So now that Rhode Island has legalized funeral rights for same-sex partners, should it be colored in a very light blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.89.107 ( talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I always thought Rhode Island had some de facto recognition of US SSMs. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
RI should be light blue ---- haha169 try telling someone who losses their partner that this legal right "feels like nothing." Sometime change is slow and when this group made Maryland Blue there were only 3 rights in Maryland law (one of which was funeral rights). And as for the law not be lgbt specific then why is Colorado colored as having some pro-lgbt rights? The CO laws are not lgbt specific either. Please be consistent and make RI light blue. 128.208.60.52 ( talk) 05:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I've also looked into the legal schemes of Maryland (where I'm from) and Rhode Island and they seem very similar, yet different from everything else on the map ---- because neither state has a domestic partnership registry. I agree with the other two users that RI and Maryland should be the same color. DaveIseminger ( talk) 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Should we take some kind of "vote" to determine RI? (Oh yes, I abstain)
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 21:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The color change as the new right is very very small compared to the bigger picture of limited rights. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. RH should be changed. Maryland also implemented very limited rights and is light blue. Both states should be the same colour. Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons I stated above. Hekerui ( talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Support per the reasons I said above. It isn't about a state reaching a specific threshold of a number of rights for a color to appear on this map --- my understanding of this map has always been to showcase when a state recognizes same-sex relationships and RI now does, albeit in a very limited manner. Neither Maryland or Rhode Island has an established domestic partner registry - instead they have requirements/paperwork listed in a statute to grant very limited enumerated rights. The point is that RI does have a way that same-sex couples can get some rights (funeral rights). While RI's laws are not same-sex specific neither are Colorado's or Washington's.....so arguments about RI not being same-sex specific bring up a host of more problems with the standards for colors on the map. I vote that Maryland and RI are the same color --- I don't care if they are gray or blue.
128.208.60.52 (
talk) 00:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Support RI should be changed. DaveIseminger ( talk) 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hekerui - here is my argument. Read the other posts arguing for "support." No one has responded to the legitimate arguments in support made by others. I researched the other posters' points and was convinced (and note I made a minimal argument before the call for a "vote"). It seems that rather than researching many are making opinion decisions without looking at the relevant information.
1) The main argument I read for "oppose" position -- that the law is not lgbt specific -- calls into question other colors already present on this map. CO's law applies to "everyone" and is not lgbt specific. WA State's law is also not lgbt specific.....it includes opposite-sex couples where one is over the age of 62. Finally, MD's law is not lgbt specific and in structure is almost identical to RI's law. Both MD and RI's laws set out a method, but do not establish a formal state registry, for any two people (there is a lack of lgbt specificity in BOTH), to prove a relationship to get a bundle of rights. The only difference between RI and MD, after reading the statutes, is that RI includes 1 right and Maryland includes roughly 10 rights. In order to get the rights in both MD and RI you have to show certain pieces of paper that prove the connectiveness of the relationship. Under both MD and RI's laws an unmarried opposite sex couple could get the enumerated rights by showing the same type of evidence. See the 2008 MD bill summary and note that is says "two people" and not "same-sex couples" http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/fnotes/bil_0006/sb0566.pdf.
2) The second "oppose" argument is a purely subjective one -- does the # of rights a state recognizes dictate the initial coloring of a state as light blue? I agree with others that "just because it is one right doesn't mean it is an insignificant right." When did we create a hierarchy of rights as a standard for coloring a state light blue on this map? If the "one right" granted was the right to visit a loved one in a hospital would we be having this debate? When did being recognized under state tax laws become the determining factor as Found5dollar appears to suggest? I don't see the value of debating the merits of which rights are "enough" to color a state light blue. The bottom line is if you compare RI with the many states (see all the red colored states on the map) the citizens of RI have "more rights."
3) Further, the U.S. same-sex marriage Wikipedia page itself regarding MD and RI are in the same box under "unregistered co-habitation." Thus, the content of the main page where this map is housed does not match the pictorial representation of the same information.
This is why RI should be changed on the map. I'd love to read an argument for "oppose" that is based on actually looking at the statutes first-hand. Ignoring that argument, which was on this post before I even said support, does not negate it. I saw no reason to waste anyone's time by restating it but now I hope a debate about its merits can ensue. This is not meant in an angry tone ---- it is frustration at the apparent lack of research on this issue and drafting of a logical and formal argument for reasons to "oppose" this change. The arguments for oppose have been more than adequately refuted and simply restating the original points of opposition does not rebut the "support" argument outlined here.
