File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 16

Petition to lift Missouri's stay filed

The plaintiffs in the Missouri federal case, Lawson v. Kelly, are petitioning for the stay to be lifted. If granted, Missouri will be solid dark blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Good dig! Mw843 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly striped dark blue/medium blue if the AG claims the ruling only applies to that one county already issuing anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No change for the moment, but solid dark blue if the stay is lifted. Mw843 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: Only if the ruling applies statewide. Prcc27 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Federal rulings always apply statewide unless one of the defendants is an ass...so at worst, we'll do to MO a version of whatever we decide with KS. Swifty819 (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Dems somehow hold the Governor's Mansion and the Attorney General office in MO, so odds are they will defend the law to stay in office in a reddening state but not be asses about giving up when they lose to not disenfranchise their base. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In the filing, it says "Defendant [Robert Kelly, the Jackson County recorder of deeds] does not oppose this motion; Intervenor [the State of Missouri, represented by Attorney General Koster] takes no position." (bracketed additions mine) Petitions like this are usually granted unless the judge himself finds a legal reason preventing him. MarkGT (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

He will probably let Missouri have same sex marry as it is already in effect in St Louis and Jackson so I don't see why he wouldn't let the others have it.--Allan120102 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The judge gave the defendants until December 8 to appeal. Otherwise, the stay expires on the 9th. Is it time to turn Missouri light blue but keep the striping in hand? The state is sure to appeal but considering that the stay COULD be lifted... Source Einsteinboricua (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The stay now has a definite end date, so for now, I support changing gold to light blue in MO. Kumorifox (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with changing the map: the stay only expires if the AG does not file an appeal, which he has said he intends to do. Mw843 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: The same-sex marriage ban is set to expire. If the AG files an appeal then that expiration will be reversed. It is WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the AG will indeed file that appeal. Also, if you read the source it says that the AG may also appeal and ask for the stay to be lifted. Currently, the AG is appealing the St. Louis marriage case and didn't ask for a stay so it's quite possible that the AG won't bother having the ruling be stayed in this case. Prcc27 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I keep having to remind myself that Wikipedia maps are not second-to-second updates... Previous comment withdrawn. Kumorifox (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas wording

We're writing a footnote, not an explanation or a history. A simple statement of what is going on, like "29 counties license", should suffice, not the why and wherefore. It's a footnote. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• We should add "but only two counties were listed as defendants in the court ruling" because whether or not it's legal in the other 27 counties is being debated. Prcc27 (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's beeing debated, but it is a fact - 29 counties give the SSM licensies. So I agree with Bmclaughlin9's offer. M.Karelin (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, I'm opposed to including a county count. As long as a link is given to the Same-sex marriage in Kansas, I think that's fine. (Note, I'd personally like a link to What's the Matter with Kansas?, but that's just me :) )Naraht (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got this wording now: "In [[Same-sex marriage in Kansas|Kansas]], a minority of the state's counties are issuing licenses to same-sex couples despite the opposition of the state government which does not recognize the licenses." Does this work? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "a minority of the state's counties" misrepresents the situation, since two-thirds of the state's population lives in those counties. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I've reworded it. Now I've got "In [[Same-sex marriage in Kansas|Kansas]], 29 counties covering a majority of the population are issuing licenses to same-sex couples despite the opposition of the state government." Is the majority of the population statement too much detail? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest more footnote style, short and sweet. Juxtapose the facts without "despite" and "opposition". The reader won't have any trouble recognizing the contradiction between the two statements. If we trust the reader, we can present facts without underlining. If you really feel the need to emphasize the contrast, add "but" between the 2 sentences. Also "issue" instead of "are issuing", just cause it sounds like policy and not like current events reporting. And those licenses. Don't think we need the # of counties, since it will be changing, but don't feel strongly about that.

"In [[Same-sex marriage in Kansas|Kansas]], counties comprising two-thirds of the state's population issue licenses to same-sex couples. The state government does not recognize those licenses."

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help! Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The only relevant counties are the two counties where it is legal. Furthermore, it should say how many counties allow it not how many people live in those counties. That is extremely irrelevant since any Kansas resident from any county can waltz right to one of those counties to get a licenses. So why does population matter if it's open to all residents of Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The current wording sounds like only 2/3 of KS residents can get married. — kwami (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If we say "## counties", we're not helping the reader who has no way of knowing how many counties there are. That's just plain bad writing.

If we say 2 of 105 or even 32 of 105 (the latest number), we suggest that licenses are not as readily available as they are. And we know they are readily available, even if harder for some. The latest figure is 69% of the population. The fact that they are readily available is the point to be made and there are a number of ways to do so, but just "32 counties" doesn't do that.

We could say this of course: "Same-sex couples in Kansas can obtain marriage licenses, but the state does not recognize same-sex marriages." I'd be happy with that.

