HuffPo is reporting that the judge hearing the Ohio case will issue a ruling against the state's ban on foreign recognition on the 14th. (The current ruling under appeal is about death certificates; this would be all marriages done out of state.) His announcement is to give the state time to craft an immediate appeal, so come the 14th Ohio will be in a Kentucky situation. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add a footnote stating the judges intention to rule (like we did before the federal judge in kentucky made their official ruling)? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I think Ohio already qualifies as "court announced intention to recognize" since the judge announced intention to recognize.. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
-- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the yellow stripe and fixed the footnote; a temporary stay has not been issued yet. --
Prcc27 (
talk) 20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Meaning that the stay could be lifted as early as tomorrow or the stay could be extended awaiting appeal. --
Prcc27 (
talk) 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
With only four states having civil unions now but not marriage, and all four states requiring multiple striping, removing the civil union recognition from the map would be an efficient way to make the map less busy without losing much information. This would also remove footnote 2, and changing the map's title would be simply replacing "partnership" with "marriage." This would free up the lighter blue for out of state recognition as well. In place of having civil unions on this map, we could let File:Same-sex unions by US counties and cities.svg be the default "other unions" map, and let this map be striped only for the stayed ruling states and Oregon's out of state recognition. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 15:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - Discussions about removing CU/DPs have occurred relatively recently and have failed. Remember, this map is on "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States". Taking about civil union information is taking out a lot of very important information. Also let's stop with all these proposals and leave the map as it is... Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the amount of states with civil unions is relevant. Just like when Utah was the only stayed state; it still should have had a stay color. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - As long as civil unions continue to exist, they should be represented. I've seen several criticisms that the map is "too busy." I very much disagree; the map is busy because it reflects the chaotic state of marriage law in the U.S. right now, as it should. Tinmanic ( talk) 19:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@ CTF83!: The greyanomaly didn't say anything about Wisconsin... -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh okay. I think we should group Wisconsin with the other states and footnote it. Just like we do with Kentucky and Ohio; just to be consistent. If we do come up with a different stay color for Kentucky and Ohio then I wouldn't support it. But as of know, I support combining Wisconsin and the other civil union states. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@ CTF83!: No problem! @ Dralwik: Yeah I know, they don't like all these proposals but uh.. isn't that the point of a talk page? Anyways, we should probably wait at least 24 hours from when it was initially proposed before we do anything to Wisconsin. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I oppose merging light blue and medium blue, just as I did the last time this came up. There are too significant differences here. @ Prcc27:, you do not understand my opposition. You (and others) have taken proposal suggesting to an extreme, look at this talk page and the last archive, they are loaded with tons and tons of rejected, merit-less and/or policy-violating proposals aiming to modify the coloring scheme. Every idea that hits one's mind does not need to be proposed/acted upon. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the advantage of merging the civil union colors. The three types of blue (marriage, separate-but-equal civil unions, limited partnerships) are a logical sequence. So, I don't really think the map would be much clearer after removing the Wisconsin color. SPQRobin ( talk) 14:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
According to The Advocate, the Pulaski County Circuit judge hearing the state court challenge to Arkansas' ban announced he will rule in about two weeks, meaning Arkansas could be striped soon. On the other hand, Oregon's triple striping might have a month or less left, as same-sex marriage supporters are asking the District Court judge in Oregon to issue a ruling by May 23, a deadline for ballot initiatives, and the state will neither defend the ban nor appeal a ruling. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Dralwik:@ Thegreyanomaly: but if this is a state supreme court ruling, how is it going to be appealed..? Arkansas might not be striped for this reason. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Rreagan007: There are two cases challenging Arkansas's ban on ssm. One in the state supreme court and one in a federal court. This is the one in the state court I believe... -- Prcc27 ( talk) 07:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The Pennsylvania case may have a ruling as early as May 12. CBS Pittsburgh reports that the couples challenging the ban are seeking a ruling without trial. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 23:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
According to this article, Oregon will amend marriage certificates to be gender neutral, therefore allowing same sex couples to marry. Do we stripe them blue? Bigdaddybrabantio ( talk) 19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oregon will probably not appeal.I believe its the only state that will not appeal if the ban is struck down,and I think the judge is not going to stay his ruling.Of all the states that have its ban being challenge Oregon is the most liberal and open minded to now.The governor nor the AG are defending the ban and the majority now in the state is in favor of ssm.-- Allan120102 ( talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
These footnotes are insane! Footnotes need to be removed. The footnote text is longer than the actual text! All footnotes should be discussed here before ever being added (and those that aren't should be reverted!).
The sentence "Same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah and Michigan prior to their respective judicial rulings being stayed." is too much detail for the footnote. 4, 5, and 6 are about map changes that have not occurred. 4 and 5 only apply to a specific number of couples, not to the public and thus do not belong. I am being bold and axing them. There are too many footnotes. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I reverted this undiscussed edit by @ Prcc27: [4], and removed the Tennessee footnote that only affects the plaintiffs and no one else. Please exhibit restraint adding footnotes. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: I took it to the talk before I made the edit. [5] So if you disagree with an edit, maybe you should engage in the discussion rather than revert me. The only reason it hasn't been "discussed" is because you haven't spoke up. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the footnote shouldn't be there, but if the Tennessee footnote is there (which it was) then the Indiana footnote should have been there too. --
Prcc27 (
talk) 23:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Those changes made, I still suggest:
67.215.140.115 ( talk) 04:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The "*" footnote is clunky: "Same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government for residents of all states based on location of ceremony."