DaveIseminger ( talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. It's not enough for a change. Rreagan007 ( talk) 20:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've usually respected the discussions on this board and am highly disappointed that no one has taken the time to rebut the argument I included weeks ago. The points I raised are very legitimate ones and to have not received any response ---- one based on logic and not just mere emotion ---- simply disappoints me. I agree with 128.208.60.52.....if everyone is just going to say "not enough" then when is "enough" reached????? DaveIseminger ( talk) 16:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages?
http://www.marriageequalityri.org/www/learn/marriage_faq/
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/ri-marriage-guide.pdf
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/
Native94080 (
talk) 09:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that Rhode Island is now listed under the recognition table. Shouldn't it be changed to a darker grey on the map to reflect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.147.193 ( talk) 11:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Maryland still have a pink stripe, since same-sex marriage is prohibited by statute there? Light blue for limited partnership rights, pink for marriage prohibited, dark gray for out-of-state marriages recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.140.92 ( talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no way to triple stripe. The general rule on striping that we used for DC a while back applies here. A 50% grey stripe overrides the need for a pink stripe. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/02/md-attorney-general-says-state-can-recognize-out-of-jurisdiction-same-sex-marriages/
Native94080 (
talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Updated. MD's pink stripe became a 50% grey stripe. Side note: It seems rather pointless for same-sex couples to register CUs/DPs/RBs/whatever-they're-called in MD now, so I see no point in the light blue stripe being there, I have left it there for the mean time. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have read that the Governor more or less supports the ruling and that he wants state agencies to follow the opinions of the AG. (source: CNN, too lazy to get URL again) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=108772
For now at least, Proposition 8 is not the law of the state, so I turned us blue on the map. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just noticed that on CNN. They said it was enjoined, but then they said it was stayed... sigh... they got me excited for a bit. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ruling was stayed or not? hmmm... [4] Proponents of Proposition 8 had asked Walker to block enforcement of his ruling immediately, but Walker declined. The proponents of the ballot measure said they would immediately appeal Ron 1987 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Update, this isn't a clear cut stay, this is a stay to determine whether there will be a real stay [5]. On Friday, there will be a new hearing where they determine if there will be a real stay. I think we probably should wait until that decision before we make further changes. Anyways, the original ruling says that nothing happens until the 19th anyways. While, I would love to change CA to full blue, given the details that have emerged after my initial recoloring, we should wait until something happens. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If it is given a full stay during the appeal though, we should at least consider turning California's red stripe black again, (but once again we should wait until a final stay decision is made) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it being tangled up pre-trial is a bit different than it being tangled up between trials. Being tangled up pre-trial made the red stripe not inaccurate, but if it is in legal limbo for the next few months/years we may want to recolor it to make that legal limbo clear
Also, here is another source regarding the stay. [6] At least one law professor thinks there won't be a full stay, given the tone of the ruling. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense, I de-striped California to just intermediate blue (i.e. like NJ). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that seeing there is a good chance this will reach the supreme court with the appeal no action should be taken on the map until or even if prop 8 is fully repealed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if the ruling is not stayed and there is a period of time when SSM licenses are being issued, during that time CA should be deep blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The stay has been lifted, but given the volatility of the issue, we should wait till the 18th (when the ruling takes effect) before we deep-blue CA as there may be a stay from another court before then. Anyways, assuming nothing happens between now and then, I will turn CA deep-blue sometime on the 18th (assuming I have internet access that day) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do people just change stuff without reading a news story first? I reverted to the previous version because this is not over according to NYT etc. Hekerui ( talk) 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Note 1 is meant for cases where a final decision has been made, but hasn't gone into effect. Examples include when a state supreme court legalizes SSM and says the ruling goes into effect on a specific date or a governor signs a bill legalizing SSM/CU/DPs and there is no referendum process to stop it. California does not fall into jurisdiction of note 1, as it is unclear if Walker's decision will be the final one (though precedent indicates that the 9th CC and the SCOTUS would not take up the appeal due to Yes-on-8's lack of Article III standing) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Either EqCA or Courage Campaign (or some other group) sent me an email saying the 9th circuit stayed the decision. (currently too busy to get an actual source as I am reinstalling Windows 7 on my other computer) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions are recognized in the State of Wyoming. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
According to the Map, Wisconsin is two colors. Dark brown (Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions) and also light blue (Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights). My question is this: how can it both be true? It seems to me that brown states ban everything, so there couldn't be any limited rights. Adamlance ( talk) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that both of Illinois' legislators have passed a Civil Unions Bill and the Governor has promised to ratify it, should Illinois be striped Medium Blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 ( talk) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The bill is pretty much going to be signed, the question is just when. We need to determine whether we want it to be medium blue or light blue. This article [8] is making me think medium.