Prcc27's comment above says that SSM is only legal in two counties ("the two counties where it is legal"). The distinction being drawn is that between licenses issued under order of the federal district court (2 counties) and licenses issued by 30 other counties under the direction of a judge who is within his rights, according to the Kansas Supreme Court, in ordering the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These licenses are all legal. One may be more explicit (the order in Marie) and the other less so (the statement of what a judge can legitimately determine in Moriarty), but they are both routes to the legal issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I see no reason to privilege one over the other. What makes a marriage license obtained in the 30 counties anything other than legal? The state isn't recognizing the validity of licenses from the 2 counties or the 30 counties, so that can't be it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: Just because the other counties were given the green light to issue licenses to same-sex couples doesn't mean same-sex marriage is legal in those counties. When Boulder County, Colorado was given the green light to issue licenses to same-sex couples, we didn't color Colorado any differently nor did we add a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Bmclaughlin9, I added "out of 105" after "29 counties." If you'd rather use the population number, feel free to change it; I'll probably stand back for a bit and give the page history a rest while you guys lock down the footnote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of effort is being diverted to discussing a bike shed over here. This is an awful lot of discussion over which number to put and what to number, counties vs population and so on. Footnotes are supposed to be brief snippets of information that lead a reader to get more details elsewhere. Why not "Same-sex marriage licenses are only issued in select counties, and are not currently recognized by the state" or some simple variation? Optionally toss in a link to the relevant article/section. The majority of the readers aren't going to care what the number of issuing counties are or what percentage of the population lives within them, and the few who do aren't going to expect to find that data in a footnote. Shereth 05:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How about we just limit the Kansas footnote to a generic non-numerical statement like "some counties issue" and the state refusal to recognize. The number of counties where same-sex marriage is legal is both debatable and thus poor for a footnote, and doesn't have a real world effect on the validity of the marriage as pointed out above and thus poor for a footnote. A reader is likely to be confused by seeing "two counties legal but 29 issuing." (IMO "two counties legal" is still POV, as well as something the AG himself conceded.) Leaving the number out means no need to fight over the proper number, and no need to continuously update. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 05:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the "state doesn't recognize" footnote. If we're going to have a footnote on a recognition ban, then we must have a footnote on legal recognition (such as Missouri). Otherwise, a recognition ban color should be added to be the legal recognition color's counterpart. IMHO, the current setup of Kansas violates WP:NPOV. Prcc27 (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Missouri is recognizing in line with a ruling as expected; Kansas is not recognizing in contravention of a ruling. That difference is sufficient to explain why Kansas gets a recognition mention in the footnote and Missouri does not. This will be the ninth day you've been bickering over Kansas on this page; barring a new ruling will we still be going in circles in nine more days? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Recognition and performance are two different things. Many court cases either rule exclusively on recognition: Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana or exclusively on performance: Florida (county level), Indiana, Missouri (federal court ruling), Illinois. Can you provide a reliable source that Kansas was ordered to recognize same-sex marriages? Even if Kansas's ban was struck down/ruled unconstitutional, the judge could still either rule exclusively on recognition like Ohio or exclusively on performance like Missouri or Indiana. BTW, this just proves my point further that it is possible to rule a ban unconstitutional without full same-sex marriage performance/recognition being legal statewide (since you claim the ban was struck down). Also, please don't accuse me of "bickering." I am here to discuss the complicated situation of Kansas and disagreements ≠ bickering. Prcc27 (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, The Cook County, Illinois ruling is a good example of a same-sex marriage ban being ruled unconstitutional but same-sex marriage only being legalized at the local level. Prcc27 (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

With any luck, the confusion will go away soonish ... an amended complaint goes into some detail as to who should be issuing, and recognizing, SSM licenses. Mw843 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What amended complaint are you referring to? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

With any luck, yes, but in the meantime I feel the dark blue is misleading for Kansas. It should be purple. You can get married someplace in Kansas, but it is only recognized by the Federal govt. No different from living in a dark red state and getting married elsewhere for Federal recognition. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• @68.199.96.18: Hi, there is already a discussion going on about how we should color Kansas here. Prcc27 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Petition to lift Texas' stay filed

With arguments a little over a month away, the plaintiffs in De Leon v. Perry have asked for the stay in Texas to be lifted. This one, if granted, could be messy, as the Texas defendants are strongly opposed, and the Supreme Court justice overseeing the Fifth Circuit of Appeals is Antonin Scalia who has gone on record as preferring to retain these stays. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

So far, the SCOTUS-issued stays have been referred to the full court, haven't they? At least by Sotomayor, in any case. Could they object if Scalia acted without referring it to them? If not, I have a feeling Texas will remain gold for a while longer. Thanks for the update, glad to see some life in the Texas case. Kumorifox (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Chief Justice referred the request for a stay in Condon v. Haley (South Carolina) to the full court last week. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Although the other states (Kansas, South Carolina, Idaho, etc.) all had circuit court decisions. Texas could give us the answer as to whether SCOTUS would retain a stay that is relieved before circuit arguments. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering that Scalia is the circuit judge, I won't hold my breath on him rejecting a stay. The same goes for states in the 11th Circuit with Thomas at the helm. Alito, in the 8th, would definitely be interesting to see.Einsteinboricua (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Arkansas

I've noticed that a federal judge has struck Arkansas' same-sex marriage ban, but the state is "expected" to appeal. 128.61.23.97 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The decision is stayed pending appeal so Arkansas stays beige. There is a state Supreme Court case to keep an eye on, though. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi struck