Suggested replacement: "The federal government recognizes all legally performed same-sex marriages, regardless of the current state of residence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.140.115 ( talk) 02:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Arkansas ban struck down. Supposedly no stay was issue. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-same-sex-marriage-ban/ -- Allan120102 ( talk) 22:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Off Topic
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
|
Before any brings it up, Arkansas should not have a specific mention in any of the footnotes after the inevitable stay is in place as is the current case for Utah and Michigan. The fact that SSMs were performed is something to be mentioned on articles, not templates. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Another link on the issue. We might have to change Arkansas.. [8] -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
We don't need any footnote! We should not be changing Arkansas until the stay actually comes. We only have data on a small number of counties both for and against. Leave the map as is until the stay comes in place. Also, the ruling covers the entire state. If some clerks want to be outlaws and not follow the unstayed order, so be it, but that does not change the fact that currently is the law of the land in Arkansas Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Supreme Court of Arkansas refuses emergency stay request: read here. Just an update. EvergreenFir ( talk) 23:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
This just came in within the hour: [9] SSM has been put on hold in the state. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
From what I can tell, marriages are legal, but clerks can no longer issue licenses. Those with a licenses can still get married. EvergreenFir ( talk) 02:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that only the constitutional ban was struck down and the law banning same-sex marriage was left intact. Was the statute banning same-sex marriage also struck down? Otherwise, we're going to have to change Arkansas to pink instead of blue. [10] -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Putting an end to this pointless discussion: [11] "Mr Piazza's ruling invalidated a 2004 state constitutional amendment that passed with overwhelming support, as well as a 1997 statute." They can't get rid of the amendment and not the statute in this kind of case. That would make less than zero sense, as both laws do the exact same thing and both laws were "legally" passed. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so the deal here seems to be that in Arkansas, in addition to the constitutional amendment ban, there were 2 separate statutes regarding same-sex marriage--one that made same-sex marriage illegal and one that prohibited country clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Both the constitutional ban and the statute ban on same-sex marriage were struck down, but the judge failed to mention the second statute concerning county clerks in his ruling. So, same-sex marriage is now technically legal in Arkansas, but if county clerks issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the clerk can be fined by the state. I suggest we stripe Arkansas to be both blue (for legal same-sex marriage) and pink for statute prohibits same-sex marriage. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's the best we can do. Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like we won't have to worry. Judge to strike down that 3rd law as well: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/ark-judge-says-he-will-expand-ruling-strike-down-ban-on-gay-marriage-licenses/ EvergreenFir ( talk) 18:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
[12] The inevitable stay has come. Arkansas has been updated to be like Texas and the other stay states. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Idaho's ban struck down. [13] -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I added a footnote. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Ninth Circuit issued a temporary stay in Idaho. No marriages tomorrow. [15]. I've updated the map. I don't know how to properly align the stripes with Utah to make it all pretty. Tinmanic ( talk) 20:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If an appeals court rules that a same-sex marriage ban isn't unconstitutional, would the state remain striped with yellow or would it go back to solid red/pink/etc.? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That would work.. --
Prcc27 (
talk) 23:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Oregon United for Marriage via this blog post, "The federal judge in Oregon’s marriage equality lawsuit said he plans to issue an opinion at noon [Pacific Time] on Monday." It's too weak of a source to put in the article unless we find a news article to that effect, but something to keep an eye out for. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 20:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
[16]. Here is a mainstream news article.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 21:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Good - with any luck we'll be able to get rid of that headache-inducing triple striping. Tinmanic ( talk) 22:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree; if Oregon's ruling is stayed, there will have to be four stripes: Yellow, Dark Gray, Light Blue, and Light Red. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Multiple news sources say the ban has been struck down. It seems the ruling is immediate. [17] Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Bye, triple-striping. I also removed the dark gray category (recognition of out-of-state marriages) from the legend but retained it as a comment in case it's needed again at some point. Oregon was the only entity on the map that was using it. Tinmanic ( talk) 19:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Once Nevada's case comes through (similar case as OR except that the Gov is a pro-SSM Republican instead of a pro-SSM Democrat), the last of the former Pacific Time Zone striping eye-sore will be gone! Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
In terms of whether we should be using stripes at this point, the "score" of the 50 states is
So even through we have Nine colors, we have striped concepted has the third most common. Just putting this out there... Naraht ( talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh gosh, do we have to bring back the recognition color for Utah? I think it might have to be striped now because (it has a date it will go into effect in 21 days). The only problem is that it's in state same-sex marriages that will be recognized, not out-of-state. What did we do for California? [18] -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
What we've done before in the past is add footnotes for stays that have a set date rather then an indefinite one. Should I remove the footnote I added..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I lean towards keeping it but I'm not strongly in favor of doing so; I wouldn't have that big of a problem removing it (especially since most of the temporary stays eventually get extended anyways). I'd like to hear what other users have to say before removing it though. Prcc27 ( talk) 23:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Your link has NOTHING to do with Utah I Ctrl+F "UT" and "Utah" and see nothing. We do not need to do anything to Utah. As has been noted multiple times, Utah's situation has no similarity to California's (where SSM was legalized and then later by completely separate legal actions temporarily suppressed). The only reason any SSMs were performed in Utah was because a judge chose not to apply a stay when it was clear there would be appeals. Leave Utah as is, no footnote, no change. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
When/if the stay is lifted ssc in Utah will have more rights than ssc in Oklahoma, Texas, etc. I support footnoting or striping Utah gray when the stay is lifted. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Dralwik: Then I think it should be footnoted. As for the world map, should there be a green ring and a blue ring? How would that work out..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, when the stay is lifted. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Even if it's not removed, the Utah portion of the Footnote 3 needs to be changed: it reads as if Utah is acting voluntarily ... something like: "Utah has been ordered to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the state between their ban being struck down on December 20, 2013, and that order begin stayed on January 6, 2014. The new order becomes effective on June 9, 2014." Mw843 ( talk) 01:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Prcc27:, you really need to stop it with footnotes. You know they are always contentious, but you add them before you even have consensus for them. Utah does not need any special demarcation on the map. Anything that is going on in Utah pertains to a very small number of SSMs ever performed. The details involved for Utah are best meant for articles, not templates. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Prcc27: - Any comparisons between Utah and California are completely moot, that is what it means. The 18,000 marriages between In re Marriage Cases and the passage of Proposition 8 were legally sanctioned by existing law. That is, the Prop 8 federal court case had zero relevance to their legality. Even if that case went the other way, the 18k SSMs would still be be valid. Also, California did used to have footnotes primarily because of a 2009 law passed by the state legislature to undermine the amendment leading to the map being completely misleading without a footnote to the article. The Utah marriages may mean nothing if the appellate court and the SCOTUS rules against the plaintiffs, which is completely uncomparable to California. Comparing California to Utah (or Michigan or Arkansas) is highly dubious. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Could we stripe Utah light blue? If Utah doesn't qualify as light blue in this case then maybe it's time to change the wording for light blue. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: It's enumerated privileges granted to a limited group of people. I do agree that it could possibly confuse readers and shouldn't be added unless it could somehow be made clear why it is colored that way. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: I kinda already said that it shouldn't be added unless it was more clear that the situation represents that color. I don't know what you mean by "give up" but maybe that might qualify as giving up...
