed in black and white. In any case, to the right, I've posted another version I think is superior to the current one, addressing your concern about the distinction between various forms of civil unions. I actually think this one may be even clearer. Newsboy85 ( talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is my proposed version. I based the color scheme on version 2, and I used the code from the original map, preserving the stripes. The recognition of foreign same-sex marriages is not shown. Also note that I show same-sex marriage to be legal in Maine. This is on purpose, and I have explained myself further down the page.
Here are my thoughts:
Please tell me what you think. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't chimed in yet but I regularly provide updates and answer questions on this and help people understand the complexity of the laws on in various states on this issue. As an soon to be attorney and lobbyist I have to say I think the long discussion here has come to the right point - which I why I didn't chime in until now. I think the red-blue gradation is good and I am 100% for keeping the positive AND negative rights on this map. the color scale helps convey all this information is pretty clear fashion and shows a reader the trouble/ease of the SSM movement in various states. Just offering my support - I don't do coding or anything so I can't help on that end. I just provide update requests and highlight when people provide misinformation here. DaveI ( talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | → | Archive 10 |
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12532.html
Maine should be reverted to its former striped form as this law may possibly never be activated, as there won't be Maine SSMs unless the people vote NO on their ballots Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I accordingly fixed back Maine. Side note: soon we will have to purple NH as the governor has said would sign a modified version of the SSM bill. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Guys, it seems the petition has not yet succeeded. Apparently the only thing that is different today is they have the official, master petition now, with which they will now start to collect signatures. Proof:
“ | Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap and staff from the Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions completed work today on the master petition for citizens wishing to reject the recently enacted law that would legalize same-sex unions.
[ . . . ] If an apparent number of signatures are turned in by the 90th day after adjournment. A stay is then put on the effectiveness of the law, and the secretary of atate has until 30 days after the 90 days after adjournment to certify the submitted signatures. If the secretary of state rules sufficient signatures have been affixed on the instrument of petition, the stay continues until after the voters decide on the question at a statewide election. |
” |
The article is explaining the petition process in detail. This implies to me that the process has not been completed, and the author intends to let the reader know what to expect in the future. There wouldn't be much point in explaining it if the petition process was completed and the people's veto was certified. It wastes valuable space when printed in a newspaper.
It has only been two weeks since that paperwork to start the people's veto campaign was filed. I think it's impossible to complete this petition process in just two weeks. I think Maine should be reverted to show that same-sex marriage is still currently expected to become legal. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently just realized that I misread the news. I thought I read something that said they had the signatures already, sorry about my edits. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Washington also needs to be reverted back please because of the filing of Referendum 71, just recently after the "everyting-but-marriage" or the proper name - Omnibus Domestic Partnership Resposibilities And Obligations Act 2009 got signed into law, by WA Gov Chris Gregoire [1] [2] [3].
I have argued in the above sections that Maine should not have been reverted to green/yellow, and that Washington should remain blue/yellow. Other people have made similar arguments elsewhere on this page. So I was bold and reverted Maine to what I think is its rightful state. But if there is still any strife, I invite a discussion on the question.
The current practice is, once a court decision or a law has officially created a certain legal situation in a state, the map reflects this, even if that legal situation is not actually in effect yet (see Colorado and Vermont). However, challenges to the legal situation have apparently been very rare, so it's not immediately clear how to handle the challenges to the legal situation in Maine and Washington.
Here is the most logical way of handling it, in my opinion: Challenges should only be reflected when those challenges have officially altered the legal situation. Otherwise, we are crystal-balling. Maine's and Washington's referendum petitions have not yet forced referendums. The new laws in each state have not yet been stayed. The legal situation in each state has not changed. So Maine should be purple, and Washington should be blue/yellow. They should remain this way unless and until the referendum petitions succeed.
I reached this conclusion after looking at how we handled California. This file was first created just two days after the In re Marriage Cases decision. The statutory ban on same-sex marriage had been ruled unconstitutional, but the ruling did not take effect for another month or so. Nevertheless, California was colored purple to show that same-sex marriage was legalized. This is how Iowa was treated, and this is how Vermont and Colorado are currently being treated.
