![]() | 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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Sorry to bring up the DC thing again -- but the next iteration of this map should put a thin white outline around the DC dot to differentiate it from the MD striping and the two blue tones that are currently touching but are different colors. This is the style used the outline states throughout the map -- so should be non-controversial and allow better clarity. 65.196.160.129 ( talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Although home rule allows congressional overview of laws passed by the DC council, both Republicans and Democrats have indicated that a congressional review of the new law is unlikely, considering how much is on their plates right now. Mayor Fenty has promised to sign the bill into law. Therefore I don't think it would be too presumptuous to change DC to dark blue (with a white outline around it). -- Wbush89 ( talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
According to information stated on Advocate.com, the group trying to overturn the domestic partnership law submitted their signatures to put it on a ballot. Because of this, the law has been put on hold. So it may be considered to change the color of Washington- for the time being- until we have an invalidation of the signatures or a result from the November election. Yankhill ( talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Can go to this site for information: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid102466.asp OR Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Washington
The sigs have yet to be verified. Initiatives tend get a lot of invalid signatures. The Washington state government folks need to process these signatures to see how many are valid. It wouldn't be a surprise if proLGBT groups gave fake signatures (i.e. John Doe, 123 Fake St., Seattle WA) on these horrid referenda. Those kinds of action (which I personally find noble) are illegal and they throw off the initiatives invalidated hundreds or thousands of signatures. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: I have been monitoring news activity on this on a daily basis.
[1] Given their current error rate, assuming erroneous signatures are uniformly distributed throughout, it is quite possible that this will not make the ballot, I will be checking this on a daily basis. If it turns out they do have enough signatures, I will lighten the stripes quickly. I do not know how to add a ballot box icon to any state, so someone else will have to do that part
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
[3]. Ignore the strucken portions of my prior statement. They changed the math (literally), so now it isn't very clear if this initiative will actually occur or not. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am getting the feeling that Template:SSM is not very active anymore, so I will bring the matter of Coquille to this map talk. Coquille, Oregon has recently enacted a same-sex marriage law that went into effect yesterday. Because Coquille is an Indian Tribe recognized as sovereign by the federal government, Coquille is legally allowed to perform same-sex marriages. Should we put a dot on the tribal lands as we did with DC? -- haha169 ( talk) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Support for the purple dot. I support Coquille as a purple dot on the map in Oregon. Remember Oregon bans same-sex marriages in the Consitution since 2004. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.148.207.230 (
talk)
15:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The map currently distinguishes four kinds of recognition of same-sex relationships:
In the proposed replacement map, the four-tone scheme has been condensed into three. This makes the whole thing more symmetrical. And it gets rid of the problem that no four shades of blue are different enough from each other, and also from gray, to keep the map legible.
Clearly, however, one of the classes of recognition of same-sex relationships had to be discarded. In the currently proposed replacement, the "foreign" class is gone. So the scheme is marriage/similar/limited. But I think some others have proposed getting rid of the distinction between similar and limited unions, creating a marriage/union/foreign distinction. I think it's worth discussing the benefits and drawbacks of both schemes, and which one we prefer.
One issue to be decided is which option better reveals the important information. Do we want to show the viewer that NY and DC both recognize foreign same-sex marriages, unlike RI and NM? Since DOMA allows states to elect to recognize other states' same-sex marriages, I think this is important information. Or it more important that OR, CA, WA, NH, and NJ grant more substantial rights with their civil unions or domestic partnerships than HI, CO, and MD do? Some people seem to find this distinction important. Case in point, some in Washington are challenging the new "everything-but-marriage" domestic partner law on the grounds that it's too similar to marriage.
Another problem concerns DC. With the former option, marriage/similar/limited, DC would be solid medium blue. With the latter, marriage/union/foreign, DC would be striped. Some technical workarounds have been discussed to allow stripes. The questions we want to ask ourselves are: Do we want to let the technical problems determine for us which information to show in the first place? Do we want to decide what's best for the overall map, and then fix the technical difficulties it causes for DC for accuracy's sake? Or do we want to forget accuracy in DC's case and simply make an exception?
Personally, I suggest marriage/union/foreign for the following reasons:
I recognize that this introduces technical issues for DC, but I reject the idea of letting those issues defeat us. These issues ought to be separate from the overall question of which information to show in the first place. We can work out a solution separately from this discussion.