@ Thegreyanomaly: Yes, the footnote does refer to the present, but the link mentions the past as well. I'm satisfied with significant past situations being represented (even though it wasn't the original intent of that footnote). The reason I say "significant" is because I do think it's important we don't go overboard with addressing every single ssm event that happened in the past, especially if it isn't relevant anymore. I think the footnote I proposed is good because it covers how the current situation varies, but also links to past situations that might also be of importance to note. I will make a new section at the bottom for the footnote proposal. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 07:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: Utah was added to Template:Same-sex unions under the "Previously performed" section by someone else. I'm the one who added ACT with a line through it (which got removed for some reason). -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Also, I don't think anyone's strongly opposed to it either since nobody's chimed in to declare that their opposition. The footnote has had weak and insufficient support. And I don't think that Utah has to be referenced directly in the key. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Prcc27: - Please stop crystal balling and drawing up convoluted scenarios to justify your damn footnotes... Questioning whether the reddest state in the nation would not defend an anti-SSM law is a waste of thought process. Unless the current Utah governor and AG (who have said they will appeal and are appealing) are no more and they somehow get replaced by pro-SSM replacements, there is no logical reason to think they won't appeal. If the SCOTUS or the appeals court says that banning SSM is constitutional, then most likely those marriages will be moot. And it is not above NOM to challenge their legal validity if that happens. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like that pink & gold striping combo could make its first appearance. [23] Mw843 ( talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Ban struck down in PA. No word yet on a stay. No stay.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-strikes-down-pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ba
Tinmanic (
talk) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the pink and gold stripes will not make its appereance for now as Pensylvania governor would not appeal so it will probably appear until Indiana,Wyoming or West Virginia ban is struck down,whichever comes first.Imo it will be Indiana.-- Allan120102 ( talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians is considering legalizing same-sex marriage. Since they're in Oregon, no map change is needed but we might need to update the tribal count in the footnote. Oregonian news article D ralwi k| Have a Chat 14:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
In Tanco v. Haslam, a US District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction that the marriages of the 3 plaintiff couples be recognized immediately ... a PI is a very strong indicator that the judge believes plaintiff's suit will be successful. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals later stayed the injunction, pending review. I think that the fact that there's a case at the appeals court is enough to stripe Tennessee red and gold. 67.215.140.115 ( talk) 17:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, if Tennessee is striped then Utah should definitely be striped (especially since there isn't even a footnote for Tennessee)! Why not stripe Utah light blue in that case (for limited privileges to couples who were married before the stay)?
Prcc27 (
talk) 00:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, an injunction was stayed, not a ruling against the ban itself. Prcc27 ( talk) 00:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Wisconsin AG has filed a pre-emptive stay request with the US District Court, which likely means he's expecting a ruling sooner rather than later. Mw843 ( talk) 23:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The supreme court of Wisconsin refused to hear a ssm case. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to proposal that we condense the 3rd footnote. My proposal is to replace the 3rd footnote with "some stayed states' situations may vary." That way it covers states that have partial bans struck down, states that performed same-sex marriage before a ruling was stayed, and states that recognize "grandfathered" same-sex marriages. Not only would it reduce the 3rd footnote, it would also redirect the readers to a link to go to for further information. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 07:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Dralwik: That's a good point; without the new footnote there is absolutely no way to distinguish between Utah and Texas though. (However, thegreyanomaly would argue that UT, AR, & MI previously performing same-sex marriage isn't significant and Utah recognizing those marriages isn't either. They also argued against having a separate color because "The lawsuits are all stayed, it makes no difference to a same-sex couple in KY/OH versus the others; they are barred from SSM either way.") So currently they might be in the same situation, but eventually they wouldn't be. I also agree that it is important to note the difference between the possible future outcomes of KY/OH vs the rest. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is it necessary that footnote 1 include the sentence "Some states also allow other same-sex unions"? That's already covered by the light blue and teal categories that apply to Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin. I deleted the sentence from the footnote but then @ Prcc27: reverted it and told me that "we already agreed to include it." I don't see where that was agreed upon. Can someone explain why the sentence is necessary? If not, I propose deleting it as redundant. Tinmanic ( talk) 11:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this is the wording for light gray: "No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions in territory law." Is "In territory law" really necessary..? I think it should be removed.. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
(Edit): It seems as though the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians has a marriage law directly tied to Michigan's law. [24]
I know this has been brought up before, but I really think changing the stripes to solid gold would be more reader-friendly. The reason we have pink vs red vs brown is that a constitution is more difficult to amend than a statute. But once it's overturned by a court, the distinction is moot. Sure, if the ban is reinstated we'll want to know which color to use, but at that point it's unlikely to change and so still moot. If it comes to that and people really think it's necessary, I suppose IN, WV, and WY could be striped gold-pink, but meanwhile solid gold for overturned constitutional bans is more legible. — kwami ( talk) 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
(Edit): How will they know what kind of ban is being challenged? I'm weakly opposed, but I do think it would be nice to make the map less complicated. Prcc27 ( talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Light gold? That could work.. Prcc27 ( talk) 00:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) For those who missed the example link, and in case it gets deleted in the future, the map shows:
Might I recommend the following for constitutional ban + stay? Seems different enough.
