Jan-Feb are looking like they will be months where a long of legislative actions related to this map may be taken
I just wanted to put up a watch list, so edits can be made promptly should said actions occur
Going West to Eastthis list is no longer West East
Add anything I missed. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not making any changes to these states. I am just pointing out that we need to keep an eye out for changes that have a decent likelihood of occurring. Big difference. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Bill passed their senate. It is going to the house soon. Just a heads up. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
[12] Another change is around the corner. Hawaii senate needs to approve the changes the house made, and then it is off to the governor. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Barring any surprises [13], the map will need to changed within the next two weeks. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Bill will be signed at 1 PM HST on Thursday. I will probably update the map around Thursday 3:05 PST (=1:05 HST) if no one beats me to it. [14] Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
In that case, someone will probably beat me to the map update due to my Wednesday class schedule. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The governor actually decided to sign the bill into law today, Wednesday, rather than Thursday. Just passing it on. [15] Yankhill ( talk) 05:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tried understanding what the striping is intended to represent vs the solid colors. Based on the states involved in this graph, it appears to be pending legislation or other action, but I couldn't understand how the colors used in the stripes were meant to convey something about either the previous state of the laws or pending state. In short, was it discussed previously to include the striping colors in the legend with an explanation? Or if that would take too much space, at least a reference to an article/elsewhere that provides that explanation? Wilhelmp ( talk) 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This discussion comes up every couple of months on here and is archived. The striping is necessary because it is not "obvious" what statutory or constitutional hindrances there are for SSM in a state based on what form of relationship recognition the state offers (Domestic partnership, Civil Union, or SSM). It will be much easier for SSM to ultimately become legal in a state where the hurdle is a statute instead of a constitutional amendment. For example, in WA State it should be theoretically be easier for SSM to one day become legal because the legislature (or people via an initiative) can repeal the statute and enact a gender-neutral SSM law. All of these actions in WA will only ever require simple majority votes. But in a State such as Oregon the only way for SSM to become legal is if voters first REPEAL a constitutional amendment and then a separate statute is passed (remember that most states have single-subject rules for ballot questions so most state voters will never be able to repeal a DOMA law and simultaneously enact a SSM law). And in some states there is a supermajority voter requirement exists(60% in Florida and some special rules for several other states - http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16584) and frequently supermajority votes are required in the houses of a state legislature for a measure to even make it on a ballot - http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Amending_state_constitutions). Thus, the levels of red striping show how easy or hard it will be to enact a SSM law in the future (or to prevent a SSM law depending on your view) whereas the blue striping convey what relationship recognition exists in the state. And as evidence by the patchwork of prohibiting laws/constitutional amendments and positive relationship recognition laws, every combination out there exists! None of this is obvious and the two different striping types convey important, and different, legally accurate information. There is a very big difference between statutory and constitutional bans that LOTS of people care about and want to know. DaveIseminger ( talk) 02:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Some people being confused is not reason to remove stripes. If you want a map that just has coloration for LGBT-positive legislation you should see File:Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States.svg. Censoring information because some people think it is confusing is wrong. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
While we are the subject of striping, what actually distinguishes NJ from WA, IL or HI? Doesn't NJ also have a statute banning SSM? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As Hawaii has a small area, could the blue/rose stripes of Hawaii be made thinner to make the striping more apparent, at first glance, I thought the state had relegated the legal decisions to its counties. -- Shibo77 ( talk) 03:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is possible, it is just how the striping works. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Michigan should be striped with light blue just like Wisconsin. State employees will recieve benefits akin to Domestic Partners.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/04/15/Michigan_DP_Policy_Survives_Vote/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.139.93 ( talk) 14:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
MD is striped 50% grey, because it recognizes SSM from out of state. RI is striped light grey, they are different. RI may soon be turned dark blue anyways Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's hold off on RI until their SSM bill passes/dies. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
RI SSM bill is dead, they will be trying a CU bill instead. That bill has strong chance at passing and Chafee has promised to sign it. [18]. I will be abstaining from all discussions pertaining to recoloring any state (outside of instances where a new law passes; e.g., Delaware), as I am extremely busy these days. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Delaware legalized civil unions today. The law confers identical rights as marriage, so it should be dark blue. Raul654 ( talk) 17:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
[19] May 11th = signing day. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Made the update (though it may or may not be a couple hours early). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Doing so will effect the striping order of all statute-ban "everything but marriage" states. As a result, HI and WA will get inverted too. I will do it when I am at home (in the library right now). If another small or oddly-shaped state enters this class, we will have to figure out what the plan of action is. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Can people weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. It is about the map colors. I posted it there cause I thought it would get more attention/responses, but nothing in a week. CTJF83 02:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have prepared the SVG file. When Cuomo signs it, I will upload it. I think this is the first time such a bill passed in a Republican controlled legislative house. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
That was quick. The new version is uploaded. My understanding is that a RI update is coming in a few days. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
New York doesn't show up as blue for me unless I go to this image page and scroll down and click on specifically the top image in the table. Why? Leonxlin ( talk) 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Clear your cache or click restart when you the image with a grey NY. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I have two disputes with this map in regard to California:
Thank you for your time. - Davodd ( talk) 08:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
We've tried to address this in the past and it confused too many people. California was striped black instead of red, people didn't like it, so it was undone. There is a footnote that says SSM laws in CA are very complicated. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Should not the red in California be removed because the 9th Circuit Court decision on February 7, 2012 declared Prop 8 unconstitutional? I know the decision has been petitioned for rehearing so the court ruling was not put into effect, but as far as the talks on this page go, whether or not a legislation or court ruling is in effect is not the question; the main point is that under current legal/judicial decisions the State Constitution cannot ban same-sex marriage. There is also no estimate of when the 9th Circuit Court will decide whether to accept or reject the petition, so as far as the State Constitution currently is, the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. - X-Sparker 108.67.65.148 ( talk) 08:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, New Mexico is shown in gray on this map, indicating "Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized." This is flatly NOT true.