The order has been stayed for two weeks, to give the state opportunity to appeal [1]. Mw843 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Does that make it light blue (temporary stay) until the eventual indefinite one? Ghal416 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Light blue is the appropriate shading. I'm sure the Fifth Circuit will stay the decision. Until then, light blue. S51438 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The shading should be gold as it is almost certain that it will be stayed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Once we get the stay it will be. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This just shows how odd the category "pending" is. The proper label would be "stayed until a date certain", as opposed to stayed temporarily or stayed pending appeal. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The transition blue was born out of a compromise, to show where a state'a ban was removed but with a concrete date of implementation, and I agree it is a rather pedantic distinction between it and an indefinite stay now. If we were to get another state via legislative act, its purpose would be clearer, as it would cover the time between the act being signed and marriages beginning. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. In the case of legislation with an effective date, "pending" makes good sense. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from this ruling only being a preliminary injunction, the same-sex marriage performance part of this ruling is stayed indefinitely: "The Circuit Clerk of Hinds County shall continue to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex applicants and only those applicants until further word from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court." Thus, same-sex marriage recognition will go into effect in two weeks but same-sex marriage performance will not go in effect until we hear from a higher court. I support light blue-gold striping [2]. However, I think it's weird how we have a color for a ban being struck down that only affects recognition but not a color for a ban being struck down that only affects performance. Maybe the cream color should go from ban on recognition struck down to ban partially struck down..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source for this interpretation? I believe the Hinds-specific sentence is being read as an elaboration of the previous sentence setting the 14-day limit, not a separate order. Judge Reeves is saying: "Hey Hinds County, this means you!" Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi should not be striped. The ban is struck in a ruling that will become effective on December 9th, if the state fails to, or decides not to, get a stay. I don't understand how two conflicting colors can be rationalized from a single ruling. Mw843 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the light blue/gold striping for Mississippi. Gold is for an indefinite stay which isn't the case here, outside of the novel interpretation of a single editor. Creating striping based on such an interpretation - or indeed any kind of striping that seems to be blatantly self-contradictory - should come about as discussion with consensus, if at all. Shereth 14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: @Mw843: @Shereth: I provided a secondary source that backs up my claim in one of the comments below. How do you guys think we should color Mississippi? Prcc27 (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Being honest, Prcc27 should be banned from editing the map as well as this talk page. Hell I'd even support a full topic ban. Literally every single post (s)he makes is disruptive.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dudemanfellabra: Please assume good faith; my edit was done in good faith. Prcc27 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dudemanfellabra: If you start the processes to get this disruptive user blocked/banned, I will back you 100%. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 is one of the most prodigious editors on SSM topics on Wikipedia. Banning him [sic] would do Wikipedia a disservice. However, Prcc27 also gives the impression that he would prefer if there weren't any other pesky editors to get in the way of his vision for perfect and most glorious Wikipedia. He should not be banned. But he also should absolutely not ever be made an admin of any kind. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• @0nlyth3truth: I can't tell if that was a compliment or an insult... Prcc27 (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• @0nlyth3truth: this talk page and map is Wikimedia Commons jurisdiction. Getting them blocked on Wikimedia Commons but not English Wikipedia means they can edit but just not be disruptive on the maps. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose a ban procedure. However, I would prefer if we all started acting more in in conjunction with each other (and yes, I include myself in that, as I have made disruptive edits and comments myself). I believe that, with the remaining states, there is going to be a whole lot of confusion going on in the near future. Just look at Missouri and Kansas. Now Mississippi gets added to the list because of a partial ruling with a temporary stay, and a partial ruling with an indefinite stay. So in future, let's discuss the map first before we simply go and change, unless the change is clear-cut (like Montana was recently). Any striping consideration should be discussed, first of all, as stripes can add to the confusion instead of clarifying things. Kumorifox (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The state has started the process to get a stay from the 5th; even though plaintiffs oppose, they'll likely succeed. Mw843 (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"He stayed his ruling for 14 days but also noted clerks could not issue gay marriage licenses until further guidance was given from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court" [3]. Since it is quite possible that this ruling could go into effect when the stay expires without Mississippi getting further guidance to issue licenses to same-sex couples; Mississippi should go back to striped light blue-gold. Prcc27 (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe Mississippi should remain light blue with a footnote saying "Same-sex marriages can't be performed until further guidance is given from the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court." And since the source claims the ban was struck down, if the ruling goes into effect in 14 days but neither court steps in then Mississippi would be solid medium blue with that footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No. I'd explain but I've learned there's no point reasoning with you. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: You oppose the footnote or the coloring? Prcc27 (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose footnote and map changes. I don't think the purpose of the map is to explain every nuance of every court decision. Mississippi should be light blue, with a footnote saying the stay expired 2012/12/09 without further action. As noted above, an indefinite stay has been requested from the 5th: MS will likely be gold soon enough. Mw843 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Support current map (solid transition blue) and I've simplified the footnote. I don't think we need to elaborate on what exactly expires on December 9 until we get there; in the meantime saying the ruling is set to go into effect is sufficient and a curious reader can click through for more details. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The way things stand with states and colours, I support solid light blue for MS. The stay is temporary for now, and that is what should be reflected.
I think light blue for a stay is a bad choice though, as any form of blue gives the impression of soon(ish) legalisation. Some people have suggested light blue for as-yet inactive legislative measures (which I don't think are going to happen in any of the remaining states any time soon, as they are all court battles right now), and the light cream for "confusing" states (can I call these "confustates" from now on?) with partial striking or conflicting rulings or something like that, and explain the nuances of cream with footnotes if necessary (so currently, MS, MO, and KS would be cream with that scheme right now). Just a suggestion, I often want to regulate stuff like this more than necessary. Kumorifox (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: Tbh, I don't think having a separate color for states with complex situations will bring any clarity because MO & KS already have footnotes anyways. What needs to be done with confusing states is having them colored whichever color(s) it closely qualifies as, and then the footnote would be used to explain how it is different from other states with that same color. Personally, I think states with temporary stays should be gold with a footnote that says when the stay expires. Prcc27 (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: And quite clearly, there are disagreements among us what the colours represent and which ones are required. I have suggested a colour reshuffling, and so far, nothing has come of that (and that's fine with me). But as long as there are disagreements on colour uses, it means we can likely clarify everything further, I believe. Right now I'm going to refrain from making yet more summaries or suggestions as my mind has been shown to change with the direction of the wind. Kumorifox (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Consolidate Missouri stripes

Could we consolidate Missouri's dark blue and medium blue stripes? I think Missouri should be striped dark blue-light blue with a footnote that says "Same-sex marriage is legally licensed in St. Louis, Missouri, and recognized statewide." Since same-sex couples can legally get married anywhere in Missouri and have their marriage recognized by the state- I think dark blue is appropriate. Keeping medium blue seems a little redundant. The light blue would still be appropriate since same-sex couples still can't legally be licensed in other jurisdictions and because it is still banned everywhere within the state (except St. Louis); rulings that overturn a ban with an expiry stay qualify as light blue. Prcc27 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just as soon see it go full dark blue with a footnote, the logic being that anyone in Missouri can obtain a license (although perhaps not in the county within which they reside), be married and have their marriage recognized by the state. It's my opinion that all blues are redundant to the dark blue. It's my opinion that the map should be simplified as much as possible and none of this striping to accommodate local variations. Since I doubt I will get my way, I can support at least collapsing the medium blue into the dark blue. Shereth 14:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. If anything, the color that should be removed is dark blue. SSM is not available state-wide - it is only authorized in the City of St. Louis. Light and medium blue do reflect state-wide conditions. Mw843 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: You do have a point.. but this map was also striped for local SSM in the past (New Mexico). Remember, even though only St. Louis can license, same-sex marriage can still be performed anywhere in the state. The footnote explains that the dark blue means SSM is legal in St. Louis and recognized statewide. But if we agreed to only show statewide cases then I'd support striping Missouri medium blue-light blue. Prcc27 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If we remove dark blue from MO for that reason, it must be removed from KS as well. Kumorifox (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: I'm not suggesting we remove dark blue; I'm suggesting we remove medium blue (recognition color) since dark blue already implies same-sex marriage is recognized. Having both dark blue and medium blue is redundant. Prcc27 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was in reply to Mw843. I'm fine with the medium blue removed from MO. Kumorifox (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Face it: Missouri is a confused mess, and there is no combination of colors that will correctly describe the situation on the ground. Given that, leave it, and the footnotes, alone until something happens. Mw843 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And stop trying to use New Mexico as a precedent: New Mexico law was silent on SSM - it can't be used in an argument about a state that has statutory and constitutional provisions. Mw843 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: The medium blue meaning wouldn't go away. We could kill two birds with one stone by applying dark blue for local SSM licensing/statewide performance & recognition. Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: I think that what you are proposing is change for the sake of change that does nothing to improve the map. Mw843 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Mw843: Removing redundant stripes does improve the map; dark blue already implies that same-sex marriage is recognized by the state. But honestly, I can also support striping Missouri medium blue/light blue if we agree to only reserve dark blue for states where same-sex marriage is legal statewide and possibly even states with no ban/local ssm. That's why I removed Missouri's dark blue stripe on the North American same-sex marriage map; because same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide and the North American map is a statewide map. So if this map is a statewide map, then dark blue should be removed. But if we aren't going to remove the dark blue stripe then the medium blue stripe should go since it seems redundant. Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Florida surprise