Also on another note, we need to watch New Hampshire. The Republicans have veto-proof majorities in both chambers and may be planning on repealing the SSM bill Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
[9] - I'm not sure if this is worth anything, but we are now guaranteed that the bill will be signed since he already has a bill signing ceremony prepared. -- haha169 ( talk) 07:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of preparation: once he signs it, the state should be striped like Washington state, because the law forbidding same-sex marriage is still in effect. Agreed? Hekerui ( talk) 09:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The link I gave was not the ideal one I meant to give, there are plenty of articles out there that note that county clerks are beginning to prepare for the general forms and bureaucracies associated with CUs. We know the Gov will sign it, he may have signed it already, I have been searching the news every day and nobody seems to really care much about this bill to talk about when it was or will be signed; given that and that we know Gov. Quinn supports the bill, I figured I should have striped the state. Whether he signed it the day it passed the senate or he signs it whenever or it becomes law without a sig, on June 1st CUs will begin. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the bill's page on the IlGA website [10]. My guess is when it is signed it will update. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The bill was signed by Governor Pat Quinn on 1/31/2011, and will go into effect on 6/1/2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.227.12 ( talk) 07:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I just read online that New Mexico Attorney General issued legal opinion concluding that the state can recognize marriages between two people of the same sex performed outside of the state. Does that mean we can change the state to dark gray, or it is it too early? 70.173.52.138 ( talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
[11] This is completely analogous to the situation in Maryland. There, the AG issued a non-binding resolution and now foreign SSMs are valid there. Analogous situations should mean same coloring. I updated the map already (forgot to check here first) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So now that Rhode Island has legalized funeral rights for same-sex partners, should it be colored in a very light blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.89.107 ( talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I always thought Rhode Island had some de facto recognition of US SSMs. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
RI should be light blue ---- haha169 try telling someone who losses their partner that this legal right "feels like nothing." Sometime change is slow and when this group made Maryland Blue there were only 3 rights in Maryland law (one of which was funeral rights). And as for the law not be lgbt specific then why is Colorado colored as having some pro-lgbt rights? The CO laws are not lgbt specific either. Please be consistent and make RI light blue. 128.208.60.52 ( talk) 05:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I've also looked into the legal schemes of Maryland (where I'm from) and Rhode Island and they seem very similar, yet different from everything else on the map ---- because neither state has a domestic partnership registry. I agree with the other two users that RI and Maryland should be the same color. DaveIseminger ( talk) 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Should we take some kind of "vote" to determine RI? (Oh yes, I abstain)
Thegreyanomaly (
talk) 21:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The color change as the new right is very very small compared to the bigger picture of limited rights. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. RH should be changed. Maryland also implemented very limited rights and is light blue. Both states should be the same colour. Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per reasons I stated above. Hekerui ( talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Support per the reasons I said above. It isn't about a state reaching a specific threshold of a number of rights for a color to appear on this map --- my understanding of this map has always been to showcase when a state recognizes same-sex relationships and RI now does, albeit in a very limited manner. Neither Maryland or Rhode Island has an established domestic partner registry - instead they have requirements/paperwork listed in a statute to grant very limited enumerated rights. The point is that RI does have a way that same-sex couples can get some rights (funeral rights). While RI's laws are not same-sex specific neither are Colorado's or Washington's.....so arguments about RI not being same-sex specific bring up a host of more problems with the standards for colors on the map. I vote that Maryland and RI are the same color --- I don't care if they are gray or blue.
128.208.60.52 (
talk) 00:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Support RI should be changed. DaveIseminger ( talk) 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hekerui - here is my argument. Read the other posts arguing for "support." No one has responded to the legitimate arguments in support made by others. I researched the other posters' points and was convinced (and note I made a minimal argument before the call for a "vote"). It seems that rather than researching many are making opinion decisions without looking at the relevant information.