EvergreenFir ( talk) 04:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
(It looks like it might have actually been @ Dralwik:'s proposal.) -- Prcc27 ( talk) 04:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Me too. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The new map is in. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 05:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Added legend info in hidden text since the colors are not currently used. Edit here. Will need to translate legend info for dark gold (█) soon. I'll take care of Japanese and French tomorrow. Tagging Dralwik. EvergreenFir ( talk) 05:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks better. So if and when Wisconsin goes, and is stayed, it would be dark gold and light blue striping, while Colorado would be medium gold and medium blue? Also, would it make sense to interleave the red and gold descriptions, so the dark gold is moved to after the dark red, and when medium gold happens, it goes between medium and dark red? It would better show the relationship between the corresponding reds and golds. Mw843 ( talk) 12:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
You all might have waited at least a day or two to let people comment before making such a big change, instead of ten hours, especially on a long holiday weekend. How does ten hours allow anything remotely close to a consensus to form? I log in this morning and suddenly the stripes are gone. I actually liked the stripes and I find the proposal confusing with so many different shades of yellow. Not happy about how this was done. I'm not even sure how many yellow categories are being added. Is it just two? And why is Wyoming bright yellow in one of the maps in the file history? Tests should not be made to the main map. Tinmanic ( talk) 18:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Imo this is a great idea its easier for a reader to read and see. I might say I prefer there should be a different type of shade of gold for rulings that have been completely overturned to the ones that have been just partially overturned for recognized only.I might add that Oregon ruling might be stay if the supreme court gives the stay NOM is asking them.I hope they fail and the stay is not granted as it was given to Utah.-- Allan120102 ( talk) 03:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I don't think the original wording has the problem you're seeing. Of course sources aren't mentioning civil union bans; if the marriage ban is struck down who is going to want a civil union instead? To me, the ambiguity over civil unions is a point for removing civil unions from the map and limiting the colors to how the state laws impact marriage, not turning the legend into a semantic pretzel. I still think it might be wise to find a distinct color for KY/OH. Maybe a pale cream color? D ralwi k| Have a Chat 02:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
"when wording in dispute, the page goes to the original while it is being hammered out" Does that apply to the map too?
I support going back to striping or fixing the wording. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
So with the stay colors in place, Ohio and Kentucky still appear the same as Texas, despite the different reach of their individual rulings (merely recognizing out of state marriages against the state ban struck down). So I was thinking, why not stripe the out of state recognition stay color, akin to how we stripe out of state recognition? Making a state recognize out of state marriage has no effect on the state's performance of marriage, so we could still stripe the ban color. Full marriage is a solid color; full marriage ban stay is a solid color. Out of state recognition is striped, out of state stay is striped as well. We would also eliminate footnote 3.
It's been a while since I chimed in on this topic. I for one am glad to see that there's less striping on this map than their used to be and I'm quite in favor of avoiding steps that introduce yet more striping to the map; it's just visually jarring and messy. As I have stated in the past, it's all a result of trying to do what is, in my opinion, too many things at once. If I were the King of Wikipedia, I'd strip this map down to a barebones version that answers what I believe to be the question most users have when they see it : Is same-sex marriage legal in a given state or not? Well intentioned efforts to add more layers of information to the map have resulted in an ever-shifting plethora of different shades and striped configurations. Now the map is trying to tell us not only whether SSM is legal in a given state, but to differentiate between types of bans, to shoehorn in the status of marriage-like unions, recognition of foreign marriages, and so on. All good intentions but all resulting in information overload; we're asking one map to try and do what two or three should be doing. However, I am not the King of Wikipedia, and there's no way anyone is going to take my stand on it seriously, so I'll offer up a TL;DR version : Don't go back to more stripes. The map is much more user friendly without them. Sher eth 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I support striping for KY/OH because I don't like the contradiction between the key and the footnote. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I oppose any changes to Kentucky or Ohio. I think the footnote is sufficient for now. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Could we please come up with better wording!? I don't like the contradiction between the key and the footnote... Prcc27 ( talk) 08:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I support the striping. It seems to make sense to stripe them, since when the stay is lifted (assuming the ruling doesn't change) the states will be striped again anyways. Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I support striping, or at least some map based distinction, for Ohio and Kentucky. It's a very different situation comparatively. The distinction is worth more than a footnote. (I'm personally of the opinion that the least important distinction on the map currently is dark and medium red. I think states having civil unions is of reasonable importance, but I don't really care about their banning status at this point.) -- Siradia ( talk) 14:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The current vote tally is 4-1 in favor of striping KY/OH, with two further comments. Tinmanic, Shereth, what are your stances? Here is the map, with the striping aligned and the stay color darkened a bit.
Instead of "removing civil unions" from the map what if we just had 2 separate maps for same-sex marriage and other same-sex unions at the state level? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: It definitely wasn't intentional.. It was probably a mobile edit. Prcc27 ( talk) 19:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is what the "just marriage" map looks like. I like how simple this map is, and I agree that civil unions are becoming irrelevant to this map as the focus of the current movement is on full marriage and the recent rulings are largely silent on allowing civil unions. However, I'm doubtful we'll find the consensus for this cleaner, but civil union-less, map. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 16:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Btw, civil unions are legal in way more than 2 states. Check the proposed civil unions map. Prcc27 ( talk) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Having a separate CUs map would allow for more information on civil unions though. Prcc27 ( talk) 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, thanks for the idea. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I suggested the partly redundant map that @
Prcc27: has been replacing (or advocating replacing)
File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg with be deleted as the user has been doing this to undermine the consensus against removing Civil Union and Domestic Partnership content. Please chime in at
c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.png. Thanks!
