![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
In the section States that license same-sex marriage, why do we say that various states have legalized SSM by legislative action without noting that a governor's signature was involved? We just note the instance in which a legislature enacted legislature over a governor's veto. Seems like we're ignoring how a bill becomes a law. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I really feel that because the list of states with SSM has grown much larger, it is unreasonable to list them individually in the intro summary. I think it makes more sense to just state how many states have SSM in the intro, and readers can easily see which states do and which states do not in the body of the page. It looks cumbersome and that defeats the purpose of a summary, there are just too many states now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackD523 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Gov Quinn's twitter account says (1) he "encourages" county clerks to issue licenses to SS couples in accordance with AG's opinion and (2) the dept of public health with record them once solemnized. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 03:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
See discussion at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Illinois_confusion EvergreenFir ( talk) 05:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Should this entry cover this topic? There have been several in the news -- refusals to bake wedding cake -- but two actual lawsuits I know of:
And what would we call such a section? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman today struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony, just like their heterosexual counterparts." [1] -- Jprg1966 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I am storing a version of the page at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox2 for easy copy-paste in the likely event of a stay. Will need some editing, but table totals are correct as are the number of states that allow SSM. Cheers. EvergreenFir ( talk) 22:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Minor update: some Michigan counties planning on issuing marriage licenses Saturday morning (trying to page link my phone browser hates edit boxes with a passion... ) EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The key to the map under the State Laws heading contains an error. The color for "Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal3" is golden-brown on the map, but the color in the map's key is black. If you click through to the map, the key found on that page is correct. 71.70.212.46 ( talk) 17:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Indiana's ruling needs to be added; I don't know how to do that appropriately. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/10/indiana-gay-marriage/7565909/ -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
--Thanks for that; I saw your post and added it under Presently in litigation > U.S. district court cases. The case is Baskin v. Bogan. MarkGT ( talk) 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Judge Black's anticipated ruling, due April 14, is just out in Henry v. Hines (formerly Henry v. Wymyslo.) Per the ruling: "The record before the Court, which includes the judicially-noticed record in Obergefell, is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the State’s ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and, therefore, Ohio’s marriage recognition bans are facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances.[1]" (emphasis is in the original.)
The superscript to the footnote, [1], reads: "The Court’s Order today does NOT require Ohio to authorize the performance of same-sex marriage in Ohio. Today’s ruling merely requires Ohio to recognize valid same-sex marriages lawfully performed in states which do authorize such marriages."
At the end of the opinion, the judge stays his ruling until he can hear arguments on a longer stay. The full footnote of that reads: "The Court STAYS enforcement of this Order and the Permanent Injunction until the parties have briefed whether or not this Court should fully stay its Orders until completion of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. The Court is inclined to stay its finding of facial unconstitutionality but not to stay the Orders as to the as-applied claims of the four couples who are Plaintiffs because they have demonstrated that a stay will harm them individually due to the imminent births of their children and other time-sensitive concerns. The Court inclines toward a finding that the issuance of correct birth certificates for Plaintiffs’ children, due in June or earlier, should not be stayed. The Court is further inclined to conclude that the Defendants will not be harmed by compliance with the requirements of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs shall file today their memorandum contra Defendants’ oral motion to stay, and Defendants shall file a reply memorandum before 3:00 p.m. tomorrow. The Court shall then rule expeditiously."