Please read the article Recognition of same-sex unions in New Mexico, which I have updated and corrected several times in recent years. Bottom line: the state law is ambiguous, but no same-sex marriage has ever been officially recognized there.
I hope one day soon they will recognize all marriages equally, but meanwhile this map is perpetuating false information. Textorus ( talk) 21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, Done
NOTE: the civil union bill has passed, been signed, and (I think!) gone into effect. See http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/rhode.island.civil.union.signing/index.html?eref=rss_politics It appears that the small image in the article is updated for RI, as is the huge .svg file. However, the medium-sized map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg seems to still show RI as gray. I've refreshed my browser, but that doesn't seem to turn RI light blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A civil union bill just passed their legislature. When Chafee signs it, the state will be recolored. It will be entirely medium blue, unless the text of the bill says something along the lines of "marriage is between a man and a woman" (in that case, it will get a pink stripe). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I updated the image (or, rather, restored yesterday's premature update) now that Governor Chafee has signed the bill, but it doesn't appear to be showing. Not sure what I did wrong. Tinmanic ( talk) 18:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
What's also weird is that when I go to a different browser, the file page shows no image history since June 27. But when I use this browser, the file page does show history since that date. I'm totally confused as to what's going on. Tinmanic ( talk) 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The Bill has been signed. Please update this map! Also could someone update the North America map as well please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.71.169 ( talk) 18:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I originally reverted Tinmanic because they uploaded before the bill was signed. I just tried to upload a fix. Also, I noticed that someone tried to edit the map with inkscape. The tag format had been completely distorted, so just for future reference, this map does not work with Inkscape.
Anyways when I click on the map, it shows me the update, otherwise it shows grey RI. I think we just need to clear our computers caches. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Some of the image sizes are still not showing RI as updated. The image embedded in the "SSM in the US" page has it correctly, as do the "full resolution" and 1000px versions. The 200, 500, and 2000px versions still show RI as gray, even after I've cleared my cache. Anyone else? Tinmanic ( talk) 12:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Does Rhode Island need dark gray stripes? Or did it not recognize gay marriages from other states prior to the civil union law passing? -- Wbush89 ( talk) 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
SSM passed the state senate. It will soon pass the lower house and get signed. It is quite obvious that there will be a likely successful signature drive to put it to the voters. Given precedent, this is what we probably should do:
1) We don't do anything right now, since it is not 100% known the bill will pass and be signed.
2) The second the bill is signed, we turn WA dark blue
3) If the anti-LGBT community collect the necessary signatures (which they will likely do), we will revert the edit. WA would then only be re-blued if the voters support the referendum
3b) If that never happens, then we don't have to deal with re-editing the dark blue WA
Anyone have a take on the issue. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
CNN breaking news just told me the bill passed the House. I assume/hope the governor will stall on signing so that the opposition will have less time to collect signatures (they can't start until the bill is signed). Also, there is a chance that the referendum will fail but the initiative will succeed. In this case, the bill would activate in June as planned but a Prop 8 type situation will ensue Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
From the discussion above, the question of when we should update the map has arisen. Historically, we update the map when the new status is on the books as opposed to waiting for it to take effect (i.e., if new legislation is signed we update right away instead of waiting for its powers to start), so we can infer that the consensus has been to update early. Hekerui and the IP above wish to change this consensus, so I would request that anyone who edits this map or talk page please provide their opinion. Thanks. I for one, prefer to keep updating when the law is signed. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Responding to Thegreyanomaly's request for comment on when to update the map: Perhaps it would be helpful if we ask ourselves, what is the purpose of this map? Who is the intended audience? What do they know, or what are they seeking to know when they look at this map? One day, perhaps the crazy-quilt situation among all the various states of the Union will be resolved, but for the time being, it is a complex situation. So what function does this map serve in helping someone who comes looking for clarity on this subject - and who unlike many of us here, may not be very familiar with the ins and outs of the marriage issue, and may not take much time studying the map and its footnotes? Who is this map intended to help, and how can we make it most helpful to them? Helpfulness and clarity should take precedence over all else, it seems to me.