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 16:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Apparently misusing an image is not grounds to delete it. Ignore this section.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 01:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems changes to the map are constantly proposed and discussed. I would like to suggest to not make too much changes too often, because
I'm not going to bother discussing much, but here are just my thoughts. Regards, SPQRobin ( talk) 14:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
HuffPo is reporting that the judge hearing the Ohio case will issue a ruling against the state's ban on foreign recognition on the 14th. (The current ruling under appeal is about death certificates; this would be all marriages done out of state.) His announcement is to give the state time to craft an immediate appeal, so come the 14th Ohio will be in a Kentucky situation. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 17:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add a footnote stating the judges intention to rule (like we did before the federal judge in kentucky made their official ruling)? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I think Ohio already qualifies as "court announced intention to recognize" since the judge announced intention to recognize.. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
-- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the yellow stripe and fixed the footnote; a temporary stay has not been issued yet. --
Prcc27 (
talk) 20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Meaning that the stay could be lifted as early as tomorrow or the stay could be extended awaiting appeal. --
Prcc27 (
talk) 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
With only four states having civil unions now but not marriage, and all four states requiring multiple striping, removing the civil union recognition from the map would be an efficient way to make the map less busy without losing much information. This would also remove footnote 2, and changing the map's title would be simply replacing "partnership" with "marriage." This would free up the lighter blue for out of state recognition as well. In place of having civil unions on this map, we could let File:Same-sex unions by US counties and cities.svg be the default "other unions" map, and let this map be striped only for the stayed ruling states and Oregon's out of state recognition. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 15:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - Discussions about removing CU/DPs have occurred relatively recently and have failed. Remember, this map is on "Legal status of same-sex partnership in the United States". Taking about civil union information is taking out a lot of very important information. Also let's stop with all these proposals and leave the map as it is... Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the amount of states with civil unions is relevant. Just like when Utah was the only stayed state; it still should have had a stay color. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - As long as civil unions continue to exist, they should be represented. I've seen several criticisms that the map is "too busy." I very much disagree; the map is busy because it reflects the chaotic state of marriage law in the U.S. right now, as it should. Tinmanic ( talk) 19:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@ CTF83!: The greyanomaly didn't say anything about Wisconsin... -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh okay. I think we should group Wisconsin with the other states and footnote it. Just like we do with Kentucky and Ohio; just to be consistent. If we do come up with a different stay color for Kentucky and Ohio then I wouldn't support it. But as of know, I support combining Wisconsin and the other civil union states. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@ CTF83!: No problem! @ Dralwik: Yeah I know, they don't like all these proposals but uh.. isn't that the point of a talk page? Anyways, we should probably wait at least 24 hours from when it was initially proposed before we do anything to Wisconsin. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I oppose merging light blue and medium blue, just as I did the last time this came up. There are too significant differences here. @ Prcc27:, you do not understand my opposition. You (and others) have taken proposal suggesting to an extreme, look at this talk page and the last archive, they are loaded with tons and tons of rejected, merit-less and/or policy-violating proposals aiming to modify the coloring scheme. Every idea that hits one's mind does not need to be proposed/acted upon. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the advantage of merging the civil union colors. The three types of blue (marriage, separate-but-equal civil unions, limited partnerships) are a logical sequence. So, I don't really think the map would be much clearer after removing the Wisconsin color. SPQRobin ( talk) 14:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
According to The Advocate, the Pulaski County Circuit judge hearing the state court challenge to Arkansas' ban announced he will rule in about two weeks, meaning Arkansas could be striped soon. On the other hand, Oregon's triple striping might have a month or less left, as same-sex marriage supporters are asking the District Court judge in Oregon to issue a ruling by May 23, a deadline for ballot initiatives, and the state will neither defend the ban nor appeal a ruling. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Dralwik:@ Thegreyanomaly: but if this is a state supreme court ruling, how is it going to be appealed..? Arkansas might not be striped for this reason. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Rreagan007: There are two cases challenging Arkansas's ban on ssm. One in the state supreme court and one in a federal court. This is the one in the state court I believe... -- Prcc27 ( talk) 07:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The Pennsylvania case may have a ruling as early as May 12. CBS Pittsburgh reports that the couples challenging the ban are seeking a ruling without trial. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 23:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
According to this article, Oregon will amend marriage certificates to be gender neutral, therefore allowing same sex couples to marry. Do we stripe them blue? Bigdaddybrabantio ( talk) 19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oregon will probably not appeal.I believe its the only state that will not appeal if the ban is struck down,and I think the judge is not going to stay his ruling.Of all the states that have its ban being challenge Oregon is the most liberal and open minded to now.The governor nor the AG are defending the ban and the majority now in the state is in favor of ssm.-- Allan120102 ( talk) 19:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
These footnotes are insane! Footnotes need to be removed. The footnote text is longer than the actual text! All footnotes should be discussed here before ever being added (and those that aren't should be reverted!).
The sentence "Same-sex marriages were briefly performed in Utah and Michigan prior to their respective judicial rulings being stayed." is too much detail for the footnote. 4, 5, and 6 are about map changes that have not occurred. 4 and 5 only apply to a specific number of couples, not to the public and thus do not belong. I am being bold and axing them. There are too many footnotes. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I reverted this undiscussed edit by @ Prcc27: [4], and removed the Tennessee footnote that only affects the plaintiffs and no one else. Please exhibit restraint adding footnotes. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: I took it to the talk before I made the edit. [5] So if you disagree with an edit, maybe you should engage in the discussion rather than revert me. The only reason it hasn't been "discussed" is because you haven't spoke up. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the footnote shouldn't be there, but if the Tennessee footnote is there (which it was) then the Indiana footnote should have been there too. --
Prcc27 (
talk) 23:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Those changes made, I still suggest:
67.215.140.115 ( talk) 04:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The "*" footnote is clunky: "Same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government for residents of all states based on location of ceremony."