The 11th Circuit denied Florida's request to extend the stay that expires on January 5. The color stays the same for now, but will AG Pam Bondi take the hint like Chris Christie did? Mw843 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I would anticipate turning the state dark blue on that date. I won't speculate further. This isn't a forum MKleid (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If no court intervenes, the stay expires at the end of that day, not on that date. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what the Supreme Court does. If Bondi files for a stay extension with them, that is the first request pre-Circuit argument and decision. That would be a clash between legal procedure (granting until the 11th rules) and the momentum (denying like the other states). As well, the 11th Circuit judge is Thomas who has complained about the denial of stays before. Will he refer to the full court? Time will tell. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's good information to keep an eye on, but indeed, let's not act before the end of January 5th. KY and VA also left things until the very last day before a permanent stay was ordered. It is a promising message that the stay is not extended as of yet, but nothing is certain until the expiry date has passed (and even then, a lot may still happen). Kumorifox (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi goes back to gold -- stay pending appeal granted

The 5th Circuit has granted the stay pending appeal.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/249190527/14-60837-Stay-Granted

216.165.95.66 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed the note that referred to Mississippi. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gold is in place on the map as well. Kumorifox (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Missouri files notice of appeal with 8th Circuit

Document here: [4] IIRC, this means that the stay on the District Court decision doesn't expire, so the light blue stripe changes back to gold. Mw843 (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for colour reshuffling and clarification

With the current confusion in states like Kansas and Missouri, comprising partly of multiple rulings and incomplete information from the states themselves, we've been having plenty of discussions about map colours. I'm going to make a very bold suggestion here about an idea for a reshuffle, in order to keep things clearer.

Current scheme

• Dark blue: marriage is legal state-wide, even though there might be ongoing litigation attempting to counter it (such as currently in Idaho and North Carolina)
• Medium blue: marriages performed in other states and/or jurisdictions are recognised, but marriage licenses are not offered in the state itself
• Light blue: ban was struck down or laws were signed, but the ruling is stayed temporarily and has a definite date for lifting, or the laws are not yet in effect
• Gold: ban was struck in one or more courts, but the ruling has been stayed indefinitely, for reasons such as appeals
• Light gold: currently not used
• Grey: no laws regarding marriages, assumed de facto no marriage
• Light red: currently not used
• Red: the state bans marriage and possibly other forms of unions, contrary to Circuit of Appeals precedent which has ruled against bans
• Dark red: the state bans marriage and possibly other forms of unions, with no Circuit precedent

Suggested scheme

• Dark blue - licenses issued state-wide, and state-wide only (clearer than saying marriage is legal in the state; this would exclude MO and KS for now)
• Medium blue - licenses issued on local level only (would apply to KS and MO, as of writing this; would have applied to IL, CO, and NM in the past, among others)
• Light blue - recognition of out-of-state marriages, but no licenses issued (applies to MO, but not KS, as of writing)
• Light gold - ban struck, temporary stay (SC, FL)
• Gold/tan/whatever it's called - ban struck, indefinite stay (TX, AR)
• Grey - no specific laws (some of the territories)
• Red - ban in place, contrary to precedent (MT, maybe KS)
• Dark red - ban in place, no circuit precedent

This scheme would use blue for recognition or issuing in all cases, gold/yellow for all stays, and red for all bans. The only hiccup would be the need for a new yellow if the Ohio-style case would occur again, the stay of a recognition-only case (though light blue/yellow striping could cover that). Stripes would still be needed for some states with multiple rulings or unclear information (such as MO and KS), but it should clear confusion about local and state-wide issuing.

What are people's thoughts on this? Doable? Superfluous? Trying to fix unbroken things? A way to clear confusion? Complete rubbish idea? Please let your voices be heard. Kumorifox (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. This does seems clearer than the current setup due to eliminating the Kansas stripes. Here is what this would look like. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

At first I was undecided, but now I support this. Mainly because it clarifies the situations better. If I am reading it correctly, in this scenario, KS would be striped Medium Blue & Red, MO would be striped Medium and Light Blue, therefore also getting rid of the triple-striping eyesore we thought was gone for good when Oregon's ban was struck down. aharris206(talk) 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Kansas would be striped, as the local blue would imply that other parts of the state still have the ban in place. We could spell this out explicitly in the legend, something like "Select jurisdictions within the state perform same-sex marriage; ban in place in others." Likewise, Missouri loses its red stripe in consolidation. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if Kansas still officially has the ban in place. Some sources and users suggest it does and that two counties only are barred from refusing to issue licenses (implying medium blue/normal red stripes), and other sources state that the ban was struck, but many clerks are refusing to issue due to poor or conflicting information from the AG (implying solid medium blue). Also, not sure about the light red for FA and SC, as this (at first sight) suggests a ban and not transition, but I tried the light yellow (code #ff9), which looks very washed-out, so I'm leaving that to other people to decide for now. But yes, especially with the triple striping removed, it looks much better than what we currently have. Kumorifox (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas doesn't, at least legally, as the Federal court injunction struck down the ban throughout the state. The problem is, Johnson County is separately barred from issuing licenses still and the Attorney General is running with that as an excuse to not permit implementation of the federal ruling. De jure, Kansas is marriage dark blue (except for Johnson County), de facto (and in the AG's mind), it's striped currently. The state is also refusing to recognize marriages per Equality Kansas. In your map, I'd give it solid local blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose removing Kansas's red stripe and Missouri's gold stripe. Those states don't just ban ssm, one has a precedent against it and the other has it struck down but the ruling is stayed pending appeal. This is very valuable information! Furthermore, if a territory legalized ssm at the local level, we couldn't use language like "ban" in the proposed local ssm color. Also, consolidating a positive (local ssm) and a negative (statewide ban) law into a positive color (medium blue) violates WP:NPOV. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are worthwhile points, and I can see the merit in having a mess of stripes on Missouri and Kansas, given the confusing and contentious status in those states. Would it work if we flipped the proposed transition and local marriage colors, so that Kansas and Missouri would be pale tan, a neutral color? We could keep the transition and recognition blues then, with the local marriage light tan the only new color. As for the legend, instead of "local ban," we could use more generic terminology like "Only sselect jurisdictions within the state perform same-sex marriage." (Also is Wikipedia running erratically for anyone else?) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The main thing I don't like about this proposal is that a majority of the colors apply to only 1 or 2 states. This is not very efficient at all. My own proposal is below. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither support nor oppose. Let me first say I do agree that the color scheme could use an overhaul. Since the state of SSM developments has devolved entirely to the state of SSM developments in court, I think the change that would do this map the most good would be if we distinguished between states that have ongoing litigation at the appellate level and states that don't (i.e. original jurisdiction case in progress and/or no cases at all). The scheme could be: is at the right.