Thoughts? — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 07:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally love this map: VoodooIsland ( talk) 20:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the map and legend I see on the left. There should be distinctions between enumerated rights and separate but (un)equal rights. We should just use a new shade of grey for DC & NY. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
My proposal. I added a new shade of grey for foreign marriages. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That page has been fixed Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, everyone, and the help with implementation. I think the new map is a definite immprovement. Here's to the day we don't need stripes (or shades of red) anymore. Newsboy85 ( talk) 06:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
http://lezgetreal.com/?p=13899
it is not for sure whether or not foreign SSMs will be recognized in MD, but if they are, we will need someone to triple stripe Maryland Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Just about technicalities: If the AG does make the state recognize foreign same-sex marriages, then we're screwed. There is no way that three colored stripes could be implemented with the current stripe thickness without making the DC area and MD area look like a rainbow. -- haha169 ( talk) 02:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, what should be done about the mentioned four states when the time comes to agree on a new map? Those four states ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships; with Michigan and Virginia going even farther to ban all forms of private contracts between members of the same-sex. I feel that this is an important distinction to make, especially if the proposed domestic partnership bill is passed in Wisconsin, as I'm sure that quite a few people will be scratching their heads when they see Wisconsin striped (if we use stripes) with a domestic partnership stripe and a "constitution bans all kinds of same-sex unions." Only Michigan, Virginia, South Dakota, and Nebraska truly do this: though the list could grow if the Supreme Court interprets a ban in the same fashion as Michigan. Several other courts in various different states have also ruled that their ballot bans did not limit domestic partnerships, which was the case in Utah and Wisconsin. Either way, I feel that the current titling of the red-colored ban is very misleading, and could perhaps be changed to "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and civil unions," while the proposed color for Michigan, Virginia, South Dakota and Nebraska could be "Constitution bans all forms of same-sex unions." VoodooIsland ( talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I should note that there is no consensus on Wikipedia, or elsewhere, that I know of that says SD and NE have bans similar to those in MI and VA. This is why the map showing the types of constitutional bans all the states have (to the right) only shows MI and VA as having the most restrictive bans. It's also why the relevant article treats the issue similarly. The issue has been discussed on the relevant article's talk page. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
i think that we should have a new color (black) for states banning domestic partnerships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth maker ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the color scheme would be better if the colors used for similar rights unions and foreign marriage were switched because this is a primarily marriage map so any form of accepted marriage should be above civil unions. please camment The truth maker ( talk) 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This is just a note that I have been bold and changed the English legend on Commons (and {{ Samesex marriage in USA map}} on en.wiki) to read "Out-of-state" instead of "foreign" (more accurate wording). New York and D.C. (effective tomorrow) recognize all out-of-state SSM's, not only foreign SSM's. I will not edit war if someone reverts this, but leaving a note here in case anyone objects. Wikignome0529 ( talk) 03:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Foreign jurisdiction is the probably the clearest we can get. Also, out of state wouldn't work. DC is not a state. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized Does that work? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering that other languages seems not to have had the same ambiguity that the English legend had, I don't think we have to get a translator to fix the other languages. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wonder, now that we have adopted a colorblind Wikipedian-friendly color scheme, the next big improvement for the map would be to try to add the territories to the map. Does anyone know how this can be done? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I copied that code, except from another map ( File:United States Administrative Divisions.svg). Striping may eventually be necessary in the future. I am not sure if we need it at the time being. I am still looking into the SSM laws for the territories, so I can now which class to put each of them into on the svg coding. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I need someone to find out the laws in American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Puerto Rico and Guam were relatively easy to find out, but I can't find the legal situations in the aforementioned territories Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The black ones are American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. They are black because they have not been assigned a class Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Great! Now all we need to do is get the information for the US Virgin Islands and the territory map will be good to go. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
After doing some wikireading it appears VI does not have any constitution, so I will look out to see if they have any statutes. It looks like VI will either be grey or be pink Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead an update the main map with territories as no one seemed to opposed the idea of adding them Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I know that the colors were changed to help red-green colorblind people read the map, but it makes it harder for everyone else! Can't we display the original map and include a link underneath it for colorblind people? 96.233.145.220 ( talk)
I'm going to agree with the IP on this one. The new map is really pretty terrible. It actually makes my eyes hurt if I look at it for a few seconds, and the different shades of blue are particularly hard to tell apart. Making changes to help colourblind people is a good thing, but not at the expense of readability. Can we get a consensus to revert to the old one until we come up with something better? Firestorm Talk 22:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The consensus was to change it to these colors. I don't think there is anything wrong with the current scheme Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Current scheme SSM
Unions similar
Unions limited
Foreign SSM
No specific prohibition or recognition
Statute bans SSM
Constitution bans SSM
Constitution bans SSM and other
|
shades changed:
|
There were way more than three people involved in the decision to use this color scheme. Look at the extensive number of users who participated in the discussion above. Anyways, I am soon going to update the map to include the territories (see the discussion above), please try to keep them on the map if you attempt a revert war Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to the question of what exactly makes my eyes hurt, its the striping on California, Nevada and Colorado. that red/blue striping contrasts really weird and I can't look at it for long. The other striped states I can look at just fine. I do have somewhat of a red-green weakness (but not full-on RG colourblindness), but i'm not sure if that's a valid possibility as to why that happens. Firestorm Talk 03:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In defense of the old map, the old color scheme was NOT arbitrary. The colors used went in the order of colors on the rainbow: red meaning the most repressive restrictions on same-sex relationships to violet meaning full marriage rights. Hot colors were restrictions and cool colors were rights granted. 96.233.145.220 ( talk)
California, Oregon and Nevada are extremely difficult to look at and give me a headache. Please consider changing the shades of red/blue slightly so that I can actually look at these states for more than 5 seconds. By darkening the shades of red, this could be easily fixed. -- 68.184.215.186 ( talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with what's been said above. Looking at this map, specifically the West Coast, is really painful to my eyes. 75.82.129.74 ( talk) 10:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
With more and more same-sex partnership laws being placed on the books, and other states poised to recognize them, things are going to get very hairy very quickly. We should have two maps: one that shows legalized same-sex relationships and another that shows prohibitions on same-sex relationships. 96.233.145.220 ( talk)
Wisconsin might soon allow domestic partners 50 percent of the rights and responsibilities of married couples, because the Wisconsin legislators recently passed the Budget Considerations And Domestic Partnerships Act 2009 - Even though the Wisconsin Constitution clearly outlaws them anyway!