Please help me in updating the Ohio SSM pages in an orderly fashion per the news. MarkGT ( talk) 15:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Tennessee doesn't seem to be recognizing those marriages anymore. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sex-marriages-tenn-case-invalid-23499793 -- Prcc27 ( talk) 04:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a table for state(s) that recognize same-sex marriage..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't get why we can't have a table for state(s) that recognize same-sex marriage.. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Not all of the information in the tables that were removed is included in the article. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the recognition table ought to exist, because the couples in those states have the same rights in marriage as those that perform, they simply need to go elsewhere first. I support Prcc27 Swifty819 ( talk) 07:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there some technical reason for the map to appear as it does, with the use of stripes, rather than creating new solid colors to represent the status in the states that are currently being litigated? The use of the stripes creates confusion (look at Oregon!) and renders the data inaccessible for people with certain forms of colorblindness and color contrast issues. Aecamadi ( talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)aecamadi
Federal magistrate strikes same-sex marriage ban in Idaho effective 9 a.m. local time Friday. Idaho Statesman: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3183291/judge-rules-idaho-gay-marriage.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1 Fortguy ( talk) 00:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Wright v Arkansas ruling was issued today striking down the state's ban. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-same-sex-marriage-ban/ EvergreenFir ( talk) 22:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead section incorrectly states that the Arkansas ban was struck down by a U.S. district court. As indicated further in the article, the ruling was issued by a state circuit judge in Pulaski County. There are no reports that licenses have been issued, and it is unclear if any can be issued before regular business opens on Monday. It is also unclear whether the judge's decision has any bearing outside of the judge's jurisdiction. The ruling will most likely be appealed and stayed. Fortguy ( talk) 23:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: Arkansas Supreme Court refuses to stay ruling. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/arkansas-supreme-court-wont-stay-same-sex-marriage-ruling/ Tagging Dralwik EvergreenFir ( talk) 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Should we remove Arkansas from the table since the note on the table says "This table shows only states that license same-sex marriages or have legalized it. It does not include states that recognize same-sex marriages but do not license them"? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Now, SSM is back on again after Piazza expanded his ruling to strike down the state ban on clerks issuing licenses to same sex couples. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arkansas-judge-gay-marriage-20140515-story.html // Is being appealed and stay being sought, but for moment anyway it's legal again. I've updated the Arkansas article with these critical details. Jono52795 ( talk) 01:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Ruling stayed http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/ark-supreme-court-ruling/ 98.27.157.58 ( talk) 01:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the map in the right corner of the section Presently in litigation (Litigation against Same-sex marriage bans in the United States). In the map Arkansas is in the color of Litigation in U.S. court of appeals. But there is NO federal case in Arkansas regarding SSM (there is state court case). Please correct it. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 05:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
USA Today is reporting that the judge hearing Whitewood v. Wolf will issue a ruling after 2 PM Eastern (which is in 8 minutes). I already have cloaked comments on the two tables with population figures inclusive of Pennsylvania, so the tables can be quickly updated once the ruling is out. The Governor is expected to appeal, although this could be a New Jersey situation where a blue state drops the appeal after a short time. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah um thanks for getting rid of my thing about Pennsylvania... This is a talk page not the actual Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.230.4 ( talk) 00:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
We list all the states where it's been ruled unconstitutional since December 2013. Why this arbitrary date? CTF83! 23:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, since this article predominately touches on same-sex marriage rather than same-sex partnerships in general, could we switch the current partnership map for the United States with this map [3]? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1: Hi there! Civil unions aren't all that relevant to this article. But what's really concerning is that the map could potentially have a maximum of 11 different colors while this map could only have up to 7 different colors. Furthermore, not only does it reduce the amount of colors, it also reduces the striping (in the other map triple striping is possible; quadruple striping was possible at a time as well). The footnotes are also reduced as well.
And having 11 colors on the map won't cause confusion? It's information overload! Anyways, it seems that this discussion is going around in circles.. Prcc27 ( talk) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1: UPDATE: (Edit) An extra color was added to the map. Footnote #3 removed. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1: Interesting. The same-sex partnership map could be considered over-complicated and the marriage map "oversimplified." It's hard to say which one disserves the readers more. But maybe we can have a map that isn't over-complicated and if readers want to know more about the status of other unions they can simply click on a link provided in the map's key. How does this look? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Kudzu1. A map without civil unions leaves out important information. Look at it this way: there's marriage "in substance", i.e. the rights and legal effects it has, and there's the name marriage. In the case of Nevada, Colorado and in a limited form Wisconsin, provide same-sex marriage in substance but not in name, so they are relevant when talking about same-sex marriage. And I don't see a reason to remove them at this point, when they are likely going away soon anyway. If the legal situation is complicated, Wikipedia should reflect that. SPQRobin ( talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this map as well per the objections above. What it seems here is since Prcc27's proposal to get CU/DPs removed from the current map failed, they tried to make a new map and replace the old map... Also, any maps used should be SVG. They scale without image loss and are text editable. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The U.S. same sex marriage maps remind me a little of the U.S. map in the Nintendo game "Rampage". In a little animation, whenever George the Gorilla or Lizzie the Lizard finished off a string of cities, the creature would punch a region, changing its color. At the end, the whole map was of one color (black). 74.103.242.195 ( talk) 19:23, 25 June 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) 16:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Lawsuit challenges North Dakota gay marriage ban. "Seven couples filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in North Dakota, making it the last state in the country to be sued by couples seeking the right to marry in their home state." There is presently a federal lawsuit in North Dakota as well. I propose that the map for what is presently in litigation be updated and that it be updated under the heading "Federal District Courts". I don't feel like I myself possess the ability to do so, but just a heads up about it. AnnaOurLittleAlice ( talk) 19:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
U.S. District Judge Richard Young has struck down Indiana's ban against same-sex marriages. No stay has been issued.