1) The main argument I read for "oppose" position -- that the law is not lgbt specific -- calls into question other colors already present on this map. CO's law applies to "everyone" and is not lgbt specific. WA State's law is also not lgbt specific.....it includes opposite-sex couples where one is over the age of 62. Finally, MD's law is not lgbt specific and in structure is almost identical to RI's law. Both MD and RI's laws set out a method, but do not establish a formal state registry, for any two people (there is a lack of lgbt specificity in BOTH), to prove a relationship to get a bundle of rights. The only difference between RI and MD, after reading the statutes, is that RI includes 1 right and Maryland includes roughly 10 rights. In order to get the rights in both MD and RI you have to show certain pieces of paper that prove the connectiveness of the relationship. Under both MD and RI's laws an unmarried opposite sex couple could get the enumerated rights by showing the same type of evidence. See the 2008 MD bill summary and note that is says "two people" and not "same-sex couples" http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/fnotes/bil_0006/sb0566.pdf.
2) The second "oppose" argument is a purely subjective one -- does the # of rights a state recognizes dictate the initial coloring of a state as light blue? I agree with others that "just because it is one right doesn't mean it is an insignificant right." When did we create a hierarchy of rights as a standard for coloring a state light blue on this map? If the "one right" granted was the right to visit a loved one in a hospital would we be having this debate? When did being recognized under state tax laws become the determining factor as Found5dollar appears to suggest? I don't see the value of debating the merits of which rights are "enough" to color a state light blue. The bottom line is if you compare RI with the many states (see all the red colored states on the map) the citizens of RI have "more rights."
3) Further, the U.S. same-sex marriage Wikipedia page itself regarding MD and RI are in the same box under "unregistered co-habitation." Thus, the content of the main page where this map is housed does not match the pictorial representation of the same information.
This is why RI should be changed on the map. I'd love to read an argument for "oppose" that is based on actually looking at the statutes first-hand. Ignoring that argument, which was on this post before I even said support, does not negate it. I saw no reason to waste anyone's time by restating it but now I hope a debate about its merits can ensue. This is not meant in an angry tone ---- it is frustration at the apparent lack of research on this issue and drafting of a logical and formal argument for reasons to "oppose" this change. The arguments for oppose have been more than adequately refuted and simply restating the original points of opposition does not rebut the "support" argument outlined here.
DaveIseminger ( talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. It's not enough for a change. Rreagan007 ( talk) 20:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've usually respected the discussions on this board and am highly disappointed that no one has taken the time to rebut the argument I included weeks ago. The points I raised are very legitimate ones and to have not received any response ---- one based on logic and not just mere emotion ---- simply disappoints me. I agree with 128.208.60.52.....if everyone is just going to say "not enough" then when is "enough" reached????? DaveIseminger ( talk) 16:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages?
http://www.marriageequalityri.org/www/learn/marriage_faq/
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/ri-marriage-guide.pdf
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/
Native94080 (
talk) 09:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that Rhode Island is now listed under the recognition table. Shouldn't it be changed to a darker grey on the map to reflect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.147.193 ( talk) 11:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Maryland still have a pink stripe, since same-sex marriage is prohibited by statute there? Light blue for limited partnership rights, pink for marriage prohibited, dark gray for out-of-state marriages recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.140.92 ( talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no way to triple stripe. The general rule on striping that we used for DC a while back applies here. A 50% grey stripe overrides the need for a pink stripe. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/02/md-attorney-general-says-state-can-recognize-out-of-jurisdiction-same-sex-marriages/
Native94080 (
talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Updated. MD's pink stripe became a 50% grey stripe. Side note: It seems rather pointless for same-sex couples to register CUs/DPs/RBs/whatever-they're-called in MD now, so I see no point in the light blue stripe being there, I have left it there for the mean time. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have read that the Governor more or less supports the ruling and that he wants state agencies to follow the opinions of the AG. (source: CNN, too lazy to get URL again) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=108772
For now at least, Proposition 8 is not the law of the state, so I turned us blue on the map. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, just noticed that on CNN. They said it was enjoined, but then they said it was stayed... sigh... they got me excited for a bit. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ruling was stayed or not? hmmm... [4] Proponents of Proposition 8 had asked Walker to block enforcement of his ruling immediately, but Walker declined. The proponents of the ballot measure said they would immediately appeal Ron 1987 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Update, this isn't a clear cut stay, this is a stay to determine whether there will be a real stay [5]. On Friday, there will be a new hearing where they determine if there will be a real stay. I think we probably should wait until that decision before we make further changes. Anyways, the original ruling says that nothing happens until the 19th anyways. While, I would love to change CA to full blue, given the details that have emerged after my initial recoloring, we should wait until something happens. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If it is given a full stay during the appeal though, we should at least consider turning California's red stripe black again, (but once again we should wait until a final stay decision is made) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it being tangled up pre-trial is a bit different than it being tangled up between trials. Being tangled up pre-trial made the red stripe not inaccurate, but if it is in legal limbo for the next few months/years we may want to recolor it to make that legal limbo clear