The text of the Wisconsin Constitution are as follows:
Marriage. SECTION 13. [As created Nov. 2006] Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. [2003 J.R. 29, 2005 J.R. 30, vote Nov. 2006] Same−Sex Divorce and Wisconsin Courts: Imperfect Harmony? Thorson. 92 MLR 617. [10]
So very clearly all marriages, civil unions AND domestic partnerships are ILLEGAL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.61.118.3 ( talk) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state Well it can be argued that such act does not make an legal status SUBSTANTIALLY similar to marriage, but just a new intermediate status. If said act becomes law, Wisconsin will become light blue - dark red striped (and probably a bigger eyesore that the west coast)
This color scheme is just plain awfull. Can we revert to the old one? It literally hurts the eyes to look at the map-- Kdebem ( talk) 02:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Keeping the limited blue is necessary in order to distinguish cases where CUs/DPs are almost equal to marriage versus where they are not close to marriage. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
What was wrong with the old maps with yellow, purple and red etc. We could edit the other maps of the world in that color scheme too. This was is simply unberable to look at, and it makes anything but clear what is happening in CA, NV etc. Can we revert to the old color scheme? PLEASE?!-- Kdebem ( talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I too was initially bothered by the change in the image, although I at least partially understand the purpose behind it. I find the western coast to be a bit of an eyesore due to the stripe issue, as others have already pointed out. After thinking about it for a bit, I think the reason so many are complaining about the map is due to the amount of red used in the image. Red is often found to be an alarming, distressing color, yet it's the color that's dominating the map. Frankly, I think it makes people want to look away. For this map to be useful, it must first be inviting. People must feel comfortable looking at it.
I understand that color-blindness is an issue, but have we considered using a different combination of colors? Perhaps replacing the red with green? Green and blue are colors often used on maps to distinguish land from water, and I believe this would still be readable by those with red-green colorblindness. Additionally, both of these colors are "cool", creating less of a contrast on the striped states. Thoughts? I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert when it comes to this sort of thing, and it's far past my bedtime at the moment, but I thought I'd at least try to throw some ideas out there. — MearsMan talk 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Current scheme: SSM
Unions similar
Unions limited
Foreign SSM
No specific prohibition or recognition
Statute bans SSM
Constitution bans SSM
Constitution bans SSM and other
|
Proposed scheme:
|
Darkening the shades of red even the slightest bit would help relieve the great stress caused by looking at the West Coast. -- 128.135.224.106 ( talk) 07:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The color scheme on the map currently states that Wisconsin bans same-sex marriage and other forms of unions. Yet, it legalized limited partnerships in its new budget. Isn't there a conflict here? -- haha169 ( talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
DP law goes in effect 8/3/2009, not 7/1/2009 http://fairwisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-rep-mark-pocan-wisconsin-becomes.html Gavino ( talk) 01:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Delaware and Minnesota should be light blue with pink stripes because those 2 states have 4 rights out of 345 rights - so intern very very few rights for same-sex couples. For example hospital visitation rights, parentage/adoption rights, health benefits and rights in Insurance claims.
Please let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 16:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4047 http://cbs5.com/politics/gay.marriage.bill.2.1070021.html http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/09-18 http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=a45b1e80-7c72-4151-9035-0c69f25312a4 http://www.tips-q.com/news/msm/1125412-new-bill-addresses-status-out-state-same-sex-marriage-ca
Considering that both Californian houses passed resolutions condemning prop 8, it would seem unlikely that this bill would not pass. Assuming it does get to Arnold's desk and he does sign it, this means any SSM performed anywhere before the November 4th election would be recognized by the state of California. Furthermore, it stipulates that any SSM performed on or after November 4th would be recognized, except the state couldn't call it a marriage (i.e. they are legally married but it is not called marriage, nor is it called a domestic partnership). If this passes, we really will need a triple stripe, or we will need to give California its own color and give a caption entry explaining the situation. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My point isn't about those marriages. My point is, if a same-sex couple got married anywhere anytime after November, they could come to California and their marriage would be recognized in all the legal senses, but the state would not be allowed to call it marriage. This is essentially the same as recognizing OoS marriages.
This bill does not specifically talk about CU/DPs at all. It just says that OoS postNov SSMs need to be treated as marriages, but can't be called marriages due to the prop8-induced mess Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
My thought is that if this passes the legislature (which is likely) and gets signed by Arnold (likely-hood of which is unknown), there are two possible solutions
OR
Yes, Californian law is extremely screwed up, we have a retarded constitution, making a new initiative law is pretty much just as easy as passing a new amendment (other than needing more signatures). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually well the DP stripes should stay (as the DPs are unaffected), it is the marriage laws that are confounding. Anyways, here is where the bill information can be found http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_54&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leno
I just read an article saying that it will be going to the Assembly floor before the Senate floor [13]. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
yea because this bill used to be a healthcare bill that has been completely overhauled Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.outinhollywood.com/home/news.asp?articleid=33591
Passed the Assembly, pending in the senate, then Arnold will either sign it or veto it. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
[15] SB 54 is on Arnold's desk Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the People's Veto will make the ballot. Once the SoS confirms the signature, we will have to revert Maine back to enumerated/statuteban stripes, as the PV will block the SSM bill from taking effect. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If and when the people's veto appears on the Maine 11/09 election page [17], I will revert Maine to the lightest blue lightest pink setting. I do not know how to make a ballot box, someone else will have to put ballot boxes where they are necessary. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
the ref. will take place so some one should change maine the way they did washington
Not until the ballot initiative has its sigs verified and is put on the Maine SOS elections page. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyways, R71 made the ballot [18], meaning that same-sex couples will not be getting the same rights as married couples in Washington unless Washington votes APPROVE this referendum (yes it is confusing, instead having to vote "no" to defend gays like in CA, you must vote "yes/Approve"). If someone can get a ballot box onto Washington that would be great. Soon we will need a ballot box for Maine too (as it extremely likely that Maine will be facing a Prop 8 equivalent), so if anyone could get those done, that would be great.