From WLWT in Cincinnati: http://www.wlwt.com/news/judge-finds-indianas-samesex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/26656262
Link to ruling: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/baskin_in_20140625_entry-on-cross-motions-for-summary-judgment Fortguy ( talk) 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Given the Appeals Court ruling on the Utah case, the Boulder County, Colorado Clerk (in the same circuit as Utah) has said they will start issuing SSM licenses until/unless a court tells them not to [4]. Even if it is too soon to mention this here, it might result in a ruling that can be put in this article. 331dot ( talk) 23:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think in the map, Louisiana should be coded for judicial pending for recognizing ss marriage. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/06/federal_judge_to_address_wheth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.111 ( talk) 07:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors, in the map there is a color named judicial ruling against constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage stayed pending appeal. One question: After rulling in Kitchen case Utah, Oklahoma and other states of 10 th circuit are going to send the case to the Supreme court. So, is the word "appeal" is right, when we are talking about case pending in SC (not court of Appeals), or mentioned word refers only to courts of Appeal? Миша Карелин ( talk) 19:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If (for example) Texas is beige which is color coded for Judicial ruling against constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and any existing statutory bans, stayed pending appeal, should it be stripped like Ohio and Kentucky with the color that it is banned?
I mean why aren't the states that are that color have another strip to indicate it's banned if Ohio and Kentucky do? Sorry if I don't make sense..
Thank you! One last thing. Why do some states like Indiana or Arkansas legalize same sex marriage, but ban it a few days later again?
As I understood, the Ninth circuit are going to hear Idaho case en banc. Is that right or I misunderstood? And I guess they will hear all cases pendidng in Ninth circuit same day? If yes, we must put an information in all appropriate articles. M.Karelin ( talk) 19:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't the Bishop v. Oklahoma case affect the states in the tenth circuit as much as Kitchen v. Herbert..? Shouldn't the Bishop case be referenced in the table for KS, WY, and CO..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia has struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage and has ordered Monroe County to begin issuing licenses on July 22. The state attorney general has promised to appeal. From the Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/07/17/4240865/keys-judge-gay-couples-can-marry.html#storylink=cpy Fortguy ( talk) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-colorado-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frightwolf ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm new here, but I don't think Colorado should be listed in both tables (states with marriage equality and states with stayed rulings) as it double counts the population and skews the overall percentages. 02:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Since only one county is currently issuing licenses, I don't think it should be blue on the map. Czolgolz ( talk) 22:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that Virginia is colored dark blue, suggesting that ssm is legal, which it is not. It should be in the "pending review orange" as should WV, NC, & SC which also fall in the 4th District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.30.245.157 ( talk) 18:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that while the Fourth Circuit ruling in Bostic is binding precedent on courts in North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia, that same-sex marriage is not yet legalized there. That is because there's no direct court ruling on point. Note that Bostic has two parts, the opinion, and a judgment ordering the Virginia decision affirmed. We do not have any judgments out of lower courts in NC, SC, or WV, much less any that are to be affirmed.
We do have cases pending U.S. district court affecting these other states, see Fisher-Borne v. Smith (M.D.N.C.), Bradacs v. Haley (D.S.C.), and McGee v. Cole (S.D.W. Va.). Each has had proceedings stayed until the outcome of Bostic. But until a direct judgment is entered that affects these states, for now same-sex marriage is still unlawful in the states that make up the Fourth Circuit, outside of Virginia and Maryland.