Two challenges to the California Supreme Court's ruling happened subsequently: The court was asked to stay its ruling pending a vote by the people on the issue, and Proposition 8 qualified for the ballot. The map never changed. This is because the fact of the day did not change. Neither challenge altered the legal standing of the court's ruling. Things only changed when Proposition 8 passed. Only at this point was same-sex marriage officially banned.
Challenges to the legality of Proposition 8 were filed immediately after election day, and we still await a decision from the California Supreme Court on the question. Requests to delay the initiative's enforcement were also filed, but subsequently rejected. The fact that Proposition 8 is/was challenged does/did not render it ineffective. Same-sex marriage is/was still banned by the constitution for the time being. Because of this, California is blue/orange.
It's clear to me from how we treated California that we only consider challenges official when they have altered the legal situation. This has not happened yet in Maine or Washington. Until it does, or until I see that there is no consensus on this point, I will revert any improper changes to Maine or Washington if I notice any. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 09:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
How come New Hampshire is not purple and why? Same sex marriage passed the NH legislator seven times just in a month with ongoing amendments (relating to religion and religious freedoms), the map is currently wrong. Speaking of "referendums", is there one planned for Vermont? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The Californian decision on "prop 8" will be on Tuesday 5pm Pacific time.
I am preparing a file with the CA in purple on my computer in case it is needed (I hope it is needed) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have prepared the file. I will wake up earlier than usual tomorrow, and if need be, I will update it Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless the Federal Supreme Court decides to stay prop 8 (there is a new case in case you haven't heard), CA should remain the same way. The legal situation at the moment dictates that it needs to be striped orange, dark blue
Illinois should be blue/yellow on the map, because Illinois recently legalized civil unions [4] [5] [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 13:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have heard in several right-wing media quaters there is a proposal for a Consitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in Iowa - can that be confirmed or corrected? Iowa has had gay marriage for a month now, but for how long - Just like California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 04:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The New Hampshire Senate and Legislature have now approved same sex marriage. The governor has stated he will sign the bill, likely this evening. Please change New Hampshire to purple! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.121.42 ( talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090603/NEWSBLOG/906039907/-1/XML15
The New Hampshire legislature has passed the same-sex marriage bill today. Once the governor signs it into law, but no sooner, New Hampshire can be changed to show that same-sex marriage is legal there. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The governor has just signed same sex marriage into law. Someone can go ahead and change NH to purple. -- 128.135.121.42 ( talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
THe bill has been signed, please change New Hampshire purple. : ] -- cooljuno411 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is video of the signing: http://www.wmur.com/video/19648652/index.html -- 128.135.121.42 ( talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
On Monday 18th, May 2009 Governor Chris Gregoire signed the "everything-but-marriage" bill into law [7] [8]. In response, Referendum 71 (2009) was filed, which seeks to qualify for the November 2009 ballot. The measure would get rid and abolish the 2009 (stage 3) expansion, possibly delaying the law from taking effect in addition as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Nevada needs to be changed from Orange to blue/orange stripes because the NV legislator passed the Domestic Partnership Responsibilities Act 2009 [9]. Since 2002 Nevada has a Consitutional amendment banning marriage that does not consist of a "union between a man and a woman". The domestic partnership will not change that, it is the exact same as the Oregon and California models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.159.204 ( talk) 07:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. What color dot should the map use for DC? Ideally, the dot would have stripes of light blue (recognizes marriages performed elsewhere) and dark purple (grants rights similar to marriage). The problem being, of course, that the dot is small and would be difficult to show both, unless a box was made off to the side. Thoughts? Best, epicAdam( talk) 13:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
But Alaska isn't contiguous to the United States - D.C. is. I think it would look rather odd. -- haha169 ( talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Support for civil unions/foreign marriages isn't available, however. -- haha169 ( talk) 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I striped DC for the time being. If Maryland ever updates their DP laws, then DC will be hard to distinguish, but for the time being it works. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually I just realized, if MD updates its laws, the color order for yellow-blue is opposite the color order for yellow-green, meaning there should not be any DC confusion in such case
I know of a way to fix the problem with DC issue on the map - put a small white ring on the outside of the circle with the very nano and tiny blue/purple strip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it just a visual trick, or are Rhode Island and New Mexico different shades of grey? shouldn't they be the same?--
Found5dollar (
talk)
21:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that we have two shades of grey, this segment may confuse new talk page readers, so I am striking it out Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is Nevada a striped orange/blue color?, it should be a green/orange color because it has a FEW rights that come with the domestic partnership. Because the Gov. (Republican) vetoed the bill? Also if it was overridden by ONLY the Senate NOT THE HOUSE - For an override It HAS TO BE AGREEDED TO BY A MINIMUM OF THE 66PERCENT VOTES BY BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 03:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The New Hampshire House and Senate will vote next week on Thursday on a new bill called the Civil Marriage and Religious Business Protection Bill 2009 that will legalize same-sex marriage. Until then it stays yellow/blue on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 03:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The New Hampshire Legislature just passed the marriage bill (again) and it goes ot the Governor. Someone keep a close watch for if the Governor signs it soon for an update. See http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/06/breaking-nh-passes-marriage-equality-on-to-governor/ for source. DaveI ( talk) 20:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Wyoming recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. According to the Casper Star-Tribune, "Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states." However, this fact seems far from widely accepted; for example, the Human Rights Campaign either doesn't know about this or doesn't agree.