Or if the test file is updated: See here

This scheme tosses the distinction between de jure and de facto (which only applies to FL and SC), and relegates that along with foreign recognition (which only applies to SC for <48 hours and MO) to a footnote. There are other maps that can detail what and how SSM is banned where it is banned, and what and how SSM is legal where it is legal. Alternatively, the distinction between de jure and de facto could be conveyed by striping. Also, an SSM ban upheld on appeal might seem "stronger" than (and therefore seeming to merit a darker color than) an unchallenged SSM ban, but note the former is more vulnerable. Importantly, this scheme begins to approach balance between the number of states in each color category, which is generally a good thing for color-coded maps. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Montana should be dark red: everyone is waiting a District Court ruling. Florida should be pink. I don't like that we're tossing the "precedent" color ... but once Montana goes, we might not need it again, as there's a reasonable chance that SCOTUS would rule before the 5th, 8th or 11th Circuit (which are all likely to say no, anyway). For "Footnote 2"; the state of MO recognizes SSM. And could someone explain the circumstance to get to light blue? I can't think of one. And if there isn't one, how about middle blue for appealing, but fighting circuit precedent, and light blue for appealing, but not subject to circuit precedent? That would differentiate between MO and AK, WY, KS, and the other states in denial. Mw843 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been no rulings that Montana is subject to that are against SSM, so I disagree. [I thought you wrote "medium red"] But you're exactly right about there being approximately 0% chance of needing the precedent color again after the district court in MT has ruled, which is days away. FL should be same color as SC as they both have stays with expiration dates. Florida should be light blue, not pink. I very much like your proposal for light blue. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Wyoming case is no longer in appeals: Source. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To make things more straightforward, I'm coloring the map as if MT falls in line with ID and AK. [Edit: this just happened! 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)] 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Arizona is not appealing and I don't like this map that we have I prefer the one we have right now.--Allan120102 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm amused by the double entendre of "Arizona is not appealing" lol. But thanks for your input! 0nlyth3truth (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Florida should be pink: SSM is not legal, and the last ruling was in favor. The fact that the stay has a schedule expiry doesn't appear to be relevant with this color scheme. And Florida has filed for an indefinite stay at the 11th. And SC has been ordered to recognize out-of-state SSM. (Like nailing jello to the wall, isn't it?) Mw843 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

SSM is de jure legal in Florida. If this map gets consensus, it probably won't be until after SC has SSM, so that last tidbit is fortunately jello I can eat. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely not de jure in Florida. Every order has been stayed - this color scheme makes no allowance as to whether the stay is indefinite or not. [Comment added by Mw843.[5] Not signing your comments is in violation of WP:Talk page guidelines. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)]

If the distinction between de jure and de facto is tossed, then states with bans with expiration dates get lumped with states with legal SSM, per a history of marriage in the United States.svg/Archive_6#Maryland findings on this talk page. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea behind the second scheme is good, but include gold as a stay colour. Stays are important to note as well. If the current colours do note stays, the legend needs to be updated to reflect that. But I think stays should be noted explicitly as they are a different kettle of fish than bans. Kumorifox (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The current color scheme notes stays indirectly. In so doing, it preserves the distinction between states with tossed bans with temporary stays and states with tossed bans with indefinite stays (e.g. FL v. TX, respectively), but it does not preserve the distinction between states with tossed bans with no (or expired) stays and states with tossed bans with temporary, unexpired stays (e.g. NC v. SC, respectively). This latter is a direct effect of the tossing of the de jure vs. de facto distinction per a history of marriage in the United States.svg/Archive_6#Maryland findings on this talk page. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My argument is that since the number of colors is a finite resource (due to readability, accessibility, and aesthetic constraints), it makes sense to channel the resource into maximally useful and informative categories. A distinction that only applies to two states (FL and SC, and tomorrow only FL) seems like a less important than a distinction that applies to, say, 6 states (NC, SC, KS, ID, AK, MT vs. the other SSM-legal states with no court cases). Since all SSM progress is now occurring in courts, it is apparent why the litigious differences between states are the most important. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To compare (grouping SC with NC as will be the case tomorrow):

• Dark blue - licenses issued state-wide, and state-wide only (34 states. clearer than saying marriage is legal in the state; this would exclude MO and KS for now)
• Medium blue - licenses issued on local level only (2 states: would apply to KS and MO, as of writing this; would have applied to IL, CO, and NM in the past, among others)
• Light blue - recognition of out-of-state marriages, but no licenses issued (1 state: applies to MO, but not KS, as of writing)
• Light gold - ban struck, temporary stay (1 state: FL)
• Gold/tan/whatever it's called - ban struck, indefinite stay (2 states: TX, AR)
• Grey - no specific laws (some of the territories)
• Red - ban in place, contrary to precedent (1 states: maybe KS)
• Dark red - ban in place, no circuit precedent (11 states: ND, SD, NE, MI, OH, KY, TN, GA, AL, MS, LA)