My conclusion is that, regarding the map, having VA as blue is OK. I also do not mind whether NC, SC, and WV are left red or turned gold. But I oppose NC, SC, and WV being blue. MarkGT ( talk) 21:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all: why the Virginia is dark blue on the map? And seconds question: why all the rest of states in 4th circuit still red? And why Florida is red after state courts rulings? I guess it should be changed. M.Karelin ( talk) 15:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I just retrieved the judgement order from PACER. It says:
"This judgment shall become final and take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41." There is no initial stay.
F.R.A.P. 41 states: "The court's mandate must issue 7 days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later. The court may shorten or extend the time."
The judgment itself states: "A petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 calendar days after entry of judgment, except that in civil cases in which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the petition must be filed within 45 days after entry of judgment."
As the United States is not a party here (only a U.S. state), the judgment in Bostic, as it currently stands, will be effective no sooner than in 21 calender days, i.e. August 18, 2014. Of course, once a petition for rehearing is filed, then the mandate stays. And the Fourth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, can always issue a stay of judgment either on motion of any party, or sua sponte. MarkGT ( talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Could someone remove Colorado and Virginia from the marriage table and add them to the stay table, I'm too lazy to do it. A temporary stay is not akin to a law being passed because a court ruling is different from legislation as court rulings have an appeals process and legislation does not. Prcc★27 ( talk) 04:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess we should create new subsection in the section Presently in litigation. New subsection will be named Supreme court, and the first case will be Kitchen v. Herbert (a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court is filed already). M.Karelin ( talk) 17:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
So, it says here that a court in Tennessee has upheld the state's same-sex marriage ban, the first one to do so after nevada. So what do we do about these two? I thought we could add this to the map saying that the ban was upheld in nevada and tennessee and color them with black stripes. I don't know, should we add this case to the article or not? http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/court_rules_tennessee_s_same_sex_marriage_ban_is_constitutional Elahi Ryan ( talk) 00:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Colorado actually has two stays and that should be reflected on the table. Prcc★27 ( talk) 01:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
In the section States that license same-sex marriage, why do we say that various states have legalized SSM by legislative action without noting that a governor's signature was involved? We just note the instance in which a legislature enacted legislature over a governor's veto. Seems like we're ignoring how a bill becomes a law. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I really feel that because the list of states with SSM has grown much larger, it is unreasonable to list them individually in the intro summary. I think it makes more sense to just state how many states have SSM in the intro, and readers can easily see which states do and which states do not in the body of the page. It looks cumbersome and that defeats the purpose of a summary, there are just too many states now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackD523 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Gov Quinn's twitter account says (1) he "encourages" county clerks to issue licenses to SS couples in accordance with AG's opinion and (2) the dept of public health with record them once solemnized. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 03:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
See discussion at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Illinois_confusion EvergreenFir ( talk) 05:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Should this entry cover this topic? There have been several in the news -- refusals to bake wedding cake -- but two actual lawsuits I know of:
And what would we call such a section? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 21:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman today struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony, just like their heterosexual counterparts." [1] -- Jprg1966 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I am storing a version of the page at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox2 for easy copy-paste in the likely event of a stay. Will need some editing, but table totals are correct as are the number of states that allow SSM. Cheers. EvergreenFir ( talk) 22:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Minor update: some Michigan counties planning on issuing marriage licenses Saturday morning (trying to page link my phone browser hates edit boxes with a passion... ) EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The key to the map under the State Laws heading contains an error. The color for "Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal3" is golden-brown on the map, but the color in the map's key is black. If you click through to the map, the key found on that page is correct. 71.70.212.46 ( talk) 17:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Indiana's ruling needs to be added; I don't know how to do that appropriately. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/10/indiana-gay-marriage/7565909/ -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
--Thanks for that; I saw your post and added it under Presently in litigation > U.S. district court cases. The case is Baskin v. Bogan. MarkGT ( talk) 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Judge Black's anticipated ruling, due April 14, is just out in Henry v. Hines (formerly Henry v. Wymyslo.) Per the ruling: "The record before the Court, which includes the judicially-noticed record in Obergefell, is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the State’s ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and, therefore, Ohio’s marriage recognition bans are facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances.[1]" (emphasis is in the original.)