Also, here is another source regarding the stay. [6] At least one law professor thinks there won't be a full stay, given the tone of the ruling. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense, I de-striped California to just intermediate blue (i.e. like NJ). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that seeing there is a good chance this will reach the supreme court with the appeal no action should be taken on the map until or even if prop 8 is fully repealed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if the ruling is not stayed and there is a period of time when SSM licenses are being issued, during that time CA should be deep blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The stay has been lifted, but given the volatility of the issue, we should wait till the 18th (when the ruling takes effect) before we deep-blue CA as there may be a stay from another court before then. Anyways, assuming nothing happens between now and then, I will turn CA deep-blue sometime on the 18th (assuming I have internet access that day) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do people just change stuff without reading a news story first? I reverted to the previous version because this is not over according to NYT etc. Hekerui ( talk) 20:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Note 1 is meant for cases where a final decision has been made, but hasn't gone into effect. Examples include when a state supreme court legalizes SSM and says the ruling goes into effect on a specific date or a governor signs a bill legalizing SSM/CU/DPs and there is no referendum process to stop it. California does not fall into jurisdiction of note 1, as it is unclear if Walker's decision will be the final one (though precedent indicates that the 9th CC and the SCOTUS would not take up the appeal due to Yes-on-8's lack of Article III standing) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Either EqCA or Courage Campaign (or some other group) sent me an email saying the 9th circuit stayed the decision. (currently too busy to get an actual source as I am reinstalling Windows 7 on my other computer) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions are recognized in the State of Wyoming. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
According to the Map, Wisconsin is two colors. Dark brown (Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions) and also light blue (Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights). My question is this: how can it both be true? It seems to me that brown states ban everything, so there couldn't be any limited rights. Adamlance ( talk) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that both of Illinois' legislators have passed a Civil Unions Bill and the Governor has promised to ratify it, should Illinois be striped Medium Blue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 ( talk) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The bill is pretty much going to be signed, the question is just when. We need to determine whether we want it to be medium blue or light blue. This article [8] is making me think medium.
Also on another note, we need to watch New Hampshire. The Republicans have veto-proof majorities in both chambers and may be planning on repealing the SSM bill Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 01:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
[9] - I'm not sure if this is worth anything, but we are now guaranteed that the bill will be signed since he already has a bill signing ceremony prepared. -- haha169 ( talk) 07:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of preparation: once he signs it, the state should be striped like Washington state, because the law forbidding same-sex marriage is still in effect. Agreed? Hekerui ( talk) 09:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The link I gave was not the ideal one I meant to give, there are plenty of articles out there that note that county clerks are beginning to prepare for the general forms and bureaucracies associated with CUs. We know the Gov will sign it, he may have signed it already, I have been searching the news every day and nobody seems to really care much about this bill to talk about when it was or will be signed; given that and that we know Gov. Quinn supports the bill, I figured I should have striped the state. Whether he signed it the day it passed the senate or he signs it whenever or it becomes law without a sig, on June 1st CUs will begin. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the bill's page on the IlGA website [10]. My guess is when it is signed it will update. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The bill was signed by Governor Pat Quinn on 1/31/2011, and will go into effect on 6/1/2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.227.12 ( talk) 07:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I just read online that New Mexico Attorney General issued legal opinion concluding that the state can recognize marriages between two people of the same sex performed outside of the state. Does that mean we can change the state to dark gray, or it is it too early? 70.173.52.138 ( talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
[11] This is completely analogous to the situation in Maryland. There, the AG issued a non-binding resolution and now foreign SSMs are valid there. Analogous situations should mean same coloring. I updated the map already (forgot to check here first) Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)