Ignoring the overwhelmer of dark blue, the standard deviation of 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 11 (your scheme) is 3.95, while the standard deviation of 6, 2, 3, 5, 6 (my scheme) is less than half of that at 1.82, where a smaller standard deviation indicates a more even spread among the colors. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Standard deviation does not matter, in my opinion. What matters is showing the information as clearly as possible to the best of our ability. To me, removing direct reference to stays removes the clarity of the information. It might show disparity in colours for the moment, but if it shows the information the most clearly, I prefer it over a colour scheme that is confusing and indirect. Kumorifox (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: You are making assumptions as to what "the information" is, and therefore begging the question. Currently, there is 0 distinction between states with legal SSM with no litigation and those with litigation (e.g. VA v. SC, AZ v. ID). There is also no distinction between states with banned SSM with cases headed to appeals (very vulnerable bans), and states with none (LA v. MS, TN v. AL). The question is whether these distinctions merit inclusion in the map moreso than the stay distinction, which at this point only applies to one state, and therefore seems rather better relegated to a footnote. Seeing that this latter distinction has been relegated to a footnote in the past, I don't think I am making an unreasonable proposal. The standard deviation is applicable because of information theory: dense codes carry more information than sparse codes. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: You're right, I'm sorry. The differences you name are just as important, and should indeed be represented. Kumorifox (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: Thanks for bringing up the topic about changing the color scheme though! I think it's very pertinent, and will likely come up again soon. [comment added after archive was created] 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I support at least changing tan to pink, so that there's an easily legible spectrum. I never understood the choice of tan; there seem to me to be several different degrees and tan seems to me to represent something entirely different. Anyone agree to pink?193.225.200.92 (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)193.225.200.92 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Let the map stand as is. Also we should have some stability in map colors. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The map is fine as it is, if a reader has interest in the status of a state, they have links to follow. For those uncertain in my previous remark, it was reductio ad absurdum in nature. My consternation also voiced in response to who invited me also voiced. If we change it as court decision or non-decision occurs, adding new schemes, we'll end up with a confusing ROYGIBV (see spectrum) that changes so often even the original authors become confused. A true encyclopedia is slow to change, as it's not a news source. Hence, rapid changes based upon still moving events is unencyclopedic in nature in the extreme.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Wzrd1: In the RfC I proposed consolidating the transition color with the stay color and replacing the transition color with the local compliance color. You'll see that no colors were added in my proposal and there are just as much colors in the current map as in the local compliance proposal map I posted at the RfC. Instead of Florida being colored "same-sex marriage legalization pending" I colored it "same-sex marriage ban overturned, decision stayed" since the ruling overturning the state's ban is stayed until Jan. 5. Prcc27 (talk) 08:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Period, end of story. What is present is sufficient. We'll not destroy Wikipedia via massive rapid changes that will likely be changed relativity soon. As I said previously, *any* encyclopedia forms a final article long after the event that generated the cause for an article admission. This one, courtesy of special circumstances, is very different. The case law will change, as finer tuned legal actions ensues. Why continually replace the map for no real reason, save of one peruses an agenda. As one that was involved in such a topic, I suggest wisdom. Listen to all and sundry, let them play out their agendas. Then, swoop in and advance things. Occasionally, that works, many times it does not and a generation complains of our faults. That is a lesson on humanity.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Wzrd1: There are currently two states that qualify for the local compliance color though. Missouri's ban was struck down by a state judge but they only have jurisdiction in St. Louis and Missouri might stay same-sex marriage only legal in St. Louis for a long time! Furthermore, the transition color (light blue) is fairly new and hasn't been around that long (it's only been around for about 4 months). The color scheme has changed numerous times on this map and it didn't "destroy Wikipedia" it improved it. Note that adding the local compliance color would reduce the amount of stripes Missouri has from 3 to 2. If anything, it will improve the map. Same-sex marriage has been legal at the local level before (New Mexico, Cook County, Illinois) and it could possibly happen in the future (state judges in Florida have struck down bans in Florida but only have jurisdiction at the local level, the district court ruling in Florida might only apply to certain counties, etc.) Should we get rid of the precedent color that is currently not in use even though it could be used in the future (btw the precedent color is another example of a fairly new color that we added)? Prcc27 (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason I bring up the precedent color (medium red) is because if you're saying we shouldn't have a local compliance color because there might soon be states that don't fit it then why do we still have a precedent color (no state currently qualifies as precedent) and a transition color (Florida qualifies as "transition" and it is possible that there will be no state that fits that category once same-sex marriage becomes legal in less than a month turning Florida dark blue or earlier if the stay is extended turning Florida gold). My proposal would have two states colored light blue instead of one and four states colored yellow instead of three. Prcc27 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I support having a local compliance color. Prcc27 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Kansas

Base on Kansas Equality there at least 48 counties issuing same sex marriage licenses so there needs to be an update in the same sex marriage Kansas page and coloring. there is a good map in there to show the counties that are issuing. https://www.facebook.com/EqualityKansas .--Allan120102 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Allan120102:  Done. Next time you can post updates on counties in Kansas issuing on the Same-sex marriage in Kansas talk page. I just added the page to my Watchlist. Prcc27 (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 I am sorry,I was going to put there but I was not sure if people were going to see as this page is more used than that. I am not sure if the one that updates the page of same sex marriage in Kansas will update the population with the new counties add.--Allan120102 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The text of the KS article needs to be updated to match the additions to the map. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Look again. And this really belongs on the talk page for Same-sex marriage in Kansas. This page may be "active", but some of us can't bear looking at it often because the discussions are so unproductive. BTW I count 47, not 48. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9 I look the mistake and its that they forgot to color Gray county in the map. They have it as if its issuing licenses and its part of the 16 districts along Clark ford etc which they are issuing licenses. So they are actually 48. If its not to much can you add in the page please because I am not sure how to do it. Thanks in advance and sorry for bothering much, but Kansas is a very special state to me.--Allan120102 (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Florida