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
ATM, R71 is about to be certified and right now the law is being stayed anyways so the image is currently accurate. There most likely will be a court-battle, but it is likely that they will still stay the law (unlike prop8, R71 can have retroactive effect as it is "upgrading" an institution instead of opening the door to another insitution, so even if it the law is let take effect, if the anti-gay lobby wins the law is removed and no legacy of it will remain) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
1 May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet.
2 The bill that legalized same-sex marriage in Maine, has been stayed and will be subjected to voter approval on November 3rd, 2009
3 The bill that gave DPs all the rights of married couples in Washington, has been stayed and will be subjected to voter approval on November 3rd, 2009
We need to translate these notes into other languages Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Read File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Can_of_Californian_worms if you haven't already.
A bill SB 54 is on Arnold's desk.
If he signs this, it will mean two things:
-A same-sex marriage performed anywhere will be recognized in California IF it was performed before 11/5/08
-A same-sex marriage performed anywhere will be given all the rights of marriage, except no one would be legally obliged to describe it as a marriage, IF it was performed on/after 11/5/08
It was proposed that California's prop 8 stripes would be become black, and the caption would say something of the sort:
"California's laws regarding same-sex marriage are complicated, please see
Same-sex marriage in California"
Is anyone opposed to doing this?
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
[20] This source says he has 12 days, but the bill still has to be enrolled by the house clerk, so I believe it has yet to reach his desk. Thegreyanomaly ( talk)
I believe it still is in the process of enrollment then. There hasn't been any new news on the issue since it passed the senate. Also, if Congress passes the Respect for Marriage Act, this bill will be much more important than it is right now. Assuming Arnold signs the bill, SSCs in California would have two options to get the rights of married couples (to get a DP or to get marriage somewhere else). If the Respect for Marriage Act passes through Congress, SSCs in California who married after prop 8, will still get de facto recognition from the state and will get complete recognition from the federal government (rendering California DPs pointless). A while ago, I remember reading an article that said this bill would allow gays to snub the domestic partnership system
(SSC = same-sex couple)
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
[22] They say it is at Arnold's desk. Assuming he got it yesterday, he has until about the 9th to sign it. I search "SB 54 marriage" on google news daily, if anything changes I will post the link and update the image if necessary. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
[23] Assuming weekends count, Arnold has until Wednesday at 10:30 to sign or veto the bill. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, on a side note, he will also have to act on the Harvey Milk Day bill by 1:00 pm that same day. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
NVM, Sunday/Monday seems right [24]. Apparently he has like 700 bills on his desk... Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
SB 54 has been signed. http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2248216.html Newsboy85 ( talk) 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I updated the map, and the template associated with it. We need someone to go to create translations for all other languages and to update the image on all other wikis Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I did a French translation. Correct it if necessary Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Although not a Supreme Court case, and almost definitely going to be appealed, but a judge has seemingly invalidated the constitutional ban in Texas. [25] [26] -- haha169 ( talk) 03:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It is going to the TX supreme court, so we should wait until they make a ruling to change the map. Reverting image Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I figured we should make standardized rules to dictate how to appropriately stripe.
Here are my proposals, please tell me what you think. (in order to make this easier to read, I am treating DC and the territories as states)
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Basically, the map follows all of my propositions as it currently. Two shades of the same color means, for example, that a state has two different types of blue stripes or two different types of red stripes (e.g. having both intermediate blue and light blue) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to anything other than California? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The new law does not have the words domestic partnerships anywhere in it. There is another discussion above on this matter and I updated the map originally because other than Hekerui no one seemed to oppose. SSMs performed after prop 8 are given all the state-level rights of marriage, just not the name. Because Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment that allows the legislature to define marriage, the legislature's definition of marriage is an ordinary statute; it is quite clear an amendment like that does not merit red stripes, because the only thing actually banning SSM there is that statute, something which the legislature could easily overturn if they ever come around. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Cross these off as they are completed
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
21:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
the black makes California look like ssm is legal may i suggest making it solid since we are referring people to another page anyway? The truth maker ( talk) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Solid black is problematic, because SB 54 has nothing to do with domestic partnerships. Removing the blue stripes creates greater confusion, implying that the state does not have DPs. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. User:Thegreyanomaly made a change to the map showing that D.C. will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and added a note stating the unique feature that the law could be overturned by Congress (not just the House of Representatives). I removed this note for the following reasons: The situation involving D.C. laws is complicated and the fact that Congress could intervene is not specific to the District new marriage law. In reality, Congress could pass any legislation in regards to the District of Columbia at any time; they could even pass a law tomorrow that would dissolve the District's government entirely. In that sense, the extra mention is a bit premature. Indeed, we could even add a caveat to this map that says that Congress could still pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages that would invalidate laws in the states that currently issues licenses. That's just as much of a possibility (and has actually gained much more traction than D.C.-specific legislation). My point is that until Congress actually takes some concrete action to alter same-sex marriage in the District, anything we say is completely hypothetical and difficult to explain in a small map legend. Best, 72.83.78.60 ( talk) 06:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, point taken Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | 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 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Sorry to bring up the DC thing again -- but the next iteration of this map should put a thin white outline around the DC dot to differentiate it from the MD striping and the two blue tones that are currently touching but are different colors. This is the style used the outline states throughout the map -- so should be non-controversial and allow better clarity. 65.196.160.129 ( talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Although home rule allows congressional overview of laws passed by the DC council, both Republicans and Democrats have indicated that a congressional review of the new law is unlikely, considering how much is on their plates right now. Mayor Fenty has promised to sign the bill into law. Therefore I don't think it would be too presumptuous to change DC to dark blue (with a white outline around it). -- Wbush89 ( talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
According to information stated on Advocate.com, the group trying to overturn the domestic partnership law submitted their signatures to put it on a ballot. Because of this, the law has been put on hold. So it may be considered to change the color of Washington- for the time being- until we have an invalidation of the signatures or a result from the November election. Yankhill ( talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Can go to this site for information: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid102466.asp OR Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Washington
The sigs have yet to be verified. Initiatives tend get a lot of invalid signatures. The Washington state government folks need to process these signatures to see how many are valid. It wouldn't be a surprise if proLGBT groups gave fake signatures (i.e. John Doe, 123 Fake St., Seattle WA) on these horrid referenda. Those kinds of action (which I personally find noble) are illegal and they throw off the initiatives invalidated hundreds or thousands of signatures. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: I have been monitoring news activity on this on a daily basis.