And having said all that, let me also take this opportunity to say that this is the ugliest map ever created, and very unhelpful even to someone like me who is quite familiar with the subject. Not only do the colors clash in a most unappetizing way, the map tries to present far too much information, confusing the reader. Much better to have two maps presented in tandem: one showing marriage/CU/DP laws, and the other showing anti-SSU legislation/constitutional amendments. Cf. the maps at the HRC web site, which are very clear and easy to read - a glance tells you what you want to know, unlike our current mish-mash of a map. Textorus ( talk) 03:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
While we are waiting... A Footnote (2) needs to be put after the constitutional ban.- Davodd ( talk) 08:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The Washington bill is going to signed very soon [20]. As of now, this discussion seems to be evenly split. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
After reading all the arguments I have to agree that we should wait until marriages are being performed in a state due to legislation or court order. I believe the purpose of this map is to answer the question "where are same sex marriages performed?" When we add coloring before a state is actualy performing marriages i feel it unnecessarily creates confusion on the map.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am still seeing no consensus on changing the standard practice. This argument doesn't really need to be on policy since all we are trying to do is hammer out a style consensus. I'm a bit busy this week, so I am not going to touch the map for a while. If someone else wants to update the map after the signing today, they can technically do it with breaking any rules, but I think we should let the existing rule (=early update) slide for WA while we have this discussion. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I support changing the map according to dates of bill signage/state high court rulings as opposed to effective dates of such bills or rulings, mainly due to the fact that, barring unforeseen circumstances that are not ensured to occur (ballot initiative and/or state constitutional amendment), the relationships pertinent to those bills or rulings will take effect as scheduled. In other words, we should not assume that such rulings or bill passages will be reversed before the effective date. Liberal92 ( talk) 18:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that the map should be changed when the bill is signed. When it is signed it is law of the land and we should not misinform people. The map is about legality of same sex marriage, and not whether it can be enforced yet. The states laws say it is legal, it just hasn't taken force yet. In my eyes, the date of enforcement doesn't matter, the law is already there. Lumping states that permit same sex marriage but did not pass the date of enforcement together with states that do not permit it at all is wrong. If it is a big deal then perhaps we can create an additional color to indicate the bill has not yet taken effect. However I think that turning Washington to blue right now is the easiest and best solution. Infernoapple ( talk) 20:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It is illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Washington for at least another 3.5 months, so let's not confuse the readers. Hekerui ( talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
When New York passed its same sex marriage law we (I) updated the map. Why not for Washington? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Footnote 1 states explicitly that the map "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." Same-sex marriages are legal in Washington, but are not yet performed. I concur with above discussion that if the legal challenge goes into effect which suspends the enactment of the law until the resolution of said challenge, the status should return to pink-and-blue striped; however, unless we are to remove this footnote entirely, in order to maintain uniformity, Washington should be made solid dark blue. Faulah ( talk) 21:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Question for thegreyanomaly: Is it really conductive to ask users to participate in a discussion with a notification text and an introduction that makes assertions like the ones you made ("it can be inferred that the consensus is"), and now all the discussion miraculously comes down to people commenting "it's always been that way" instead of giving arguments? And this is the point where you think we should close the discussion? Where is the broad discussion that garnered consensus for the way you used to update the map? In fact, you updated the map, no one bothered to suggest any different and now you claim it's been agreed to all along. Hekerui ( talk) 22:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am currently in favor of updating the map as of the bill signing (in Washington State's case, today) because it can easily be explained by a footnote suggesting the effective date. I would not have a -big- problem the other way around, as long as the information on the newly-passed and soon-to-take-effect law is easily discernible. Getting to my peeve now: We must remove either Footnote 1 or leave WA blue (doing otherwise is contradictory). It would be nice if we could list footnote numbers themselves within the boundary of a state ( see my quick example made in Paint) so we know to which state(s) each footnote applies to. Putting a footnote number in each "complicated" state would help eliminate the map striping scheme - as it looks horrendous and is confusing for new readers. Note that "complicated" situations will keep growing as will the debate, we have quite a few already: California needs a footnote to describe the complex situation there, Maryland needs one to say it accepts out-of-state SSM but doesn't grant it's own, New Mexico needs a footnote to say that there is an advisory opinion allowing for out-of-state SSM, but that it hasn't been fought in court yet - the entire group of states in the 9th Circuit need another footnote...and so on. On how to best handle it, I'd say let editors (us) come up with map alternatives, maybe post them here, and establish a consensus on which looks the best and conveys information in the most practical and encyclopedic way. MarkGT ( talk) 23:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
From a somewhat related discussion: " Washington has had an act that would provide for same-sex marriage at a future date unless countermanded by referendum. That is by no means the same as having same-sex marriage." That's certainly true, is it not? Hekerui ( talk) 07:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the argument above that SSM is now the law in Washington. So I wonder: when opposing groups gather the signatures to put the issue on the ballot in the state, wouldn't it logically follow that we would have to leave the state dark blue until the referendum happens and not revert to the previous map? After all, the law was not "unsigned" by a referendum campaign, and so remains the law (according to the argument given) until/if it is repealed via referendum. And people still can't marry until the referendum, so no change from the current state of affairs, which has the state dark blue. Hekerui ( talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The map should be reverted back to dark blue. Same-sex marriage is now technically legal in Washington because the bill was signed, even if it has yet to come into affect (or might not.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 ( talk) 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Please can someone fix the map, WA Should be dark blue, it is currently the law of the land, whether it has taken effect or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.44.136 ( talk) 04:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a thought but I feel a new color should be added for states that have laws signed for same-sex marriage but have not gone into effect yet. The words "May include" bother me as the footnote looks to be too broad. The color would only apply to one state right now so adding it would not be too much of an issue and would help clarify things. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
RfC responder(s) please consult the debate above, the past implicit consensus of this map is to update it based on when a new law gets signed or a new court order issues (or a veto overriden as with VT long ago, etc...). Given that the new law in WA may be put on hold due to a possible referendum, a discussion has come about changing this consensus. As of present the consensus has not changed (and thus your input is valued). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Washington is now blue on the actual image's page, it is not updated on the thumbnail in
same-sex marriage in the United States. I have tried purging the page and image but it doesn't work. Anyone know how to fix this?
Cadiomals (
talk)
01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The simple matter of fact is that the well-established practice this map has taken up is that it updates upon signing as opposed to upon effective date and to keep the footnote to make this clear. This entirely a style issue. In order to change said style you need people to support your side, which you simply do not have (yet). A blue WA with a footnote "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." is not factually incorrect in any way shape or form. There is a recent law and it has not gone into effect yet; the map in the current form conveys that. If the people stay the law with a successful referendum that is a different story. (If we could overlay footnote numbers onto specific states that would make the situation better, but I don't know how to code that). The simple fact is no one has really ever complained about this in the past. When NY passed SSM or RI/HE/DE/IL passed medium-blue laws in 2011 no one (or almost no one) complained when we updated upon signing even though those laws all took a while to take effect (plenty of the seven of you who want to change consensus have been active on this map through that time period). Now that we have one state that has a high (but less than 100%) chance of getting a law-stayed people have started a ruckus about it. This whole debate has basically been stirred by people wanting to crystal ball all of a sudden when they never did before. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I still dont see where the issue of the current laws still being in place that dont appear on the map being resolved, right now it shows that Washington just has a potential Same-sex marriage in dark blue and not the Statute that bans same-sex marriage, or Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights that are still in place, that isnt WP:CRYSTAL those are the facts something that a map for "Laws regarding same-sex partnership in the United States" should show. I do not care about how some people said once upon a time this is this and this is how it should be forever, that is the same arguement you keep using over and over again greyanomaly. As a compromise, I propose that Washington should be striped three ways one to show the Statute still in place, one to show the limited/enumerated rights that are in place and one that shows the possible same-sex marriage law that might go into place. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This argument is getting circular. We have one group of people that includes myself that thinks we should update upon signing and maintain the past consensus and we have a smaller group of people that thinks we should generate a new consensus where we wait. As it stands both sides keep making the same claims. Let's wait for more people to show up instead of wasting our times saying the same thing over and over again.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have sent Lokal_Profil a talk page message on the Commons to ask if it is possible to overlay footnotes onto the states Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I just saw this notice left on the SSM talkpage:
"Maryland's House just passed an SSM bill, and its Senate and Governor look set to join in the fun, but Maryland has a people's veto similar to Washington's. In Maryland's case, the deadline for signatures (and the earliest possible date for the law to take effect) is June 1. If one-third of the 55,737 signatures (based on the turnout figure at Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010) are in by June 1, the deadline will be extended to June 30. If the signatures are collected, the law won't "become a law or take effect until thirty days after its approval" in the referendum. Thus, assuming a petition is successful, the earliest the law would come into effect would be December 6, 2012." Just something to keep a watch on - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Good to know, though last year it got stuck in the lower house, that could happen again.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 01:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Misread original comment, ignore
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
03:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, first Washington, now Maryland, almost New Jersey, and maybe Illinois. -- 186.66.51.131 ( talk) 02:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I would add Rhode Island, California and Maine to that List. Maine's Secretary of State just confirmed the validity of the signatures for a referendum allowing Gay Marriage- The first of Its kind in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.190.18 ( talk) 23:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
How are we going to differentiate DC from Maryland if they're the same color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.196 ( talk) 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
What has been the standard rule if State X passes the law on Date Y allow Gay Marriage, but no gay marriages can occur until Date Z? Change the map on Date Y or Date Z? Maryland could possibly go the same way as Maine, Governor signs it within the week, opponents have a certain amount of time to get it put on the ballot as a referendum. If either the signatures aren't gotten in time or if the pro gay rights side wins in November it goes into effect in January 2013. (It actually gets more complicated that that due to an amendment added on lawsuits about signatures, but let's just use that level of complexity for now.
Naraht (
talk)
04:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The consensus is that the map is changed once the law is signed. I agree with statement "That is the law on the books". User:Hekerui is wrong with his opinion. So next week also Maryland hat to be darkblue after gouverneur Malley signed law. 89.166.244.32 ( talk) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I know it's been mentioned in passing but I wonder why more attention has not been given to the potential two-map solution? I know that there's a desire to try and communicate as much as humanly possible in one single graphic but, let's face it, this has got to be one of the ugliest and most confusing maps in use on all of Wikipedia. I count a total of 8 different colors being used in 13 different combinations. The striping is graphically ambiguous in Hawaii and almost useless in Delaware if you aren't viewing the map at high resolution.
There's been a lot of chatter about the situation in Washington being complicated by what appear to be mutually exclusive laws on the books and potential challenges down the road. Washington itself isn't the problem but is merely an example of the problem : that this map is attempting to communicate multidimensional data. Restrictive laws, laws granting rights, differentiating between types of laws (constitutional vs. statutory) and even foreign recognition.
Again, why not two maps? It's been pointed out that two maps do exist, one showing the "blue" information and one showing the "red" information. Each of the maps alone are considerably cleaner, don't rely on a dozen different color combinations, and certainly don't suffer from the prospect of tripe-striping a state. I'm curious what sorts of objections there might be to such a solution. Sher eth 17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - Having two maps would show all the laws in place and the ones yet to take effect and has room to add colors so the footnotes will not be an issue. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I clarified the footnotes for this template. "may include recent laws or court decisions" is vague - one can be specific and cover the two regions in question as of today, CA and WA, and the template does that now. Hekerui ( talk) 11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Jan-Feb are looking like they will be months where a long of legislative actions related to this map may be taken
I just wanted to put up a watch list, so edits can be made promptly should said actions occur
Going West to Eastthis list is no longer West East
Add anything I missed. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not making any changes to these states. I am just pointing out that we need to keep an eye out for changes that have a decent likelihood of occurring. Big difference. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Bill passed their senate. It is going to the house soon. Just a heads up. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
[12] Another change is around the corner. Hawaii senate needs to approve the changes the house made, and then it is off to the governor. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Barring any surprises [13], the map will need to changed within the next two weeks. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Bill will be signed at 1 PM HST on Thursday. I will probably update the map around Thursday 3:05 PST (=1:05 HST) if no one beats me to it. [14] Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
In that case, someone will probably beat me to the map update due to my Wednesday class schedule. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The governor actually decided to sign the bill into law today, Wednesday, rather than Thursday. Just passing it on. [15] Yankhill ( talk) 05:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tried understanding what the striping is intended to represent vs the solid colors. Based on the states involved in this graph, it appears to be pending legislation or other action, but I couldn't understand how the colors used in the stripes were meant to convey something about either the previous state of the laws or pending state. In short, was it discussed previously to include the striping colors in the legend with an explanation? Or if that would take too much space, at least a reference to an article/elsewhere that provides that explanation? Wilhelmp ( talk) 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This discussion comes up every couple of months on here and is archived. The striping is necessary because it is not "obvious" what statutory or constitutional hindrances there are for SSM in a state based on what form of relationship recognition the state offers (Domestic partnership, Civil Union, or SSM). It will be much easier for SSM to ultimately become legal in a state where the hurdle is a statute instead of a constitutional amendment. For example, in WA State it should be theoretically be easier for SSM to one day become legal because the legislature (or people via an initiative) can repeal the statute and enact a gender-neutral SSM law. All of these actions in WA will only ever require simple majority votes. But in a State such as Oregon the only way for SSM to become legal is if voters first REPEAL a constitutional amendment and then a separate statute is passed (remember that most states have single-subject rules for ballot questions so most state voters will never be able to repeal a DOMA law and simultaneously enact a SSM law). And in some states there is a supermajority voter requirement exists(60% in Florida and some special rules for several other states - http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16584) and frequently supermajority votes are required in the houses of a state legislature for a measure to even make it on a ballot - http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Amending_state_constitutions). Thus, the levels of red striping show how easy or hard it will be to enact a SSM law in the future (or to prevent a SSM law depending on your view) whereas the blue striping convey what relationship recognition exists in the state. And as evidence by the patchwork of prohibiting laws/constitutional amendments and positive relationship recognition laws, every combination out there exists! None of this is obvious and the two different striping types convey important, and different, legally accurate information. There is a very big difference between statutory and constitutional bans that LOTS of people care about and want to know. DaveIseminger ( talk) 02:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Some people being confused is not reason to remove stripes. If you want a map that just has coloration for LGBT-positive legislation you should see File:Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States.svg. Censoring information because some people think it is confusing is wrong. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
While we are the subject of striping, what actually distinguishes NJ from WA, IL or HI? Doesn't NJ also have a statute banning SSM? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As Hawaii has a small area, could the blue/rose stripes of Hawaii be made thinner to make the striping more apparent, at first glance, I thought the state had relegated the legal decisions to its counties. -- Shibo77 ( talk) 03:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that is possible, it is just how the striping works. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think Michigan should be striped with light blue just like Wisconsin. State employees will recieve benefits akin to Domestic Partners.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/04/15/Michigan_DP_Policy_Survives_Vote/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.139.93 ( talk) 14:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
MD is striped 50% grey, because it recognizes SSM from out of state. RI is striped light grey, they are different. RI may soon be turned dark blue anyways Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's hold off on RI until their SSM bill passes/dies. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
RI SSM bill is dead, they will be trying a CU bill instead. That bill has strong chance at passing and Chafee has promised to sign it. [18]. I will be abstaining from all discussions pertaining to recoloring any state (outside of instances where a new law passes; e.g., Delaware), as I am extremely busy these days. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Delaware legalized civil unions today. The law confers identical rights as marriage, so it should be dark blue. Raul654 ( talk) 17:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
[19] May 11th = signing day. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Made the update (though it may or may not be a couple hours early). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Doing so will effect the striping order of all statute-ban "everything but marriage" states. As a result, HI and WA will get inverted too. I will do it when I am at home (in the library right now). If another small or oddly-shaped state enters this class, we will have to figure out what the plan of action is. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Can people weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. It is about the map colors. I posted it there cause I thought it would get more attention/responses, but nothing in a week. CTJF83 02:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have prepared the SVG file. When Cuomo signs it, I will upload it. I think this is the first time such a bill passed in a Republican controlled legislative house. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
That was quick. The new version is uploaded. My understanding is that a RI update is coming in a few days. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
New York doesn't show up as blue for me unless I go to this image page and scroll down and click on specifically the top image in the table. Why? Leonxlin ( talk) 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Clear your cache or click restart when you the image with a grey NY. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I have two disputes with this map in regard to California:
Thank you for your time. - Davodd ( talk) 08:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
We've tried to address this in the past and it confused too many people. California was striped black instead of red, people didn't like it, so it was undone. There is a footnote that says SSM laws in CA are very complicated. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Should not the red in California be removed because the 9th Circuit Court decision on February 7, 2012 declared Prop 8 unconstitutional? I know the decision has been petitioned for rehearing so the court ruling was not put into effect, but as far as the talks on this page go, whether or not a legislation or court ruling is in effect is not the question; the main point is that under current legal/judicial decisions the State Constitution cannot ban same-sex marriage. There is also no estimate of when the 9th Circuit Court will decide whether to accept or reject the petition, so as far as the State Constitution currently is, the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. - X-Sparker 108.67.65.148 ( talk) 08:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, New Mexico is shown in gray on this map, indicating "Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized." This is flatly NOT true.
Please read the article Recognition of same-sex unions in New Mexico, which I have updated and corrected several times in recent years. Bottom line: the state law is ambiguous, but no same-sex marriage has ever been officially recognized there.
I hope one day soon they will recognize all marriages equally, but meanwhile this map is perpetuating false information. Textorus ( talk) 21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, Done
NOTE: the civil union bill has passed, been signed, and (I think!) gone into effect. See http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/02/rhode.island.civil.union.signing/index.html?eref=rss_politics It appears that the small image in the article is updated for RI, as is the huge .svg file. However, the medium-sized map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg seems to still show RI as gray. I've refreshed my browser, but that doesn't seem to turn RI light blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv ( talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
A civil union bill just passed their legislature. When Chafee signs it, the state will be recolored. It will be entirely medium blue, unless the text of the bill says something along the lines of "marriage is between a man and a woman" (in that case, it will get a pink stripe). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I updated the image (or, rather, restored yesterday's premature update) now that Governor Chafee has signed the bill, but it doesn't appear to be showing. Not sure what I did wrong. Tinmanic ( talk) 18:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
What's also weird is that when I go to a different browser, the file page shows no image history since June 27. But when I use this browser, the file page does show history since that date. I'm totally confused as to what's going on. Tinmanic ( talk) 18:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The Bill has been signed. Please update this map! Also could someone update the North America map as well please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.71.169 ( talk) 18:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I originally reverted Tinmanic because they uploaded before the bill was signed. I just tried to upload a fix. Also, I noticed that someone tried to edit the map with inkscape. The tag format had been completely distorted, so just for future reference, this map does not work with Inkscape.
Anyways when I click on the map, it shows me the update, otherwise it shows grey RI. I think we just need to clear our computers caches. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Some of the image sizes are still not showing RI as updated. The image embedded in the "SSM in the US" page has it correctly, as do the "full resolution" and 1000px versions. The 200, 500, and 2000px versions still show RI as gray, even after I've cleared my cache. Anyone else? Tinmanic ( talk) 12:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Does Rhode Island need dark gray stripes? Or did it not recognize gay marriages from other states prior to the civil union law passing? -- Wbush89 ( talk) 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
SSM passed the state senate. It will soon pass the lower house and get signed. It is quite obvious that there will be a likely successful signature drive to put it to the voters. Given precedent, this is what we probably should do:
1) We don't do anything right now, since it is not 100% known the bill will pass and be signed.
2) The second the bill is signed, we turn WA dark blue
3) If the anti-LGBT community collect the necessary signatures (which they will likely do), we will revert the edit. WA would then only be re-blued if the voters support the referendum
3b) If that never happens, then we don't have to deal with re-editing the dark blue WA
Anyone have a take on the issue. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
CNN breaking news just told me the bill passed the House. I assume/hope the governor will stall on signing so that the opposition will have less time to collect signatures (they can't start until the bill is signed). Also, there is a chance that the referendum will fail but the initiative will succeed. In this case, the bill would activate in June as planned but a Prop 8 type situation will ensue Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
From the discussion above, the question of when we should update the map has arisen. Historically, we update the map when the new status is on the books as opposed to waiting for it to take effect (i.e., if new legislation is signed we update right away instead of waiting for its powers to start), so we can infer that the consensus has been to update early. Hekerui and the IP above wish to change this consensus, so I would request that anyone who edits this map or talk page please provide their opinion. Thanks. I for one, prefer to keep updating when the law is signed. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Responding to Thegreyanomaly's request for comment on when to update the map: Perhaps it would be helpful if we ask ourselves, what is the purpose of this map? Who is the intended audience? What do they know, or what are they seeking to know when they look at this map? One day, perhaps the crazy-quilt situation among all the various states of the Union will be resolved, but for the time being, it is a complex situation. So what function does this map serve in helping someone who comes looking for clarity on this subject - and who unlike many of us here, may not be very familiar with the ins and outs of the marriage issue, and may not take much time studying the map and its footnotes? Who is this map intended to help, and how can we make it most helpful to them? Helpfulness and clarity should take precedence over all else, it seems to me.
And having said all that, let me also take this opportunity to say that this is the ugliest map ever created, and very unhelpful even to someone like me who is quite familiar with the subject. Not only do the colors clash in a most unappetizing way, the map tries to present far too much information, confusing the reader. Much better to have two maps presented in tandem: one showing marriage/CU/DP laws, and the other showing anti-SSU legislation/constitutional amendments. Cf. the maps at the HRC web site, which are very clear and easy to read - a glance tells you what you want to know, unlike our current mish-mash of a map. Textorus ( talk) 03:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
While we are waiting... A Footnote (2) needs to be put after the constitutional ban.- Davodd ( talk) 08:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The Washington bill is going to signed very soon [20]. As of now, this discussion seems to be evenly split. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
After reading all the arguments I have to agree that we should wait until marriages are being performed in a state due to legislation or court order. I believe the purpose of this map is to answer the question "where are same sex marriages performed?" When we add coloring before a state is actualy performing marriages i feel it unnecessarily creates confusion on the map.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am still seeing no consensus on changing the standard practice. This argument doesn't really need to be on policy since all we are trying to do is hammer out a style consensus. I'm a bit busy this week, so I am not going to touch the map for a while. If someone else wants to update the map after the signing today, they can technically do it with breaking any rules, but I think we should let the existing rule (=early update) slide for WA while we have this discussion. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I support changing the map according to dates of bill signage/state high court rulings as opposed to effective dates of such bills or rulings, mainly due to the fact that, barring unforeseen circumstances that are not ensured to occur (ballot initiative and/or state constitutional amendment), the relationships pertinent to those bills or rulings will take effect as scheduled. In other words, we should not assume that such rulings or bill passages will be reversed before the effective date. Liberal92 ( talk) 18:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that the map should be changed when the bill is signed. When it is signed it is law of the land and we should not misinform people. The map is about legality of same sex marriage, and not whether it can be enforced yet. The states laws say it is legal, it just hasn't taken force yet. In my eyes, the date of enforcement doesn't matter, the law is already there. Lumping states that permit same sex marriage but did not pass the date of enforcement together with states that do not permit it at all is wrong. If it is a big deal then perhaps we can create an additional color to indicate the bill has not yet taken effect. However I think that turning Washington to blue right now is the easiest and best solution. Infernoapple ( talk) 20:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It is illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Washington for at least another 3.5 months, so let's not confuse the readers. Hekerui ( talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
When New York passed its same sex marriage law we (I) updated the map. Why not for Washington? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Footnote 1 states explicitly that the map "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." Same-sex marriages are legal in Washington, but are not yet performed. I concur with above discussion that if the legal challenge goes into effect which suspends the enactment of the law until the resolution of said challenge, the status should return to pink-and-blue striped; however, unless we are to remove this footnote entirely, in order to maintain uniformity, Washington should be made solid dark blue. Faulah ( talk) 21:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Question for thegreyanomaly: Is it really conductive to ask users to participate in a discussion with a notification text and an introduction that makes assertions like the ones you made ("it can be inferred that the consensus is"), and now all the discussion miraculously comes down to people commenting "it's always been that way" instead of giving arguments? And this is the point where you think we should close the discussion? Where is the broad discussion that garnered consensus for the way you used to update the map? In fact, you updated the map, no one bothered to suggest any different and now you claim it's been agreed to all along. Hekerui ( talk) 22:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am currently in favor of updating the map as of the bill signing (in Washington State's case, today) because it can easily be explained by a footnote suggesting the effective date. I would not have a -big- problem the other way around, as long as the information on the newly-passed and soon-to-take-effect law is easily discernible. Getting to my peeve now: We must remove either Footnote 1 or leave WA blue (doing otherwise is contradictory). It would be nice if we could list footnote numbers themselves within the boundary of a state ( see my quick example made in Paint) so we know to which state(s) each footnote applies to. Putting a footnote number in each "complicated" state would help eliminate the map striping scheme - as it looks horrendous and is confusing for new readers. Note that "complicated" situations will keep growing as will the debate, we have quite a few already: California needs a footnote to describe the complex situation there, Maryland needs one to say it accepts out-of-state SSM but doesn't grant it's own, New Mexico needs a footnote to say that there is an advisory opinion allowing for out-of-state SSM, but that it hasn't been fought in court yet - the entire group of states in the 9th Circuit need another footnote...and so on. On how to best handle it, I'd say let editors (us) come up with map alternatives, maybe post them here, and establish a consensus on which looks the best and conveys information in the most practical and encyclopedic way. MarkGT ( talk) 23:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
From a somewhat related discussion: " Washington has had an act that would provide for same-sex marriage at a future date unless countermanded by referendum. That is by no means the same as having same-sex marriage." That's certainly true, is it not? Hekerui ( talk) 07:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I read the argument above that SSM is now the law in Washington. So I wonder: when opposing groups gather the signatures to put the issue on the ballot in the state, wouldn't it logically follow that we would have to leave the state dark blue until the referendum happens and not revert to the previous map? After all, the law was not "unsigned" by a referendum campaign, and so remains the law (according to the argument given) until/if it is repealed via referendum. And people still can't marry until the referendum, so no change from the current state of affairs, which has the state dark blue. Hekerui ( talk) 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The map should be reverted back to dark blue. Same-sex marriage is now technically legal in Washington because the bill was signed, even if it has yet to come into affect (or might not.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 ( talk) 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Please can someone fix the map, WA Should be dark blue, it is currently the law of the land, whether it has taken effect or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.44.136 ( talk) 04:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Just a thought but I feel a new color should be added for states that have laws signed for same-sex marriage but have not gone into effect yet. The words "May include" bother me as the footnote looks to be too broad. The color would only apply to one state right now so adding it would not be too much of an issue and would help clarify things. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
RfC responder(s) please consult the debate above, the past implicit consensus of this map is to update it based on when a new law gets signed or a new court order issues (or a veto overriden as with VT long ago, etc...). Given that the new law in WA may be put on hold due to a possible referendum, a discussion has come about changing this consensus. As of present the consensus has not changed (and thus your input is valued). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Washington is now blue on the actual image's page, it is not updated on the thumbnail in
same-sex marriage in the United States. I have tried purging the page and image but it doesn't work. Anyone know how to fix this?
Cadiomals (
talk)
01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The simple matter of fact is that the well-established practice this map has taken up is that it updates upon signing as opposed to upon effective date and to keep the footnote to make this clear. This entirely a style issue. In order to change said style you need people to support your side, which you simply do not have (yet). A blue WA with a footnote "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet." is not factually incorrect in any way shape or form. There is a recent law and it has not gone into effect yet; the map in the current form conveys that. If the people stay the law with a successful referendum that is a different story. (If we could overlay footnote numbers onto specific states that would make the situation better, but I don't know how to code that). The simple fact is no one has really ever complained about this in the past. When NY passed SSM or RI/HE/DE/IL passed medium-blue laws in 2011 no one (or almost no one) complained when we updated upon signing even though those laws all took a while to take effect (plenty of the seven of you who want to change consensus have been active on this map through that time period). Now that we have one state that has a high (but less than 100%) chance of getting a law-stayed people have started a ruckus about it. This whole debate has basically been stirred by people wanting to crystal ball all of a sudden when they never did before. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I still dont see where the issue of the current laws still being in place that dont appear on the map being resolved, right now it shows that Washington just has a potential Same-sex marriage in dark blue and not the Statute that bans same-sex marriage, or Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights that are still in place, that isnt WP:CRYSTAL those are the facts something that a map for "Laws regarding same-sex partnership in the United States" should show. I do not care about how some people said once upon a time this is this and this is how it should be forever, that is the same arguement you keep using over and over again greyanomaly. As a compromise, I propose that Washington should be striped three ways one to show the Statute still in place, one to show the limited/enumerated rights that are in place and one that shows the possible same-sex marriage law that might go into place. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This argument is getting circular. We have one group of people that includes myself that thinks we should update upon signing and maintain the past consensus and we have a smaller group of people that thinks we should generate a new consensus where we wait. As it stands both sides keep making the same claims. Let's wait for more people to show up instead of wasting our times saying the same thing over and over again.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
23:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have sent Lokal_Profil a talk page message on the Commons to ask if it is possible to overlay footnotes onto the states Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I just saw this notice left on the SSM talkpage:
"Maryland's House just passed an SSM bill, and its Senate and Governor look set to join in the fun, but Maryland has a people's veto similar to Washington's. In Maryland's case, the deadline for signatures (and the earliest possible date for the law to take effect) is June 1. If one-third of the 55,737 signatures (based on the turnout figure at Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010) are in by June 1, the deadline will be extended to June 30. If the signatures are collected, the law won't "become a law or take effect until thirty days after its approval" in the referendum. Thus, assuming a petition is successful, the earliest the law would come into effect would be December 6, 2012." Just something to keep a watch on - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Good to know, though last year it got stuck in the lower house, that could happen again.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 01:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Misread original comment, ignore
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
03:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, first Washington, now Maryland, almost New Jersey, and maybe Illinois. -- 186.66.51.131 ( talk) 02:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I would add Rhode Island, California and Maine to that List. Maine's Secretary of State just confirmed the validity of the signatures for a referendum allowing Gay Marriage- The first of Its kind in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.190.18 ( talk) 23:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
How are we going to differentiate DC from Maryland if they're the same color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.196 ( talk) 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
What has been the standard rule if State X passes the law on Date Y allow Gay Marriage, but no gay marriages can occur until Date Z? Change the map on Date Y or Date Z? Maryland could possibly go the same way as Maine, Governor signs it within the week, opponents have a certain amount of time to get it put on the ballot as a referendum. If either the signatures aren't gotten in time or if the pro gay rights side wins in November it goes into effect in January 2013. (It actually gets more complicated that that due to an amendment added on lawsuits about signatures, but let's just use that level of complexity for now.
Naraht (
talk)
04:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The consensus is that the map is changed once the law is signed. I agree with statement "That is the law on the books". User:Hekerui is wrong with his opinion. So next week also Maryland hat to be darkblue after gouverneur Malley signed law. 89.166.244.32 ( talk) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I know it's been mentioned in passing but I wonder why more attention has not been given to the potential two-map solution? I know that there's a desire to try and communicate as much as humanly possible in one single graphic but, let's face it, this has got to be one of the ugliest and most confusing maps in use on all of Wikipedia. I count a total of 8 different colors being used in 13 different combinations. The striping is graphically ambiguous in Hawaii and almost useless in Delaware if you aren't viewing the map at high resolution.
There's been a lot of chatter about the situation in Washington being complicated by what appear to be mutually exclusive laws on the books and potential challenges down the road. Washington itself isn't the problem but is merely an example of the problem : that this map is attempting to communicate multidimensional data. Restrictive laws, laws granting rights, differentiating between types of laws (constitutional vs. statutory) and even foreign recognition.
Again, why not two maps? It's been pointed out that two maps do exist, one showing the "blue" information and one showing the "red" information. Each of the maps alone are considerably cleaner, don't rely on a dozen different color combinations, and certainly don't suffer from the prospect of tripe-striping a state. I'm curious what sorts of objections there might be to such a solution. Sher eth 17:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Support - Having two maps would show all the laws in place and the ones yet to take effect and has room to add colors so the footnotes will not be an issue. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I clarified the footnotes for this template. "may include recent laws or court decisions" is vague - one can be specific and cover the two regions in question as of today, CA and WA, and the template does that now. Hekerui ( talk) 11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)