The superscript to the footnote, [1], reads: "The Court’s Order today does NOT require Ohio to authorize the performance of same-sex marriage in Ohio. Today’s ruling merely requires Ohio to recognize valid same-sex marriages lawfully performed in states which do authorize such marriages."
At the end of the opinion, the judge stays his ruling until he can hear arguments on a longer stay. The full footnote of that reads: "The Court STAYS enforcement of this Order and the Permanent Injunction until the parties have briefed whether or not this Court should fully stay its Orders until completion of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. The Court is inclined to stay its finding of facial unconstitutionality but not to stay the Orders as to the as-applied claims of the four couples who are Plaintiffs because they have demonstrated that a stay will harm them individually due to the imminent births of their children and other time-sensitive concerns. The Court inclines toward a finding that the issuance of correct birth certificates for Plaintiffs’ children, due in June or earlier, should not be stayed. The Court is further inclined to conclude that the Defendants will not be harmed by compliance with the requirements of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs shall file today their memorandum contra Defendants’ oral motion to stay, and Defendants shall file a reply memorandum before 3:00 p.m. tomorrow. The Court shall then rule expeditiously."
Please help me in updating the Ohio SSM pages in an orderly fashion per the news. MarkGT ( talk) 15:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Tennessee doesn't seem to be recognizing those marriages anymore. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sex-marriages-tenn-case-invalid-23499793 -- Prcc27 ( talk) 04:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a table for state(s) that recognize same-sex marriage..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't get why we can't have a table for state(s) that recognize same-sex marriage.. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Not all of the information in the tables that were removed is included in the article. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the recognition table ought to exist, because the couples in those states have the same rights in marriage as those that perform, they simply need to go elsewhere first. I support Prcc27 Swifty819 ( talk) 07:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there some technical reason for the map to appear as it does, with the use of stripes, rather than creating new solid colors to represent the status in the states that are currently being litigated? The use of the stripes creates confusion (look at Oregon!) and renders the data inaccessible for people with certain forms of colorblindness and color contrast issues. Aecamadi ( talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)aecamadi
Federal magistrate strikes same-sex marriage ban in Idaho effective 9 a.m. local time Friday. Idaho Statesman: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3183291/judge-rules-idaho-gay-marriage.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1 Fortguy ( talk) 00:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Wright v Arkansas ruling was issued today striking down the state's ban. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-same-sex-marriage-ban/ EvergreenFir ( talk) 22:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead section incorrectly states that the Arkansas ban was struck down by a U.S. district court. As indicated further in the article, the ruling was issued by a state circuit judge in Pulaski County. There are no reports that licenses have been issued, and it is unclear if any can be issued before regular business opens on Monday. It is also unclear whether the judge's decision has any bearing outside of the judge's jurisdiction. The ruling will most likely be appealed and stayed. Fortguy ( talk) 23:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: Arkansas Supreme Court refuses to stay ruling. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/arkansas-supreme-court-wont-stay-same-sex-marriage-ruling/ Tagging Dralwik EvergreenFir ( talk) 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Should we remove Arkansas from the table since the note on the table says "This table shows only states that license same-sex marriages or have legalized it. It does not include states that recognize same-sex marriages but do not license them"? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Now, SSM is back on again after Piazza expanded his ruling to strike down the state ban on clerks issuing licenses to same sex couples. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arkansas-judge-gay-marriage-20140515-story.html // Is being appealed and stay being sought, but for moment anyway it's legal again. I've updated the Arkansas article with these critical details. Jono52795 ( talk) 01:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Ruling stayed http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/ark-supreme-court-ruling/ 98.27.157.58 ( talk) 01:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the map in the right corner of the section Presently in litigation (Litigation against Same-sex marriage bans in the United States). In the map Arkansas is in the color of Litigation in U.S. court of appeals. But there is NO federal case in Arkansas regarding SSM (there is state court case). Please correct it. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 05:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
USA Today is reporting that the judge hearing Whitewood v. Wolf will issue a ruling after 2 PM Eastern (which is in 8 minutes). I already have cloaked comments on the two tables with population figures inclusive of Pennsylvania, so the tables can be quickly updated once the ruling is out. The Governor is expected to appeal, although this could be a New Jersey situation where a blue state drops the appeal after a short time. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah um thanks for getting rid of my thing about Pennsylvania... This is a talk page not the actual Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.230.4 ( talk) 00:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
We list all the states where it's been ruled unconstitutional since December 2013. Why this arbitrary date? CTF83! 23:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, since this article predominately touches on same-sex marriage rather than same-sex partnerships in general, could we switch the current partnership map for the United States with this map [3]? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1: Hi there! Civil unions aren't all that relevant to this article. But what's really concerning is that the map could potentially have a maximum of 11 different colors while this map could only have up to 7 different colors. Furthermore, not only does it reduce the amount of colors, it also reduces the striping (in the other map triple striping is possible; quadruple striping was possible at a time as well). The footnotes are also reduced as well.