This was discussed before. The relevant discussion is now in the archives. But apparently no one took action. We should pursue what the official legal opinion is on this, and perhaps stripe Wyoming yellow and light blue if indeed this is true. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As a substantial amount of users have showed their support for a new map color design to replace the old one in the near future, I think it would be wise to base the new form of this map, as it's quite likely that Guam will enable same-sex civil unions by the end of the year, mainly due to the strong support throughout the senate. It wouldn't surprise me if Puerto Rico stepped up in the next few years as well, so it would be handy to have the islands already included in the map so we don't have to start from scratch if such occurs. I've read through the statutes throughout all the US territories on the map, and only Puerto Rico has a statutory ban on same-sex marriage. The others are in the same category as NY, NM, RI: No ban whatsoever, yet no same-sex marriage. I personally feel that it would be a worthy element on the map; especially since Washington DC is included. VoodooIsland ( talk) 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, this thing has needed some work for a while now, so I went ahead and took care of it. I've uploaded a new version to Commons, which I've included to the right. I've attempted to fix some of the concerns about color blindness. I realize the orange and red still pose a problem, but the categories are similar and the map is still much more usable than the current one.
I've also eliminated the distinction between various forms of civil unions because it was just causing clutter. Striped states have also been removed - even if a prohibition on marriage exists in the state, I think the more important information is that some sort of unions are recognized. The state recognition of foreign same-sex marriages is also gone. While both of these points are certainly information that should be included in a state-specific article, trying to cram them all onto one map was getting silly.
Finally, I've cleaned up the file for the map itself. Colorado and Oregon didn't even exist anymore - the borders were incomplete, meaning changing their color would have been difficult in an svg editor. I've also removed what appeared to be a bumch of random groupings. It should be easier to make changes from now on, although I've only tested it out in Illustrator. Those of you who edit the raw code will have to let me know how it looks, but changes can now be made with just an svg editor and the paint bucket. I've also added an outline to D.C. now that it and Maryland are both blue. Let me know what you think, and if consensus prefers it, I can upload it to replace the current map. Newsboy85 ( talk) 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because people use stripes doesn't make them a good idea. They're a leftover from when everything was printed in black and white. In any case, to the right, I've posted another version I think is superior to the current one, addressing your concern about the distinction between various forms of civil unions. I actually think this one may be even clearer. Newsboy85 ( talk) 20:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is my proposed version. I based the color scheme on version 2, and I used the code from the original map, preserving the stripes. The recognition of foreign same-sex marriages is not shown. Also note that I show same-sex marriage to be legal in Maine. This is on purpose, and I have explained myself further down the page.
Here are my thoughts:
Please tell me what you think. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't chimed in yet but I regularly provide updates and answer questions on this and help people understand the complexity of the laws on in various states on this issue. As an soon to be attorney and lobbyist I have to say I think the long discussion here has come to the right point - which I why I didn't chime in until now. I think the red-blue gradation is good and I am 100% for keeping the positive AND negative rights on this map. the color scale helps convey all this information is pretty clear fashion and shows a reader the trouble/ease of the SSM movement in various states. Just offering my support - I don't do coding or anything so I can't help on that end. I just provide update requests and highlight when people provide misinformation here. DaveI ( talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)