[1] Given their current error rate, assuming erroneous signatures are uniformly distributed throughout, it is quite possible that this will not make the ballot, I will be checking this on a daily basis. If it turns out they do have enough signatures, I will lighten the stripes quickly. I do not know how to add a ballot box icon to any state, so someone else will have to do that part
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
[3]. Ignore the strucken portions of my prior statement. They changed the math (literally), so now it isn't very clear if this initiative will actually occur or not. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am getting the feeling that Template:SSM is not very active anymore, so I will bring the matter of Coquille to this map talk. Coquille, Oregon has recently enacted a same-sex marriage law that went into effect yesterday. Because Coquille is an Indian Tribe recognized as sovereign by the federal government, Coquille is legally allowed to perform same-sex marriages. Should we put a dot on the tribal lands as we did with DC? -- haha169 ( talk) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Support for the purple dot. I support Coquille as a purple dot on the map in Oregon. Remember Oregon bans same-sex marriages in the Consitution since 2004. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
122.148.207.230 (
talk)
15:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The map currently distinguishes four kinds of recognition of same-sex relationships:
In the proposed replacement map, the four-tone scheme has been condensed into three. This makes the whole thing more symmetrical. And it gets rid of the problem that no four shades of blue are different enough from each other, and also from gray, to keep the map legible.
Clearly, however, one of the classes of recognition of same-sex relationships had to be discarded. In the currently proposed replacement, the "foreign" class is gone. So the scheme is marriage/similar/limited. But I think some others have proposed getting rid of the distinction between similar and limited unions, creating a marriage/union/foreign distinction. I think it's worth discussing the benefits and drawbacks of both schemes, and which one we prefer.
One issue to be decided is which option better reveals the important information. Do we want to show the viewer that NY and DC both recognize foreign same-sex marriages, unlike RI and NM? Since DOMA allows states to elect to recognize other states' same-sex marriages, I think this is important information. Or it more important that OR, CA, WA, NH, and NJ grant more substantial rights with their civil unions or domestic partnerships than HI, CO, and MD do? Some people seem to find this distinction important. Case in point, some in Washington are challenging the new "everything-but-marriage" domestic partner law on the grounds that it's too similar to marriage.
Another problem concerns DC. With the former option, marriage/similar/limited, DC would be solid medium blue. With the latter, marriage/union/foreign, DC would be striped. Some technical workarounds have been discussed to allow stripes. The questions we want to ask ourselves are: Do we want to let the technical problems determine for us which information to show in the first place? Do we want to decide what's best for the overall map, and then fix the technical difficulties it causes for DC for accuracy's sake? Or do we want to forget accuracy in DC's case and simply make an exception?
Personally, I suggest marriage/union/foreign for the following reasons:
I recognize that this introduces technical issues for DC, but I reject the idea of letting those issues defeat us. These issues ought to be separate from the overall question of which information to show in the first place. We can work out a solution separately from this discussion.