As the person who colored Florida light blue, I think the way we're portraying Florida may be inaccurate. Sources are now trickling in saying that according to the state’s court clerks association, same-sex marriage will only become legal in one county and that clerks in counties other then Washington County that issue licenses to same-sex couples could face fines and/or imprisonment [6] [7][8]. I am not sure to what degree Florida is set to recognize same-sex marriages (note that limited recognition of same-sex marriage is not represented on this map) but I'm pretty sure only the defendants listed would be obligated to recognize same-sex marriages. I'm thinking light blue is inaccurate for Florida. Even if Florida remains light blue (which it probably shouldn't), there should at least be a footnote explaining that same-sex marriage isn't being legalized in the entire state. Prcc27 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now it's the interpretation of one law firm. I fully anticipate that if Jan 6 rolls around without any action from SCOTUS, there will be some disagreement and we'll probably see a situation where not every county is on the same page; if and when that happens, we can handle it with a footnote (or a local compliance color if it has been adopted). Until then, it's simplest to just leave Florida as is rather than be confounded by speculation. Shereth 14:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Shereth: The state's court clerks association represents all 67 counties in Florida. I thought this statement was made after the association's legal counsel made the interpretation. The law firm and the state's court clerks association are two different things right? Prcc27 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• AFAIK, the association does not have legal authority; their legal counsel has interpreted the judge's ruling in a specific way, and they have advised the various county clerks accordingly, but their advice is not legally binding. Shereth 15:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is not legal to withhold licenses. Judge Hinkle has established the common law for the whole state Florida, as every other judge has done in every other state.

• I oppose changing Florida. There is no legal/policy-based reason for doing so. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose changing Florida until we have more concrete information. It looks like it'll be another Kansas-style battle, but implementing it before anything of the sort is happening would be violating WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot predict what will happen, only speculate. Kumorifox (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• I also oppose changing Florida. And note that SCOTUS has refused Florida's request to extend the stay. SSM will begin on January 6. Mw843 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Bondi said:

“ Tonight, the United States Supreme Court denied the State’s request for a stay in the case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Regardless of the ruling it has always been our goal to have uniformity throughout Florida until the final resolution of the numerous challenges to the voter-approved constitutional amendment on marriage. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has now spoken, and the stay will end on January 5. ”

I'm hoping this means Florida won't become a local complicate state! [9] Prcc27 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I don't think the subsections of which counties are and aren't going to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples are needed. Prcc27 (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Counties that will

• Washington (duh)
• Lee (Clerk of the court)
• Pinellas (Tampa Bay Times)
• Dade
• Broward
• Monroe
• Osceola [10]

Counties position unclear

• Hillsborough [11]
• St. Johns

Counties that will not

• Brevard
• Charlotte
• Clay[12]
• Duval[13]
• Hernando
• Leon (unlikely: [14])
• Lake [15]
• Manatee [16]
• Nassau[17]
• Orange [18]
• Pasco
• Sarasota [19]
• Seminole [20]

• Oppose changing Florida, this is crazy, the map should reflect the laws of Florida at a state level, if the state is not issuing marriages then it should not be changed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This information should be placed with a map of Florida counties, not this general map. It is useful, but in the wrong place. Kumorifox (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice list. Despite these complications, there is no question whether or not federal district judges establish the law for a whole state. They do. I don't know why after all this time and all these states there are still those that think Florida will be different. Despite what Greenberg thinks, states don't just get to set their own individual policies on following a federal judge, i.e. the precedent Hinkle has set. On January 6, same sex marriage will be legal in every county in Florida even if couples have to sue each recalcitrant county to get it. Kansas is certainly experiencing this now. MKleid (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We'll see what Bondi does, I'd be surprised if Florida completely follows Kansas's playbook, but I think that File:Florida-SSM-License-by-County.png is more likely than not to exist in mid January...Naraht (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Washington County clerk is asking the judge whether they'll have to issue a marriage license only to the couple named in the lawsuit or all same-sex couples that apply [21]. If the judge says the clerk only has to issue to the couple named in the lawsuit then IMHO Florida should not be solid dark blue. Prcc27 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this article [22], the order striking down the ban is binding on "the Secretary [of the Florida Department of Management Services], the Surgeon General, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys--and others in active concert or participation with any of them--who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise." This would include the 67 county clerks, who will shortly be receiving letters notifying them of this part of the order. Barring any shock rulings Florida should go blue on January 6th. Mw843 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if some counties are going to be difficult, with KS and MO precedence on this map, FA will go dark blue anyway. We'd just need a footnote if there are going to be scofflaw counties (thanks to whomever coined that term in the Kansas RfC, by the way, I'm going to use it regularly). Kumorifox (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether clerks in the judicial branch of state government work "in concert" with officials in the executive branch is far from clear. Judge Hinkle needs to speak clearly. The rest, as they say, is noise. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We will probably get the answer on Monday as the judge ask state agencies to respond if it only affects only one county or all 67.http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/12/wrangling-continues-over-florida-clerks-obligation-to-federal-gay-marriage-ruling/ --Allan120102 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Local compliance

There is some discussion about whether or not there should be a color for "local compliance", states where SSM licenses are being issued and/or recognized by some jurisdictions but not others. That discussion is getting a little buried in other map proposals and may not be getting a more widespread exposure, so I'll put it here so it can be discussed on its own merits.

I'll start by saying that I am personally weakly opposed to the idea. If you frame the question simply, using Missouri as an example, and ask "Can same sex couples be married in Missouri?" the answer is yes. It may be true that a couple in Kansas City will have to travel across the state to St. Louis to do so, but that does not change the fact that the answer to the question is "yes". I believe that's really the only question that needs to be asked. Can a same sex couple be married in a given state? If the answer is "yes", the state should be blue. If the answer is "soon", the state should be transition blue. If the answer is "no", the state should be red. If the answer is "A judge said yes but put it on hold", the state should be gold.