Suggested replacement: "The federal government recognizes all legally performed same-sex marriages, regardless of the current state of residence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.140.115 ( talk) 02:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Arkansas ban struck down. Supposedly no stay was issue. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-same-sex-marriage-ban/ -- Allan120102 ( talk) 22:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Off Topic
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
|
Before any brings it up, Arkansas should not have a specific mention in any of the footnotes after the inevitable stay is in place as is the current case for Utah and Michigan. The fact that SSMs were performed is something to be mentioned on articles, not templates. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Another link on the issue. We might have to change Arkansas.. [8] -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
We don't need any footnote! We should not be changing Arkansas until the stay actually comes. We only have data on a small number of counties both for and against. Leave the map as is until the stay comes in place. Also, the ruling covers the entire state. If some clerks want to be outlaws and not follow the unstayed order, so be it, but that does not change the fact that currently is the law of the land in Arkansas Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Supreme Court of Arkansas refuses emergency stay request: read here. Just an update. EvergreenFir ( talk) 23:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
This just came in within the hour: [9] SSM has been put on hold in the state. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
From what I can tell, marriages are legal, but clerks can no longer issue licenses. Those with a licenses can still get married. EvergreenFir ( talk) 02:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that only the constitutional ban was struck down and the law banning same-sex marriage was left intact. Was the statute banning same-sex marriage also struck down? Otherwise, we're going to have to change Arkansas to pink instead of blue. [10] -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Putting an end to this pointless discussion: [11] "Mr Piazza's ruling invalidated a 2004 state constitutional amendment that passed with overwhelming support, as well as a 1997 statute." They can't get rid of the amendment and not the statute in this kind of case. That would make less than zero sense, as both laws do the exact same thing and both laws were "legally" passed. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 18:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so the deal here seems to be that in Arkansas, in addition to the constitutional amendment ban, there were 2 separate statutes regarding same-sex marriage--one that made same-sex marriage illegal and one that prohibited country clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Both the constitutional ban and the statute ban on same-sex marriage were struck down, but the judge failed to mention the second statute concerning county clerks in his ruling. So, same-sex marriage is now technically legal in Arkansas, but if county clerks issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the clerk can be fined by the state. I suggest we stripe Arkansas to be both blue (for legal same-sex marriage) and pink for statute prohibits same-sex marriage. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's the best we can do. Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like we won't have to worry. Judge to strike down that 3rd law as well: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/ark-judge-says-he-will-expand-ruling-strike-down-ban-on-gay-marriage-licenses/ EvergreenFir ( talk) 18:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
[12] The inevitable stay has come. Arkansas has been updated to be like Texas and the other stay states. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Idaho's ban struck down. [13] -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I added a footnote. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Ninth Circuit issued a temporary stay in Idaho. No marriages tomorrow. [15]. I've updated the map. I don't know how to properly align the stripes with Utah to make it all pretty. Tinmanic ( talk) 20:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If an appeals court rules that a same-sex marriage ban isn't unconstitutional, would the state remain striped with yellow or would it go back to solid red/pink/etc.? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That would work.. --
Prcc27 (
talk) 23:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Oregon United for Marriage via this blog post, "The federal judge in Oregon’s marriage equality lawsuit said he plans to issue an opinion at noon [Pacific Time] on Monday." It's too weak of a source to put in the article unless we find a news article to that effect, but something to keep an eye out for. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 20:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
[16]. Here is a mainstream news article.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 21:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Good - with any luck we'll be able to get rid of that headache-inducing triple striping. Tinmanic ( talk) 22:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree; if Oregon's ruling is stayed, there will have to be four stripes: Yellow, Dark Gray, Light Blue, and Light Red. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Multiple news sources say the ban has been struck down. It seems the ruling is immediate. [17] Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Bye, triple-striping. I also removed the dark gray category (recognition of out-of-state marriages) from the legend but retained it as a comment in case it's needed again at some point. Oregon was the only entity on the map that was using it. Tinmanic ( talk) 19:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Once Nevada's case comes through (similar case as OR except that the Gov is a pro-SSM Republican instead of a pro-SSM Democrat), the last of the former Pacific Time Zone striping eye-sore will be gone! Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
In terms of whether we should be using stripes at this point, the "score" of the 50 states is
So even through we have Nine colors, we have striped concepted has the third most common. Just putting this out there... Naraht ( talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh gosh, do we have to bring back the recognition color for Utah? I think it might have to be striped now because (it has a date it will go into effect in 21 days). The only problem is that it's in state same-sex marriages that will be recognized, not out-of-state. What did we do for California? [18] -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
What we've done before in the past is add footnotes for stays that have a set date rather then an indefinite one. Should I remove the footnote I added..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I lean towards keeping it but I'm not strongly in favor of doing so; I wouldn't have that big of a problem removing it (especially since most of the temporary stays eventually get extended anyways). I'd like to hear what other users have to say before removing it though. Prcc27 ( talk) 23:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Your link has NOTHING to do with Utah I Ctrl+F "UT" and "Utah" and see nothing. We do not need to do anything to Utah. As has been noted multiple times, Utah's situation has no similarity to California's (where SSM was legalized and then later by completely separate legal actions temporarily suppressed). The only reason any SSMs were performed in Utah was because a judge chose not to apply a stay when it was clear there would be appeals. Leave Utah as is, no footnote, no change. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
When/if the stay is lifted ssc in Utah will have more rights than ssc in Oklahoma, Texas, etc. I support footnoting or striping Utah gray when the stay is lifted. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Dralwik: Then I think it should be footnoted. As for the world map, should there be a green ring and a blue ring? How would that work out..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, when the stay is lifted. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Even if it's not removed, the Utah portion of the Footnote 3 needs to be changed: it reads as if Utah is acting voluntarily ... something like: "Utah has been ordered to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the state between their ban being struck down on December 20, 2013, and that order begin stayed on January 6, 2014. The new order becomes effective on June 9, 2014." Mw843 ( talk) 01:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Prcc27:, you really need to stop it with footnotes. You know they are always contentious, but you add them before you even have consensus for them. Utah does not need any special demarcation on the map. Anything that is going on in Utah pertains to a very small number of SSMs ever performed. The details involved for Utah are best meant for articles, not templates. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Prcc27: - Any comparisons between Utah and California are completely moot, that is what it means. The 18,000 marriages between In re Marriage Cases and the passage of Proposition 8 were legally sanctioned by existing law. That is, the Prop 8 federal court case had zero relevance to their legality. Even if that case went the other way, the 18k SSMs would still be be valid. Also, California did used to have footnotes primarily because of a 2009 law passed by the state legislature to undermine the amendment leading to the map being completely misleading without a footnote to the article. The Utah marriages may mean nothing if the appellate court and the SCOTUS rules against the plaintiffs, which is completely uncomparable to California. Comparing California to Utah (or Michigan or Arkansas) is highly dubious. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Could we stripe Utah light blue? If Utah doesn't qualify as light blue in this case then maybe it's time to change the wording for light blue. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: It's enumerated privileges granted to a limited group of people. I do agree that it could possibly confuse readers and shouldn't be added unless it could somehow be made clear why it is colored that way. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: I kinda already said that it shouldn't be added unless it was more clear that the situation represents that color. I don't know what you mean by "give up" but maybe that might qualify as giving up...