Thoughts? — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 07:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally love this map: VoodooIsland ( talk) 20:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the map and legend I see on the left. There should be distinctions between enumerated rights and separate but (un)equal rights. We should just use a new shade of grey for DC & NY. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
My proposal. I added a new shade of grey for foreign marriages. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That page has been fixed Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, everyone, and the help with implementation. I think the new map is a definite immprovement. Here's to the day we don't need stripes (or shades of red) anymore. Newsboy85 ( talk) 06:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
http://lezgetreal.com/?p=13899
it is not for sure whether or not foreign SSMs will be recognized in MD, but if they are, we will need someone to triple stripe Maryland Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Just about technicalities: If the AG does make the state recognize foreign same-sex marriages, then we're screwed. There is no way that three colored stripes could be implemented with the current stripe thickness without making the DC area and MD area look like a rainbow. -- haha169 ( talk) 02:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, what should be done about the mentioned four states when the time comes to agree on a new map? Those four states ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships; with Michigan and Virginia going even farther to ban all forms of private contracts between members of the same-sex. I feel that this is an important distinction to make, especially if the proposed domestic partnership bill is passed in Wisconsin, as I'm sure that quite a few people will be scratching their heads when they see Wisconsin striped (if we use stripes) with a domestic partnership stripe and a "constitution bans all kinds of same-sex unions." Only Michigan, Virginia, South Dakota, and Nebraska truly do this: though the list could grow if the Supreme Court interprets a ban in the same fashion as Michigan. Several other courts in various different states have also ruled that their ballot bans did not limit domestic partnerships, which was the case in Utah and Wisconsin. Either way, I feel that the current titling of the red-colored ban is very misleading, and could perhaps be changed to "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and civil unions," while the proposed color for Michigan, Virginia, South Dakota and Nebraska could be "Constitution bans all forms of same-sex unions." VoodooIsland ( talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I should note that there is no consensus on Wikipedia, or elsewhere, that I know of that says SD and NE have bans similar to those in MI and VA. This is why the map showing the types of constitutional bans all the states have (to the right) only shows MI and VA as having the most restrictive bans. It's also why the relevant article treats the issue similarly. The issue has been discussed on the relevant article's talk page. — Athelwulf [T]/ [C] 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
i think that we should have a new color (black) for states banning domestic partnerships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth maker ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the color scheme would be better if the colors used for similar rights unions and foreign marriage were switched because this is a primarily marriage map so any form of accepted marriage should be above civil unions. please camment The truth maker ( talk) 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This is just a note that I have been bold and changed the English legend on Commons (and {{ Samesex marriage in USA map}} on en.wiki) to read "Out-of-state" instead of "foreign" (more accurate wording). New York and D.C. (effective tomorrow) recognize all out-of-state SSM's, not only foreign SSM's. I will not edit war if someone reverts this, but leaving a note here in case anyone objects. Wikignome0529 ( talk) 03:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Foreign jurisdiction is the probably the clearest we can get. Also, out of state wouldn't work. DC is not a state. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized Does that work? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering that other languages seems not to have had the same ambiguity that the English legend had, I don't think we have to get a translator to fix the other languages. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wonder, now that we have adopted a colorblind Wikipedian-friendly color scheme, the next big improvement for the map would be to try to add the territories to the map. Does anyone know how this can be done? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I copied that code, except from another map ( File:United States Administrative Divisions.svg). Striping may eventually be necessary in the future. I am not sure if we need it at the time being. I am still looking into the SSM laws for the territories, so I can now which class to put each of them into on the svg coding. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I need someone to find out the laws in American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Puerto Rico and Guam were relatively easy to find out, but I can't find the legal situations in the aforementioned territories Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The black ones are American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. They are black because they have not been assigned a class Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Great! Now all we need to do is get the information for the US Virgin Islands and the territory map will be good to go. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
After doing some wikireading it appears VI does not have any constitution, so I will look out to see if they have any statutes. It looks like VI will either be grey or be pink Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead an update the main map with territories as no one seemed to opposed the idea of adding them Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I know that the colors were changed to help red-green colorblind people read the map, but it makes it harder for everyone else! Can't we display the original map and include a link underneath it for colorblind people? 96.233.145.220 ( talk)
I'm going to agree with the IP on this one. The new map is really pretty terrible. It actually makes my eyes hurt if I look at it for a few seconds, and the different shades of blue are particularly hard to tell apart. Making changes to help colourblind people is a good thing, but not at the expense of readability. Can we get a consensus to revert to the old one until we come up with something better? Firestorm Talk 22:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The consensus was to change it to these colors. I don't think there is anything wrong with the current scheme Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Current scheme SSM
Unions similar
Unions limited
Foreign SSM
No specific prohibition or recognition
Statute bans SSM
Constitution bans SSM
Constitution bans SSM and other
|
shades changed:
|
There were way more than three people involved in the decision to use this color scheme. Look at the extensive number of users who participated in the discussion above. Anyways, I am soon going to update the map to include the territories (see the discussion above), please try to keep them on the map if you attempt a revert war Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to the question of what exactly makes my eyes hurt, its the striping on California, Nevada and Colorado. that red/blue striping contrasts really weird and I can't look at it for long. The other striped states I can look at just fine. I do have somewhat of a red-green weakness (but not full-on RG colourblindness), but i'm not sure if that's a valid possibility as to why that happens. Firestorm Talk 03:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In defense of the old map, the old color scheme was NOT arbitrary. The colors used went in the order of colors on the rainbow: red meaning the most repressive restrictions on same-sex relationships to violet meaning full marriage rights. Hot colors were restrictions and cool colors were rights granted. 96.233.145.220 ( talk)
California, Oregon and Nevada are extremely difficult to look at and give me a headache. Please consider changing the shades of red/blue slightly so that I can actually look at these states for more than 5 seconds. By darkening the shades of red, this could be easily fixed. -- 68.184.215.186 ( talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with what's been said above. Looking at this map, specifically the West Coast, is really painful to my eyes. 75.82.129.74 ( talk) 10:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
With more and more same-sex partnership laws being placed on the books, and other states poised to recognize them, things are going to get very hairy very quickly. We should have two maps: one that shows legalized same-sex relationships and another that shows prohibitions on same-sex relationships. 96.233.145.220 ( talk)
Wisconsin might soon allow domestic partners 50 percent of the rights and responsibilities of married couples, because the Wisconsin legislators recently passed the Budget Considerations And Domestic Partnerships Act 2009 - Even though the Wisconsin Constitution clearly outlaws them anyway!