And having 11 colors on the map won't cause confusion? It's information overload! Anyways, it seems that this discussion is going around in circles.. Prcc27 ( talk) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1: UPDATE: (Edit) An extra color was added to the map. Footnote #3 removed. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Kudzu1: Interesting. The same-sex partnership map could be considered over-complicated and the marriage map "oversimplified." It's hard to say which one disserves the readers more. But maybe we can have a map that isn't over-complicated and if readers want to know more about the status of other unions they can simply click on a link provided in the map's key. How does this look? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Kudzu1. A map without civil unions leaves out important information. Look at it this way: there's marriage "in substance", i.e. the rights and legal effects it has, and there's the name marriage. In the case of Nevada, Colorado and in a limited form Wisconsin, provide same-sex marriage in substance but not in name, so they are relevant when talking about same-sex marriage. And I don't see a reason to remove them at this point, when they are likely going away soon anyway. If the legal situation is complicated, Wikipedia should reflect that. SPQRobin ( talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this map as well per the objections above. What it seems here is since Prcc27's proposal to get CU/DPs removed from the current map failed, they tried to make a new map and replace the old map... Also, any maps used should be SVG. They scale without image loss and are text editable. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The U.S. same sex marriage maps remind me a little of the U.S. map in the Nintendo game "Rampage". In a little animation, whenever George the Gorilla or Lizzie the Lizard finished off a string of cities, the creature would punch a region, changing its color. At the end, the whole map was of one color (black). 74.103.242.195 ( talk) 19:23, 25 June 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) 16:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Lawsuit challenges North Dakota gay marriage ban. "Seven couples filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in North Dakota, making it the last state in the country to be sued by couples seeking the right to marry in their home state." There is presently a federal lawsuit in North Dakota as well. I propose that the map for what is presently in litigation be updated and that it be updated under the heading "Federal District Courts". I don't feel like I myself possess the ability to do so, but just a heads up about it. AnnaOurLittleAlice ( talk) 19:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
U.S. District Judge Richard Young has struck down Indiana's ban against same-sex marriages. No stay has been issued.
From WLWT in Cincinnati: http://www.wlwt.com/news/judge-finds-indianas-samesex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/26656262
Link to ruling: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/baskin_in_20140625_entry-on-cross-motions-for-summary-judgment Fortguy ( talk) 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Given the Appeals Court ruling on the Utah case, the Boulder County, Colorado Clerk (in the same circuit as Utah) has said they will start issuing SSM licenses until/unless a court tells them not to [4]. Even if it is too soon to mention this here, it might result in a ruling that can be put in this article. 331dot ( talk) 23:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think in the map, Louisiana should be coded for judicial pending for recognizing ss marriage. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/06/federal_judge_to_address_wheth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.111 ( talk) 07:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear editors, in the map there is a color named judicial ruling against constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage stayed pending appeal. One question: After rulling in Kitchen case Utah, Oklahoma and other states of 10 th circuit are going to send the case to the Supreme court. So, is the word "appeal" is right, when we are talking about case pending in SC (not court of Appeals), or mentioned word refers only to courts of Appeal? Миша Карелин ( talk) 19:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If (for example) Texas is beige which is color coded for Judicial ruling against constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and any existing statutory bans, stayed pending appeal, should it be stripped like Ohio and Kentucky with the color that it is banned?