@ Thegreyanomaly: Yes, the footnote does refer to the present, but the link mentions the past as well. I'm satisfied with significant past situations being represented (even though it wasn't the original intent of that footnote). The reason I say "significant" is because I do think it's important we don't go overboard with addressing every single ssm event that happened in the past, especially if it isn't relevant anymore. I think the footnote I proposed is good because it covers how the current situation varies, but also links to past situations that might also be of importance to note. I will make a new section at the bottom for the footnote proposal. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 07:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: Utah was added to Template:Same-sex unions under the "Previously performed" section by someone else. I'm the one who added ACT with a line through it (which got removed for some reason). -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Also, I don't think anyone's strongly opposed to it either since nobody's chimed in to declare that their opposition. The footnote has had weak and insufficient support. And I don't think that Utah has to be referenced directly in the key. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Prcc27: - Please stop crystal balling and drawing up convoluted scenarios to justify your damn footnotes... Questioning whether the reddest state in the nation would not defend an anti-SSM law is a waste of thought process. Unless the current Utah governor and AG (who have said they will appeal and are appealing) are no more and they somehow get replaced by pro-SSM replacements, there is no logical reason to think they won't appeal. If the SCOTUS or the appeals court says that banning SSM is constitutional, then most likely those marriages will be moot. And it is not above NOM to challenge their legal validity if that happens. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like that pink & gold striping combo could make its first appearance. [23] Mw843 ( talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Ban struck down in PA. No word yet on a stay. No stay.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-strikes-down-pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ba
Tinmanic (
talk) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the pink and gold stripes will not make its appereance for now as Pensylvania governor would not appeal so it will probably appear until Indiana,Wyoming or West Virginia ban is struck down,whichever comes first.Imo it will be Indiana.-- Allan120102 ( talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians is considering legalizing same-sex marriage. Since they're in Oregon, no map change is needed but we might need to update the tribal count in the footnote. Oregonian news article D ralwi k| Have a Chat 14:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
In Tanco v. Haslam, a US District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction that the marriages of the 3 plaintiff couples be recognized immediately ... a PI is a very strong indicator that the judge believes plaintiff's suit will be successful. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals later stayed the injunction, pending review. I think that the fact that there's a case at the appeals court is enough to stripe Tennessee red and gold. 67.215.140.115 ( talk) 17:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, if Tennessee is striped then Utah should definitely be striped (especially since there isn't even a footnote for Tennessee)! Why not stripe Utah light blue in that case (for limited privileges to couples who were married before the stay)?
Prcc27 (
talk) 00:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, an injunction was stayed, not a ruling against the ban itself. Prcc27 ( talk) 00:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Wisconsin AG has filed a pre-emptive stay request with the US District Court, which likely means he's expecting a ruling sooner rather than later. Mw843 ( talk) 23:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The supreme court of Wisconsin refused to hear a ssm case. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to proposal that we condense the 3rd footnote. My proposal is to replace the 3rd footnote with "some stayed states' situations may vary." That way it covers states that have partial bans struck down, states that performed same-sex marriage before a ruling was stayed, and states that recognize "grandfathered" same-sex marriages. Not only would it reduce the 3rd footnote, it would also redirect the readers to a link to go to for further information. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 07:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Dralwik: That's a good point; without the new footnote there is absolutely no way to distinguish between Utah and Texas though. (However, thegreyanomaly would argue that UT, AR, & MI previously performing same-sex marriage isn't significant and Utah recognizing those marriages isn't either. They also argued against having a separate color because "The lawsuits are all stayed, it makes no difference to a same-sex couple in KY/OH versus the others; they are barred from SSM either way.") So currently they might be in the same situation, but eventually they wouldn't be. I also agree that it is important to note the difference between the possible future outcomes of KY/OH vs the rest. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is it necessary that footnote 1 include the sentence "Some states also allow other same-sex unions"? That's already covered by the light blue and teal categories that apply to Nevada, Colorado and Wisconsin. I deleted the sentence from the footnote but then @ Prcc27: reverted it and told me that "we already agreed to include it." I don't see where that was agreed upon. Can someone explain why the sentence is necessary? If not, I propose deleting it as redundant. Tinmanic ( talk) 11:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this is the wording for light gray: "No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions in territory law." Is "In territory law" really necessary..? I think it should be removed.. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
(Edit): It seems as though the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians has a marriage law directly tied to Michigan's law. [24]
I know this has been brought up before, but I really think changing the stripes to solid gold would be more reader-friendly. The reason we have pink vs red vs brown is that a constitution is more difficult to amend than a statute. But once it's overturned by a court, the distinction is moot. Sure, if the ban is reinstated we'll want to know which color to use, but at that point it's unlikely to change and so still moot. If it comes to that and people really think it's necessary, I suppose IN, WV, and WY could be striped gold-pink, but meanwhile solid gold for overturned constitutional bans is more legible. — kwami ( talk) 19:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
(Edit): How will they know what kind of ban is being challenged? I'm weakly opposed, but I do think it would be nice to make the map less complicated. Prcc27 ( talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Light gold? That could work.. Prcc27 ( talk) 00:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) For those who missed the example link, and in case it gets deleted in the future, the map shows:
Might I recommend the following for constitutional ban + stay? Seems different enough.