The text of the Wisconsin Constitution are as follows:
Marriage. SECTION 13. [As created Nov. 2006] Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. [2003 J.R. 29, 2005 J.R. 30, vote Nov. 2006] Same−Sex Divorce and Wisconsin Courts: Imperfect Harmony? Thorson. 92 MLR 617. [10]
So very clearly all marriages, civil unions AND domestic partnerships are ILLEGAL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.61.118.3 ( talk) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state Well it can be argued that such act does not make an legal status SUBSTANTIALLY similar to marriage, but just a new intermediate status. If said act becomes law, Wisconsin will become light blue - dark red striped (and probably a bigger eyesore that the west coast)
This color scheme is just plain awfull. Can we revert to the old one? It literally hurts the eyes to look at the map-- Kdebem ( talk) 02:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Keeping the limited blue is necessary in order to distinguish cases where CUs/DPs are almost equal to marriage versus where they are not close to marriage. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
What was wrong with the old maps with yellow, purple and red etc. We could edit the other maps of the world in that color scheme too. This was is simply unberable to look at, and it makes anything but clear what is happening in CA, NV etc. Can we revert to the old color scheme? PLEASE?!-- Kdebem ( talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I too was initially bothered by the change in the image, although I at least partially understand the purpose behind it. I find the western coast to be a bit of an eyesore due to the stripe issue, as others have already pointed out. After thinking about it for a bit, I think the reason so many are complaining about the map is due to the amount of red used in the image. Red is often found to be an alarming, distressing color, yet it's the color that's dominating the map. Frankly, I think it makes people want to look away. For this map to be useful, it must first be inviting. People must feel comfortable looking at it.
I understand that color-blindness is an issue, but have we considered using a different combination of colors? Perhaps replacing the red with green? Green and blue are colors often used on maps to distinguish land from water, and I believe this would still be readable by those with red-green colorblindness. Additionally, both of these colors are "cool", creating less of a contrast on the striped states. Thoughts? I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert when it comes to this sort of thing, and it's far past my bedtime at the moment, but I thought I'd at least try to throw some ideas out there. — MearsMan talk 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Current scheme: SSM
Unions similar
Unions limited
Foreign SSM
No specific prohibition or recognition
Statute bans SSM
Constitution bans SSM
Constitution bans SSM and other
|
Proposed scheme:
|
Darkening the shades of red even the slightest bit would help relieve the great stress caused by looking at the West Coast. -- 128.135.224.106 ( talk) 07:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The color scheme on the map currently states that Wisconsin bans same-sex marriage and other forms of unions. Yet, it legalized limited partnerships in its new budget. Isn't there a conflict here? -- haha169 ( talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
DP law goes in effect 8/3/2009, not 7/1/2009 http://fairwisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-rep-mark-pocan-wisconsin-becomes.html Gavino ( talk) 01:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Delaware and Minnesota should be light blue with pink stripes because those 2 states have 4 rights out of 345 rights - so intern very very few rights for same-sex couples. For example hospital visitation rights, parentage/adoption rights, health benefits and rights in Insurance claims.
Please let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 16:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4047 http://cbs5.com/politics/gay.marriage.bill.2.1070021.html http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/09-18 http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=a45b1e80-7c72-4151-9035-0c69f25312a4 http://www.tips-q.com/news/msm/1125412-new-bill-addresses-status-out-state-same-sex-marriage-ca
Considering that both Californian houses passed resolutions condemning prop 8, it would seem unlikely that this bill would not pass. Assuming it does get to Arnold's desk and he does sign it, this means any SSM performed anywhere before the November 4th election would be recognized by the state of California. Furthermore, it stipulates that any SSM performed on or after November 4th would be recognized, except the state couldn't call it a marriage (i.e. they are legally married but it is not called marriage, nor is it called a domestic partnership). If this passes, we really will need a triple stripe, or we will need to give California its own color and give a caption entry explaining the situation. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My point isn't about those marriages. My point is, if a same-sex couple got married anywhere anytime after November, they could come to California and their marriage would be recognized in all the legal senses, but the state would not be allowed to call it marriage. This is essentially the same as recognizing OoS marriages.
This bill does not specifically talk about CU/DPs at all. It just says that OoS postNov SSMs need to be treated as marriages, but can't be called marriages due to the prop8-induced mess Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
My thought is that if this passes the legislature (which is likely) and gets signed by Arnold (likely-hood of which is unknown), there are two possible solutions
OR
Yes, Californian law is extremely screwed up, we have a retarded constitution, making a new initiative law is pretty much just as easy as passing a new amendment (other than needing more signatures). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually well the DP stripes should stay (as the DPs are unaffected), it is the marriage laws that are confounding. Anyways, here is where the bill information can be found http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_54&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leno
I just read an article saying that it will be going to the Assembly floor before the Senate floor [13]. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
yea because this bill used to be a healthcare bill that has been completely overhauled Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.outinhollywood.com/home/news.asp?articleid=33591
Passed the Assembly, pending in the senate, then Arnold will either sign it or veto it. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
[15] SB 54 is on Arnold's desk Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the People's Veto will make the ballot. Once the SoS confirms the signature, we will have to revert Maine back to enumerated/statuteban stripes, as the PV will block the SSM bill from taking effect. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If and when the people's veto appears on the Maine 11/09 election page [17], I will revert Maine to the lightest blue lightest pink setting. I do not know how to make a ballot box, someone else will have to put ballot boxes where they are necessary. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
the ref. will take place so some one should change maine the way they did washington
Not until the ballot initiative has its sigs verified and is put on the Maine SOS elections page. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyways, R71 made the ballot [18], meaning that same-sex couples will not be getting the same rights as married couples in Washington unless Washington votes APPROVE this referendum (yes it is confusing, instead having to vote "no" to defend gays like in CA, you must vote "yes/Approve"). If someone can get a ballot box onto Washington that would be great. Soon we will need a ballot box for Maine too (as it extremely likely that Maine will be facing a Prop 8 equivalent), so if anyone could get those done, that would be great.