I mean why aren't the states that are that color have another strip to indicate it's banned if Ohio and Kentucky do? Sorry if I don't make sense..
Thank you! One last thing. Why do some states like Indiana or Arkansas legalize same sex marriage, but ban it a few days later again?
As I understood, the Ninth circuit are going to hear Idaho case en banc. Is that right or I misunderstood? And I guess they will hear all cases pendidng in Ninth circuit same day? If yes, we must put an information in all appropriate articles. M.Karelin ( talk) 19:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't the Bishop v. Oklahoma case affect the states in the tenth circuit as much as Kitchen v. Herbert..? Shouldn't the Bishop case be referenced in the table for KS, WY, and CO..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia has struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage and has ordered Monroe County to begin issuing licenses on July 22. The state attorney general has promised to appeal. From the Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/07/17/4240865/keys-judge-gay-couples-can-marry.html#storylink=cpy Fortguy ( talk) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-colorado-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frightwolf ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm new here, but I don't think Colorado should be listed in both tables (states with marriage equality and states with stayed rulings) as it double counts the population and skews the overall percentages. 02:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Since only one county is currently issuing licenses, I don't think it should be blue on the map. Czolgolz ( talk) 22:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that Virginia is colored dark blue, suggesting that ssm is legal, which it is not. It should be in the "pending review orange" as should WV, NC, & SC which also fall in the 4th District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.30.245.157 ( talk) 18:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that while the Fourth Circuit ruling in Bostic is binding precedent on courts in North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia, that same-sex marriage is not yet legalized there. That is because there's no direct court ruling on point. Note that Bostic has two parts, the opinion, and a judgment ordering the Virginia decision affirmed. We do not have any judgments out of lower courts in NC, SC, or WV, much less any that are to be affirmed.
We do have cases pending U.S. district court affecting these other states, see Fisher-Borne v. Smith (M.D.N.C.), Bradacs v. Haley (D.S.C.), and McGee v. Cole (S.D.W. Va.). Each has had proceedings stayed until the outcome of Bostic. But until a direct judgment is entered that affects these states, for now same-sex marriage is still unlawful in the states that make up the Fourth Circuit, outside of Virginia and Maryland.
My conclusion is that, regarding the map, having VA as blue is OK. I also do not mind whether NC, SC, and WV are left red or turned gold. But I oppose NC, SC, and WV being blue. MarkGT ( talk) 21:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all: why the Virginia is dark blue on the map? And seconds question: why all the rest of states in 4th circuit still red? And why Florida is red after state courts rulings? I guess it should be changed. M.Karelin ( talk) 15:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I just retrieved the judgement order from PACER. It says:
"This judgment shall become final and take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41." There is no initial stay.
F.R.A.P. 41 states: "The court's mandate must issue 7 days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later. The court may shorten or extend the time."
The judgment itself states: "A petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 calendar days after entry of judgment, except that in civil cases in which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the petition must be filed within 45 days after entry of judgment."
As the United States is not a party here (only a U.S. state), the judgment in Bostic, as it currently stands, will be effective no sooner than in 21 calender days, i.e. August 18, 2014. Of course, once a petition for rehearing is filed, then the mandate stays. And the Fourth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, can always issue a stay of judgment either on motion of any party, or sua sponte. MarkGT ( talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Could someone remove Colorado and Virginia from the marriage table and add them to the stay table, I'm too lazy to do it. A temporary stay is not akin to a law being passed because a court ruling is different from legislation as court rulings have an appeals process and legislation does not. Prcc★27 ( talk) 04:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess we should create new subsection in the section Presently in litigation. New subsection will be named Supreme court, and the first case will be Kitchen v. Herbert (a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court is filed already). M.Karelin ( talk) 17:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
So, it says here that a court in Tennessee has upheld the state's same-sex marriage ban, the first one to do so after nevada. So what do we do about these two? I thought we could add this to the map saying that the ban was upheld in nevada and tennessee and color them with black stripes. I don't know, should we add this case to the article or not? http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/court_rules_tennessee_s_same_sex_marriage_ban_is_constitutional Elahi Ryan ( talk) 00:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Colorado actually has two stays and that should be reflected on the table. Prcc★27 ( talk) 01:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)