EvergreenFir ( talk) 04:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
(It looks like it might have actually been @ Dralwik:'s proposal.) -- Prcc27 ( talk) 04:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Me too. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The new map is in. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 05:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Added legend info in hidden text since the colors are not currently used. Edit here. Will need to translate legend info for dark gold (█) soon. I'll take care of Japanese and French tomorrow. Tagging Dralwik. EvergreenFir ( talk) 05:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks better. So if and when Wisconsin goes, and is stayed, it would be dark gold and light blue striping, while Colorado would be medium gold and medium blue? Also, would it make sense to interleave the red and gold descriptions, so the dark gold is moved to after the dark red, and when medium gold happens, it goes between medium and dark red? It would better show the relationship between the corresponding reds and golds. Mw843 ( talk) 12:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
You all might have waited at least a day or two to let people comment before making such a big change, instead of ten hours, especially on a long holiday weekend. How does ten hours allow anything remotely close to a consensus to form? I log in this morning and suddenly the stripes are gone. I actually liked the stripes and I find the proposal confusing with so many different shades of yellow. Not happy about how this was done. I'm not even sure how many yellow categories are being added. Is it just two? And why is Wyoming bright yellow in one of the maps in the file history? Tests should not be made to the main map. Tinmanic ( talk) 18:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Imo this is a great idea its easier for a reader to read and see. I might say I prefer there should be a different type of shade of gold for rulings that have been completely overturned to the ones that have been just partially overturned for recognized only.I might add that Oregon ruling might be stay if the supreme court gives the stay NOM is asking them.I hope they fail and the stay is not granted as it was given to Utah.-- Allan120102 ( talk) 03:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I don't think the original wording has the problem you're seeing. Of course sources aren't mentioning civil union bans; if the marriage ban is struck down who is going to want a civil union instead? To me, the ambiguity over civil unions is a point for removing civil unions from the map and limiting the colors to how the state laws impact marriage, not turning the legend into a semantic pretzel. I still think it might be wise to find a distinct color for KY/OH. Maybe a pale cream color? D ralwi k| Have a Chat 02:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
"when wording in dispute, the page goes to the original while it is being hammered out" Does that apply to the map too?
I support going back to striping or fixing the wording. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
So with the stay colors in place, Ohio and Kentucky still appear the same as Texas, despite the different reach of their individual rulings (merely recognizing out of state marriages against the state ban struck down). So I was thinking, why not stripe the out of state recognition stay color, akin to how we stripe out of state recognition? Making a state recognize out of state marriage has no effect on the state's performance of marriage, so we could still stripe the ban color. Full marriage is a solid color; full marriage ban stay is a solid color. Out of state recognition is striped, out of state stay is striped as well. We would also eliminate footnote 3.
It's been a while since I chimed in on this topic. I for one am glad to see that there's less striping on this map than their used to be and I'm quite in favor of avoiding steps that introduce yet more striping to the map; it's just visually jarring and messy. As I have stated in the past, it's all a result of trying to do what is, in my opinion, too many things at once. If I were the King of Wikipedia, I'd strip this map down to a barebones version that answers what I believe to be the question most users have when they see it : Is same-sex marriage legal in a given state or not? Well intentioned efforts to add more layers of information to the map have resulted in an ever-shifting plethora of different shades and striped configurations. Now the map is trying to tell us not only whether SSM is legal in a given state, but to differentiate between types of bans, to shoehorn in the status of marriage-like unions, recognition of foreign marriages, and so on. All good intentions but all resulting in information overload; we're asking one map to try and do what two or three should be doing. However, I am not the King of Wikipedia, and there's no way anyone is going to take my stand on it seriously, so I'll offer up a TL;DR version : Don't go back to more stripes. The map is much more user friendly without them. Sher eth 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I support striping for KY/OH because I don't like the contradiction between the key and the footnote. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I oppose any changes to Kentucky or Ohio. I think the footnote is sufficient for now. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Could we please come up with better wording!? I don't like the contradiction between the key and the footnote... Prcc27 ( talk) 08:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I support the striping. It seems to make sense to stripe them, since when the stay is lifted (assuming the ruling doesn't change) the states will be striped again anyways. Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I support striping, or at least some map based distinction, for Ohio and Kentucky. It's a very different situation comparatively. The distinction is worth more than a footnote. (I'm personally of the opinion that the least important distinction on the map currently is dark and medium red. I think states having civil unions is of reasonable importance, but I don't really care about their banning status at this point.) -- Siradia ( talk) 14:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The current vote tally is 4-1 in favor of striping KY/OH, with two further comments. Tinmanic, Shereth, what are your stances? Here is the map, with the striping aligned and the stay color darkened a bit.
Instead of "removing civil unions" from the map what if we just had 2 separate maps for same-sex marriage and other same-sex unions at the state level? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Thegreyanomaly: It definitely wasn't intentional.. It was probably a mobile edit. Prcc27 ( talk) 19:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is what the "just marriage" map looks like. I like how simple this map is, and I agree that civil unions are becoming irrelevant to this map as the focus of the current movement is on full marriage and the recent rulings are largely silent on allowing civil unions. However, I'm doubtful we'll find the consensus for this cleaner, but civil union-less, map. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 16:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Btw, civil unions are legal in way more than 2 states. Check the proposed civil unions map. Prcc27 ( talk) 22:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Having a separate CUs map would allow for more information on civil unions though. Prcc27 ( talk) 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, thanks for the idea. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I suggested the partly redundant map that @
Prcc27: has been replacing (or advocating replacing)
File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg with be deleted as the user has been doing this to undermine the consensus against removing Civil Union and Domestic Partnership content. Please chime in at
c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.png. Thanks!
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 16:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Apparently misusing an image is not grounds to delete it. Ignore this section.
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 01:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems changes to the map are constantly proposed and discussed. I would like to suggest to not make too much changes too often, because
I'm not going to bother discussing much, but here are just my thoughts. Regards, SPQRobin ( talk) 14:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)