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
ATM, R71 is about to be certified and right now the law is being stayed anyways so the image is currently accurate. There most likely will be a court-battle, but it is likely that they will still stay the law (unlike prop8, R71 can have retroactive effect as it is "upgrading" an institution instead of opening the door to another insitution, so even if it the law is let take effect, if the anti-gay lobby wins the law is removed and no legacy of it will remain) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
1 May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet.
2 The bill that legalized same-sex marriage in Maine, has been stayed and will be subjected to voter approval on November 3rd, 2009
3 The bill that gave DPs all the rights of married couples in Washington, has been stayed and will be subjected to voter approval on November 3rd, 2009
We need to translate these notes into other languages Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Read File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Can_of_Californian_worms if you haven't already.
A bill SB 54 is on Arnold's desk.
If he signs this, it will mean two things:
-A same-sex marriage performed anywhere will be recognized in California IF it was performed before 11/5/08
-A same-sex marriage performed anywhere will be given all the rights of marriage, except no one would be legally obliged to describe it as a marriage, IF it was performed on/after 11/5/08
It was proposed that California's prop 8 stripes would be become black, and the caption would say something of the sort:
"California's laws regarding same-sex marriage are complicated, please see
Same-sex marriage in California"
Is anyone opposed to doing this?
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
[20] This source says he has 12 days, but the bill still has to be enrolled by the house clerk, so I believe it has yet to reach his desk. Thegreyanomaly ( talk)
I believe it still is in the process of enrollment then. There hasn't been any new news on the issue since it passed the senate. Also, if Congress passes the Respect for Marriage Act, this bill will be much more important than it is right now. Assuming Arnold signs the bill, SSCs in California would have two options to get the rights of married couples (to get a DP or to get marriage somewhere else). If the Respect for Marriage Act passes through Congress, SSCs in California who married after prop 8, will still get de facto recognition from the state and will get complete recognition from the federal government (rendering California DPs pointless). A while ago, I remember reading an article that said this bill would allow gays to snub the domestic partnership system
(SSC = same-sex couple)
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
[22] They say it is at Arnold's desk. Assuming he got it yesterday, he has until about the 9th to sign it. I search "SB 54 marriage" on google news daily, if anything changes I will post the link and update the image if necessary. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
[23] Assuming weekends count, Arnold has until Wednesday at 10:30 to sign or veto the bill. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, on a side note, he will also have to act on the Harvey Milk Day bill by 1:00 pm that same day. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
NVM, Sunday/Monday seems right [24]. Apparently he has like 700 bills on his desk... Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
SB 54 has been signed. http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2248216.html Newsboy85 ( talk) 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I updated the map, and the template associated with it. We need someone to go to create translations for all other languages and to update the image on all other wikis Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I did a French translation. Correct it if necessary Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Although not a Supreme Court case, and almost definitely going to be appealed, but a judge has seemingly invalidated the constitutional ban in Texas. [25] [26] -- haha169 ( talk) 03:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It is going to the TX supreme court, so we should wait until they make a ruling to change the map. Reverting image Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I figured we should make standardized rules to dictate how to appropriately stripe.
Here are my proposals, please tell me what you think. (in order to make this easier to read, I am treating DC and the territories as states)
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Basically, the map follows all of my propositions as it currently. Two shades of the same color means, for example, that a state has two different types of blue stripes or two different types of red stripes (e.g. having both intermediate blue and light blue) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to anything other than California? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The new law does not have the words domestic partnerships anywhere in it. There is another discussion above on this matter and I updated the map originally because other than Hekerui no one seemed to oppose. SSMs performed after prop 8 are given all the state-level rights of marriage, just not the name. Because Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment that allows the legislature to define marriage, the legislature's definition of marriage is an ordinary statute; it is quite clear an amendment like that does not merit red stripes, because the only thing actually banning SSM there is that statute, something which the legislature could easily overturn if they ever come around. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Cross these off as they are completed
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
21:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
the black makes California look like ssm is legal may i suggest making it solid since we are referring people to another page anyway? The truth maker ( talk) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Solid black is problematic, because SB 54 has nothing to do with domestic partnerships. Removing the blue stripes creates greater confusion, implying that the state does not have DPs. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. User:Thegreyanomaly made a change to the map showing that D.C. will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and added a note stating the unique feature that the law could be overturned by Congress (not just the House of Representatives). I removed this note for the following reasons: The situation involving D.C. laws is complicated and the fact that Congress could intervene is not specific to the District new marriage law. In reality, Congress could pass any legislation in regards to the District of Columbia at any time; they could even pass a law tomorrow that would dissolve the District's government entirely. In that sense, the extra mention is a bit premature. Indeed, we could even add a caveat to this map that says that Congress could still pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages that would invalidate laws in the states that currently issues licenses. That's just as much of a possibility (and has actually gained much more traction than D.C.-specific legislation). My point is that until Congress actually takes some concrete action to alter same-sex marriage in the District, anything we say is completely hypothetical and difficult to explain in a small map legend. Best, 72.83.78.60 ( talk) 06:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, point taken Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |