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 5 |
I think the colors of same sex marriage and domestic partnerships should be switched to show a better distinction. Same sex marriage should be the darkest to show it as the furthest progress.
I don't know how to do this but the image needs to be reverted back to the one from a week ago where the yellow stripes were removed from Washington, Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. The reason for the deletion was supposedly "redundancy." This was an incorrect removal of information. The purple/green colors are positive rights that are granted by those states to same-sex couples. Conversely, the yellow represented a negative right - meaning that the state has a statute/law that prohibits same-sex marriage. NOTE - many people incorrectly think on this map that yellow represents an absence of any law in that state.....that is incorrect!!!!
Thus, WA, HI, MD, VT, NH, and ME all need yellow stripes because none of those states can grant full marriage equality without repealing an existing state law. this is very different than saw NY, NM, and RI where NO state law at all exists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.190.88 ( talk) 21:45, 25 November 2008
The map indicates that Iowa's constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions, but the accompanying article says same-sex marriage is not banned by the constitution, but only by statute. WilliamBarrett ( talk) 09:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
it says Statue bans same sex marriage... does it mean state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.53.69 ( talk) 02:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
California has now passed prop 8 making same sex marriages illegal, the current picture does not reflect that ruling. It should be reverted back to the previous picture I believe. 8:18 13 Nov 2008 (UTC)
California does not yet have same-sex marriage. The ruling legalizing same-sex marriage does not take effect for another month. NoIdeaNick ( talk) 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the map also needs to be changed so that Hawaii is the same as Oregon, since Hawaii also constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. 96.224.135.66 ( talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
California's color should be changed. Yes, California legalized same sex marriage (yay!) but domestic partnerships are still legal in the state. It should be striped to reflect this (like New York and Oregon are). Hihellowhatsup ( talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Marriage will not be "opened to same-sex couples" until 6/14/08. But it is still legal. "Legal without access" is still legal, it doesn't mean that it is illegal until that date, it just means it is legal but the ability to commence those legal rights are not offered till that date. And i really do want to understand what the effects of same-sex marriage will have on domestic partnership.-- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 07:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
But, as discussed above, it IS legal. The court's decision was final and binding. The court has the authority to stay, or delay, the enacting of that ruling, but it is nonetheless legal until overturned by a higher court (in this case, only the US Supreme Court), or an amendment to the California constitution (but even that is unclear since the ruling states that the body of the constitution prohibits such discrimination as would be written into the potential proposed amendment). Gimmethoseshoes ( talk) 04:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I would be an * by California and put something like "Effective 6/14/08." Although same-sex marriage is not legal there yet, it's almost certain to happen, and it's a major enough change in the topic of "Same-sex Marriage in the United States" do at least deserve a footnote on the map. Benrw 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
California has same sex marriage and domestic partnership, In needs to be stripped with both colors.
-- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 07:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
" California still has domestic partnerships. There's nothing in the court brief that indicates that domestic partnerships were unconstitutional. So that would mean that both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships are legal in California. Hihellowhatsup ( talk) 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC) " -- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 07:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent)The new color would only be in use for a few weeks. I think Cooljuno's idea, which I obviously disagree with, is better than the compromise. - Rrius ( talk) 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that civil unions in the Northeast and domestic partnerships in California and Oregon should be highlighted the same (in the case of CA, if same-sex marriage is shown to be legal there, it should also be striped over with the same thing): they all are functional equivalents of marriage at the state level, with VERY few exceptions. Moreover, I think a domestic partnership in Oregon is more like a Vermont civil union than a Maine or Washington state domestic partnership.
Perhaps a more reflective, combined title for equivalent unions could just be "Functionally Equivilant Legal Unions" while domestic partnerships with SOME of the rights of marriage could be labeled "Legal Unions with Some Rights" (like Washington and Maine). If someone would suggest more concise descriptions, that would be great.
Also, what about Maryland? A recent bill signed there grants limited domestic partnership rights to both gay and straight couples. I think that nomenclature aside, this law is more similar to the reciprocal benefits laws in Vermont and Hawai'i than it is to the more broad domestic partnerships in Washington State and Maine. Benrw 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The image shows CT as allowing same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court in CT has yet to issue a ruling on the subject; same-sex marriage is not legal in CT at this time. - Jameth ( talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The map is about two things: Marriage/unions and constitutional/statutary bans. Therefore, stripes should be allowed only to depict those states who give some rights to same-sex couples BUT enact some form of ban on marriage or union.
California and New Jersey should not be striped. It seems to me that on all Wikipedia maps only the HIGHEST level of protection is shown. Take Spain, where civil unions still exist along with marriage. Or the Netherlands, where you can choose between marriage, unions and unregistered cohabitation.
Too many stripes make a map possibly more accurate, but illegible. Finedelledanze ( talk) 13:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, the Europe and World lgbt right maps follow other criteria: highest protection. Some countries, as already mentioned, offer 3 layers of protection, and if this had to be reflected on a map, what should it look like? a checkerboard? Thirdly, also adoption maps, abortion maps, death penalty maps follow the criterion of highest protection. And it is not clear why only the US map should be excessively detailed and stripe-obsessed. :)
Also, if somebody explained me how to encode/edit stripes on inkscape, I would be thankful. Cant figure it out. ( Finedelledanze ( talk) 08:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)).
Can it be maginified? It's hard to see what color(s) it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.8.5 ( talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
These maps are getting quite complicated, and will probably be getting even more complicated in the future. I suggest that the map be split in two and only one color be used for each state. One map would show the "highest" level of same-sex partnerships. The states that offer both same-sex marriage and domestic partnership and other anomalies could be indicated by text in the legend. Another map would show which states recognize same-sex marriages from out-of-state. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you noiticed that were DPs, SSMs, CUs, RBs [just in Hawaii], etc (domestic partnerships, same-sex marriages, civil unions, etc) are legally provided, they are all together on the west coast and all together up in the New England region? Come on the rest of the USA, just legaly provide DPs, SSMs, CUs, RBs, etc. Does having different laws in different states create inconsistany and a lack of transparancy - Even with the federal DOMA Defence Of Marriage Act 1996? The USA seems all mixed-up with funny laws that are different, all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Vermont should be stripped yellow as well, because there is actually a same-sex marriage ban in the statutes - Not in the Consitution of Vermont (which is good). Vermont has provided same-sex couples "civil unions" since 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Is gay marriage really prohibited by Colorado's constitution? I mean, Colorado made a law saying that bathrooms are now co-ed, which seems like a step past legalizing same-sex marriage to even forgetting there are different sexes.-- 69.234.193.4 ( talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that D.C. should be green, not purple. Beside the fact that they're called "domestic partnerships" recent legislation has granted same-sex couples all the legal recognition the city can materially provide short of marriage, which is banned thanks to Congress. I don't think that there are any benefits that civil unions and domestic partnerships in other states provide that D.C. does not. - epicAdam ( talk) 18:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Maryland has enacted domestic partnerships early this July. It should be changed on the map to dark blue and yellow, like Washington State.-- 96.224.52.42 ( talk) 15:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Per Rrius's excellent suggestion, I'm copying here this exchange of comments originally posted at Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States:
As the months go by and more and more states recognize same-sex unions, the idea of an accurate color-coded map is becoming trickier and trickier--perhaps impossible.
New York, New Hampshire and New Jersey are great examples, since, legally, they all "recognize" same-sex marriages, in one way or another, from other states. But, while New York recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages as full-fledged marriages, NH and NJ recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as civil unions.
I think the later should clearly be delineated, while the former may NOT need any illustration on the map. It is likely that most states with civil union statues, if there were legal issues or legislative changes, would recognize same-sex marriages as civil unions. Connecticut is an interesting example of what could happen, because their civil union law does not specifically recognize same-sex marriages, but they also have a statute (passed at the same time as the civil union law) that bans same-sex marriage.
Like I said, this is a VERY tricky thing to illustrate. At this point, it almost seems necessary to have a separate Wikipedia article for Same-Sex Unions in the Northeast, although it would still seem difficult to visually illustrate the complexity involved with recognition of same-sex unions. Things will be come more complex if the Illinois legislature passes their proposed civil union law (which seems likely either later this or next year), which would not only also be open to opposite-sex couples, but would also recognize gay marriages as civil unions.
As California shows, much of the progression of this involves layering over layering of new rights. Can it all really be added to the map?-Benrw 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Textorus ( talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This map needs to be updated, in light of today's Connecticut Supreme Court decision. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it should be striped like California or all purple like Massachusetts. I'm in favor of making both Cali and Conn all purple. Anyone else? Aashalom ( talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There's been a lot of discussion as to whether or not the map should be striped. I just wanted to post an example of what it could look like if the stripes were removed. I also changed the color for weak civil-union states from blue-gray to dark green, as a visual aid, analogous to:
dark-green : strong-civil-unions :: light green : weak-civil-unions.
I think it's a lot easier to read. What do you think? -- Mike Schiraldi ( talk) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with your point that solids are easier to read in general, the problem is with all the possibilities and combinations, too many colors will be required and this makes it not only harder to read, but prone to mistakes. So while I agree with your desire to get rid of the stripes, I nevertheless recommend they stay.
13Gregor ( talk) 09:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'll be the wet blanket here... the map's become too confusing, particularly because it doesn't show the marriage laws in certain states where there are same-sex unions, like the old map did. How about just making two separate maps, one for the same-sex unions, and one for marriage amendments, like the ones here? Intervals ( talk) 02:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the licensing on this image is incorrect. Since this map is a derivative of GFDL, doesn't this image also have to be licensed under GFDL? Queerudite ( talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This means that AZ's Constitution now outlaws gay/same-sex marriage. Hawk505 ( talk) 06:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
NPR is reporting that constitutional bans ni both Florida and Arizona have passed, and the one in California is still too close to call. -- Beland ( talk) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Arizona and California should have orange (CA with green stripes), and Florida should be solid red. 96.224.60.67 ( talk) 22:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Civil Unions might be provided in Hawaii by August 2009.
On this map, New Mexico is shown in the same color as New York and Rhode Island; however, the situation in New Mexico is very different from the other two states. NY by court rulings and executive orders is actively recognizing same-sex marriages, whereas New Mexico has, as far as I've been able to determine, never yet given any official recognition to any same-sex union.
I revised the Same-sex marriage in New Mexico article last August to reflect this reality; also, please see my comments at [ [3]].
This map as it stands, then, is quite misleading; I'm not sure how to fix the color problem, but a casual reader would assume that NM and NY are in the same boat on this issue, but the situation is not at all the same for same-sex couples in those states. Can someone please think about a good way to fix this? Textorus ( talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Last time I looked dosn't Washington state already have a domestic partnership, why are they passing another one? The domestic partnership bill in new mexico will pass one house and fail the other house - as it always does every year from 1999 to 2009. Does new jersey have a plan for same sex marriage, instead of the current "seperate but equal" civil union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 ( talk) 03:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
When will oregon, vermont, california and maine provide same-sex marriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 ( talk) 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Instead of a domestic partnership, why don't Washington just provide SSM already? The sky has not fallen with SSM being legal in MA and CT. civil unions and domestic partnerships or whatever else they are called - SBE ("separate but equal") is not ever the way to go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 ( talk) 03:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Has Hawaii passed its civil union bill yet?
Has Washington state passed its domestic partnership registory bill yet (the 2009 one)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.178.34 ( talk) 05:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It is only confusing, and very few would care about civil unions being available as well if SSM is already legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been hearing rumors that Washington State passed its 3rd domestic partnerships Bill - the "everything but marriage bill", so should the map be green with yellow just like Vermont, new hampshire, etc. Washington has a 1998 DOMA (defense of marriage act) statute, although a constitutional ban on same gender marriage is planned for Washington State in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It passed in the WA House, but it's being stalled in the WA Senate right now, but Gregoire indicated she probably will sign it. Liberal92 ( talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Stripes are good and work well because it shows on the map that status. For example Oregon and California have full domestic partnerships, but a "dreadful" constitutional ban on SSM. Another example are DOMAs (defence of marriage acts) and civil unions for Vermont and New Hampshire. 4 states of New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and New Mexico have no ban or interperate the marriage laws, under their statutes - However just because their is no ban does not still mean SSM is legal. SSM means same sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he's talking about why are there stripes indicating both Marriage and CU'c in a state like Connecticut or stripes for both Civil Unions and Partnerships in New Jersey? Shouldn't we stick to the highest thing provided by the state and just make that one solid color? He wasn't talking about states with partnerships and bans at the same time, which obviously then, stripes would be warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the status in Hawaii to date? Has the civil union bill passed or stalled (i heared it was a tie vote) - can this all be verified or confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been told from various sources that Nevada is planning a domestic partnership which is a very similar model to the US state of Oregon. SSM is illegal under the consitution of California, Nevada and Oregon (various other states as well - I think 30 is it?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.75.133 ( talk) 06:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when did Maryland had a domestic partnership, I can not find information into that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.75.133 ( talk) 06:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is Maine a purple color, not green? I can understand why Hawaii and Maryland are purple since only very few meazly rights are granted to same gender partners! Washingtons 3rd domestic partnership (2009) will soon allow the map to be green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 07:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Do not get too excited - a dumb republican Govonor has said he will "veto" the same sex marriage bill!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, as of 11 am today gay marriage is legal, as the statehouse overturned the veto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.191.50 ( talk) 16:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Bills are being introduced in several states to legalise SSM:
Constitutional amendments proposed in the 2010 election to BAN gay marriage in:
These places already have DOMAs (defence of marriage acts) in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 12:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The one in Wyoming FAILED MONTHS ago. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Where did you heard about the one in Washington? I can find nothing on such a proposal. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is Iowa purple on the map - when did the court make SSM legal there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
SSM is not legal in Vermont yet - the "dopy Rep. Govonor" has to sign the bill yet and have an eff. date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be great to have a clickable map that links to all of the individual articles about Same-sex marriage in Iowa, Same-sex marriage in Connecticut etc, like the one on the United States article? Of course, the map may not need change for this, just the code on the articles. Fortuynist ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 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 5 |
I think the colors of same sex marriage and domestic partnerships should be switched to show a better distinction. Same sex marriage should be the darkest to show it as the furthest progress.
I don't know how to do this but the image needs to be reverted back to the one from a week ago where the yellow stripes were removed from Washington, Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. The reason for the deletion was supposedly "redundancy." This was an incorrect removal of information. The purple/green colors are positive rights that are granted by those states to same-sex couples. Conversely, the yellow represented a negative right - meaning that the state has a statute/law that prohibits same-sex marriage. NOTE - many people incorrectly think on this map that yellow represents an absence of any law in that state.....that is incorrect!!!!
Thus, WA, HI, MD, VT, NH, and ME all need yellow stripes because none of those states can grant full marriage equality without repealing an existing state law. this is very different than saw NY, NM, and RI where NO state law at all exists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.190.88 ( talk) 21:45, 25 November 2008
The map indicates that Iowa's constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions, but the accompanying article says same-sex marriage is not banned by the constitution, but only by statute. WilliamBarrett ( talk) 09:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
it says Statue bans same sex marriage... does it mean state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.53.69 ( talk) 02:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
California has now passed prop 8 making same sex marriages illegal, the current picture does not reflect that ruling. It should be reverted back to the previous picture I believe. 8:18 13 Nov 2008 (UTC)
California does not yet have same-sex marriage. The ruling legalizing same-sex marriage does not take effect for another month. NoIdeaNick ( talk) 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the map also needs to be changed so that Hawaii is the same as Oregon, since Hawaii also constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. 96.224.135.66 ( talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
California's color should be changed. Yes, California legalized same sex marriage (yay!) but domestic partnerships are still legal in the state. It should be striped to reflect this (like New York and Oregon are). Hihellowhatsup ( talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Marriage will not be "opened to same-sex couples" until 6/14/08. But it is still legal. "Legal without access" is still legal, it doesn't mean that it is illegal until that date, it just means it is legal but the ability to commence those legal rights are not offered till that date. And i really do want to understand what the effects of same-sex marriage will have on domestic partnership.-- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 07:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
But, as discussed above, it IS legal. The court's decision was final and binding. The court has the authority to stay, or delay, the enacting of that ruling, but it is nonetheless legal until overturned by a higher court (in this case, only the US Supreme Court), or an amendment to the California constitution (but even that is unclear since the ruling states that the body of the constitution prohibits such discrimination as would be written into the potential proposed amendment). Gimmethoseshoes ( talk) 04:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I would be an * by California and put something like "Effective 6/14/08." Although same-sex marriage is not legal there yet, it's almost certain to happen, and it's a major enough change in the topic of "Same-sex Marriage in the United States" do at least deserve a footnote on the map. Benrw 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
California has same sex marriage and domestic partnership, In needs to be stripped with both colors.
-- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 07:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
" California still has domestic partnerships. There's nothing in the court brief that indicates that domestic partnerships were unconstitutional. So that would mean that both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships are legal in California. Hihellowhatsup ( talk) 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC) " -- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 07:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent)The new color would only be in use for a few weeks. I think Cooljuno's idea, which I obviously disagree with, is better than the compromise. - Rrius ( talk) 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that civil unions in the Northeast and domestic partnerships in California and Oregon should be highlighted the same (in the case of CA, if same-sex marriage is shown to be legal there, it should also be striped over with the same thing): they all are functional equivalents of marriage at the state level, with VERY few exceptions. Moreover, I think a domestic partnership in Oregon is more like a Vermont civil union than a Maine or Washington state domestic partnership.
Perhaps a more reflective, combined title for equivalent unions could just be "Functionally Equivilant Legal Unions" while domestic partnerships with SOME of the rights of marriage could be labeled "Legal Unions with Some Rights" (like Washington and Maine). If someone would suggest more concise descriptions, that would be great.
Also, what about Maryland? A recent bill signed there grants limited domestic partnership rights to both gay and straight couples. I think that nomenclature aside, this law is more similar to the reciprocal benefits laws in Vermont and Hawai'i than it is to the more broad domestic partnerships in Washington State and Maine. Benrw 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The image shows CT as allowing same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court in CT has yet to issue a ruling on the subject; same-sex marriage is not legal in CT at this time. - Jameth ( talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The map is about two things: Marriage/unions and constitutional/statutary bans. Therefore, stripes should be allowed only to depict those states who give some rights to same-sex couples BUT enact some form of ban on marriage or union.
California and New Jersey should not be striped. It seems to me that on all Wikipedia maps only the HIGHEST level of protection is shown. Take Spain, where civil unions still exist along with marriage. Or the Netherlands, where you can choose between marriage, unions and unregistered cohabitation.
Too many stripes make a map possibly more accurate, but illegible. Finedelledanze ( talk) 13:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, the Europe and World lgbt right maps follow other criteria: highest protection. Some countries, as already mentioned, offer 3 layers of protection, and if this had to be reflected on a map, what should it look like? a checkerboard? Thirdly, also adoption maps, abortion maps, death penalty maps follow the criterion of highest protection. And it is not clear why only the US map should be excessively detailed and stripe-obsessed. :)
Also, if somebody explained me how to encode/edit stripes on inkscape, I would be thankful. Cant figure it out. ( Finedelledanze ( talk) 08:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)).
Can it be maginified? It's hard to see what color(s) it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.8.5 ( talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
These maps are getting quite complicated, and will probably be getting even more complicated in the future. I suggest that the map be split in two and only one color be used for each state. One map would show the "highest" level of same-sex partnerships. The states that offer both same-sex marriage and domestic partnership and other anomalies could be indicated by text in the legend. Another map would show which states recognize same-sex marriages from out-of-state. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you noiticed that were DPs, SSMs, CUs, RBs [just in Hawaii], etc (domestic partnerships, same-sex marriages, civil unions, etc) are legally provided, they are all together on the west coast and all together up in the New England region? Come on the rest of the USA, just legaly provide DPs, SSMs, CUs, RBs, etc. Does having different laws in different states create inconsistany and a lack of transparancy - Even with the federal DOMA Defence Of Marriage Act 1996? The USA seems all mixed-up with funny laws that are different, all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Vermont should be stripped yellow as well, because there is actually a same-sex marriage ban in the statutes - Not in the Consitution of Vermont (which is good). Vermont has provided same-sex couples "civil unions" since 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Is gay marriage really prohibited by Colorado's constitution? I mean, Colorado made a law saying that bathrooms are now co-ed, which seems like a step past legalizing same-sex marriage to even forgetting there are different sexes.-- 69.234.193.4 ( talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that D.C. should be green, not purple. Beside the fact that they're called "domestic partnerships" recent legislation has granted same-sex couples all the legal recognition the city can materially provide short of marriage, which is banned thanks to Congress. I don't think that there are any benefits that civil unions and domestic partnerships in other states provide that D.C. does not. - epicAdam ( talk) 18:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Maryland has enacted domestic partnerships early this July. It should be changed on the map to dark blue and yellow, like Washington State.-- 96.224.52.42 ( talk) 15:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Per Rrius's excellent suggestion, I'm copying here this exchange of comments originally posted at Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States:
As the months go by and more and more states recognize same-sex unions, the idea of an accurate color-coded map is becoming trickier and trickier--perhaps impossible.
New York, New Hampshire and New Jersey are great examples, since, legally, they all "recognize" same-sex marriages, in one way or another, from other states. But, while New York recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages as full-fledged marriages, NH and NJ recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as civil unions.
I think the later should clearly be delineated, while the former may NOT need any illustration on the map. It is likely that most states with civil union statues, if there were legal issues or legislative changes, would recognize same-sex marriages as civil unions. Connecticut is an interesting example of what could happen, because their civil union law does not specifically recognize same-sex marriages, but they also have a statute (passed at the same time as the civil union law) that bans same-sex marriage.
Like I said, this is a VERY tricky thing to illustrate. At this point, it almost seems necessary to have a separate Wikipedia article for Same-Sex Unions in the Northeast, although it would still seem difficult to visually illustrate the complexity involved with recognition of same-sex unions. Things will be come more complex if the Illinois legislature passes their proposed civil union law (which seems likely either later this or next year), which would not only also be open to opposite-sex couples, but would also recognize gay marriages as civil unions.
As California shows, much of the progression of this involves layering over layering of new rights. Can it all really be added to the map?-Benrw 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Textorus ( talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This map needs to be updated, in light of today's Connecticut Supreme Court decision. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it should be striped like California or all purple like Massachusetts. I'm in favor of making both Cali and Conn all purple. Anyone else? Aashalom ( talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There's been a lot of discussion as to whether or not the map should be striped. I just wanted to post an example of what it could look like if the stripes were removed. I also changed the color for weak civil-union states from blue-gray to dark green, as a visual aid, analogous to:
dark-green : strong-civil-unions :: light green : weak-civil-unions.
I think it's a lot easier to read. What do you think? -- Mike Schiraldi ( talk) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with your point that solids are easier to read in general, the problem is with all the possibilities and combinations, too many colors will be required and this makes it not only harder to read, but prone to mistakes. So while I agree with your desire to get rid of the stripes, I nevertheless recommend they stay.
13Gregor ( talk) 09:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'll be the wet blanket here... the map's become too confusing, particularly because it doesn't show the marriage laws in certain states where there are same-sex unions, like the old map did. How about just making two separate maps, one for the same-sex unions, and one for marriage amendments, like the ones here? Intervals ( talk) 02:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the licensing on this image is incorrect. Since this map is a derivative of GFDL, doesn't this image also have to be licensed under GFDL? Queerudite ( talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This means that AZ's Constitution now outlaws gay/same-sex marriage. Hawk505 ( talk) 06:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
NPR is reporting that constitutional bans ni both Florida and Arizona have passed, and the one in California is still too close to call. -- Beland ( talk) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Arizona and California should have orange (CA with green stripes), and Florida should be solid red. 96.224.60.67 ( talk) 22:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Civil Unions might be provided in Hawaii by August 2009.
On this map, New Mexico is shown in the same color as New York and Rhode Island; however, the situation in New Mexico is very different from the other two states. NY by court rulings and executive orders is actively recognizing same-sex marriages, whereas New Mexico has, as far as I've been able to determine, never yet given any official recognition to any same-sex union.
I revised the Same-sex marriage in New Mexico article last August to reflect this reality; also, please see my comments at [ [3]].
This map as it stands, then, is quite misleading; I'm not sure how to fix the color problem, but a casual reader would assume that NM and NY are in the same boat on this issue, but the situation is not at all the same for same-sex couples in those states. Can someone please think about a good way to fix this? Textorus ( talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Last time I looked dosn't Washington state already have a domestic partnership, why are they passing another one? The domestic partnership bill in new mexico will pass one house and fail the other house - as it always does every year from 1999 to 2009. Does new jersey have a plan for same sex marriage, instead of the current "seperate but equal" civil union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 ( talk) 03:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
When will oregon, vermont, california and maine provide same-sex marriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 ( talk) 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Instead of a domestic partnership, why don't Washington just provide SSM already? The sky has not fallen with SSM being legal in MA and CT. civil unions and domestic partnerships or whatever else they are called - SBE ("separate but equal") is not ever the way to go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 ( talk) 03:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Has Hawaii passed its civil union bill yet?
Has Washington state passed its domestic partnership registory bill yet (the 2009 one)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.178.34 ( talk) 05:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It is only confusing, and very few would care about civil unions being available as well if SSM is already legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been hearing rumors that Washington State passed its 3rd domestic partnerships Bill - the "everything but marriage bill", so should the map be green with yellow just like Vermont, new hampshire, etc. Washington has a 1998 DOMA (defense of marriage act) statute, although a constitutional ban on same gender marriage is planned for Washington State in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It passed in the WA House, but it's being stalled in the WA Senate right now, but Gregoire indicated she probably will sign it. Liberal92 ( talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Stripes are good and work well because it shows on the map that status. For example Oregon and California have full domestic partnerships, but a "dreadful" constitutional ban on SSM. Another example are DOMAs (defence of marriage acts) and civil unions for Vermont and New Hampshire. 4 states of New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and New Mexico have no ban or interperate the marriage laws, under their statutes - However just because their is no ban does not still mean SSM is legal. SSM means same sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he's talking about why are there stripes indicating both Marriage and CU'c in a state like Connecticut or stripes for both Civil Unions and Partnerships in New Jersey? Shouldn't we stick to the highest thing provided by the state and just make that one solid color? He wasn't talking about states with partnerships and bans at the same time, which obviously then, stripes would be warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the status in Hawaii to date? Has the civil union bill passed or stalled (i heared it was a tie vote) - can this all be verified or confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been told from various sources that Nevada is planning a domestic partnership which is a very similar model to the US state of Oregon. SSM is illegal under the consitution of California, Nevada and Oregon (various other states as well - I think 30 is it?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.75.133 ( talk) 06:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when did Maryland had a domestic partnership, I can not find information into that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.75.133 ( talk) 06:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is Maine a purple color, not green? I can understand why Hawaii and Maryland are purple since only very few meazly rights are granted to same gender partners! Washingtons 3rd domestic partnership (2009) will soon allow the map to be green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 07:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Do not get too excited - a dumb republican Govonor has said he will "veto" the same sex marriage bill!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, as of 11 am today gay marriage is legal, as the statehouse overturned the veto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.191.50 ( talk) 16:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Bills are being introduced in several states to legalise SSM:
Constitutional amendments proposed in the 2010 election to BAN gay marriage in:
These places already have DOMAs (defence of marriage acts) in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 12:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The one in Wyoming FAILED MONTHS ago. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Where did you heard about the one in Washington? I can find nothing on such a proposal. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is Iowa purple on the map - when did the court make SSM legal there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
SSM is not legal in Vermont yet - the "dopy Rep. Govonor" has to sign the bill yet and have an eff. date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be great to have a clickable map that links to all of the individual articles about Same-sex marriage in Iowa, Same-sex marriage in Connecticut etc, like the one on the United States article? Of course, the map may not need change for this, just the code on the articles. Fortuynist ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 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. |