I understand, however, that my opinion may be in the minority, so if there is an appetite among the editors here to implement a local compliance color, let's discuss that here so we can make sure it's done right. Shereth 14:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Support: A local compliance color is more accurate for Kansas and Missouri. And more states like KS & MO may be on the way (i.e. Florida). We can use the light gray color we used to use for the territories with no law prohibiting/recognizing same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I did forget to mention that if there is a consensus to add a local compliance color, I would rather see it be something other than light gray. It's not a very logical color; typically gray on a map conveys a sense of neutrality, and it doesn't make a lot of visual sense. My suggestion would be to co-opt the medium blue color that's being used for "foreign recognition". That color is only being used by Missouri, which I think is silly. Foreign recognition of SSM is kind of implicit in the dark blue (and would be implicit in a "local compliance" color) and it's not really adding anything useful to the map. It makes more sense visually since it's in the same spectrum (blue) as SSM. Then, Kansas and Missouri (and probably Florida in a couple weeks) could both be shaded medium blue without stripes and the map would be that much easier to understand :) Shereth 15:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Depending if Marriage go forward in Florida we should have a special color for states where not all the counties are issuing licenses but I am pretty sure at least 10 counties in Florida would do so, especially the liberal ones, so there should be a color to represent that. Its like Kansas 48/105 counties are issuing so Kansas should be in that color too. We need a color where represent that ssm licenses are issue but not statewide. Turquoise maybe? but not gray I am against using gray for this. --Allan120102 (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Using the light blue transition as the local compliance color by consolidating the two similar stays (temporary vs. indefinite) into gold was proposed so the local compliance color could be a shade of blue, but this recognition color proposal comes as a shock to me.. I'm not sure if I want to see the recognition color go! I disagree that the local compliance color would insinuate that same-sex marriage is recognized because Kansas doesn't recognize same-sex marriages and Florida doesn't look set to have full recognition either. Furthermore, if same-sex marriage is legalized by a state court that only has jurisdiction at the county/district level, this would be another example of same-sex marriage not being recognized in a "local compliance" state. We could leave same-sex marriage recognition to different map, but same-sex marriage recognition doesn't seem important enough to be the only thing represented on a map. Light gray would seem to work since same-sex marriage is still banned in "local compliance" states and ignoring the ban would be WP:POV (especially in a state like Kansas where same-sex couples receive little to no recognition). I'm also not sure if I would want Kansas and Missouri to be solid local compliance, Kansas could be striped local-precedent or local-no law and Missouri could be striped local-recognition-stay or local-stay if we get rid of recognition. I'm not sure if the bans should be represented as a footnote rather than a color. But, if we do get rid of the recognition color I think it would at least be footnote worthy. However, if the recognition color is "silly" because it's only used on Missouri then the transition color is "silly" because it's only used on Florida. Rather than saying whether I support or oppose using medium blue as a local compliance color, I'll say that I will consider it. Prcc27 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'd be more likely to support not striping Kansas and Missouri if we used light gray since it's a neutral color. Prcc27 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

My personal stance is that we ought to just keep what we're doing with Kansas: dark blue but footnoted to explain the situation. It may not be the most visually accurate, but it wards off all these recoloring proposals and keeps the map visually simpler. At this point I will take footnotes over another round of musical chair colorings. So this would color Missouri dark blue with a footnote like "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis and recognized state-wide." Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• If Kansas is solid dark blue then Missouri should definitely be solid dark blue too. However, I don't think Kansas should be solid dark blue.. Prcc27 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware, but Kansas has been blue for a month now without a consensus forming to change its color or striping. So to end the cycles of proposals on this page, to get a more consistent map, and since I personally would take a simpler map and more complex footnotes over the reverse, I'd like to try a solid deep blue Kansas-Missouri(-Florida?) proposal. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - transition color should reserved as 00ccff until the map is completely dblue. Local compliance is satisfactorily covered by footnotes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - This sort of anomaly is what the notes are for. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bmclaughlin9: @Thegreyanomaly: This is the fourth (possibly fifth) time^* we've have a "local compliance" state, I wouldn't call it an anomaly (especially since Florida might become the next local compliance state)... This is a map, not a summary table! A local compliance color would easily explain what's going on. I do understand where you guys are coming from but my biggest issue is that we're being inconsistent with Kansas and Missouri; so if we don't implement the local compliance color, we should at least have KS & MO colored the same way.

^* Boulder County would have qualified as my proposed wording for the local compliance color "Same-sex marriage licensed in certain jurisdictions, but not legal statewide" since they were allowed to issue licenses to same-sex couples even though same-sex marriage wasn't legal. Prcc27 (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• I strongly support local compliance colour. Footnotes should be used to give specifics, such as stay end dates, but they should not be used for the general information that colours convey; otherwise, consolidating the two stay colours could be done and also explained with footnotes, and people are against doing that. However, I strongly oppose removing recognition blue or transition blue. Those colours were introduced when they were required, and they are still needed. Kumorifox (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose a compliance color; footnotes would be needed anyway, and the existing colors, with footnotes, adequately explain the situation. Mw843 (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Mw843: The existing colors are probably confusing readers because Missouri and Kansas are inconsistent. Both states are "local compliance" states but only one of them is solid dark blue and the other one is triple striped. Prcc27 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Prcc27, I would strongly suggest you stop wasting your time here trying to convince people who will not support you and spend your time on something more productive. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
      • @Thegreyanomaly: I'm not trying to convince people to support me, that's why I said if we don't implement the local compliance color we should at least color Kansas and Missouri the same way (most likely solid dark blue) for consistency. Prcc27 (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: Missouri and Kansas *are* confusing. And they're completely different: Missouri is fully compliant with three different court orders, and Kansas is openly intransigent with one ... making the two states the same color would make things worse, not better. Mw843 (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Mw843: I understand that, but just because Missouri has three different court orders doesn't mean it should have three different stripes. Prcc27 (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I vehemently oppose a local compliance color. I think it would just be another reason to change colors and confuse readers. Even if you can only get married in one county in the state, you can still get married in the state, you just have to travel. I also oppose removing the transition color because it's wildly different than an indefinite stay. I would also like to comment that I do not believe the wording of the transition color violates NPOV. Swifty819 (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Swifty819: Not true, just look at Kansas. In previous discussions, people pointed out that, while one can travel to get a marriage certificate, for most (if not all) state purposes, it is just as valid as a blank sheet of paper. Kansas is blatantly ignoring court precedent and rulings, so while people may be happily married, for legal purposes, their marriages amount to little. Travelling to get what is tantamount to a blank sheet does not constitute compliance, equality, or saying people are legally married. Whereas at least Missouri recognises the marriage licenses from St. Louis et al, whether or not they were received after travelling. You say it is not a cause for a new local compliance colour, but personally, I think it highlights the severe shortcomings of the colours we have right now and the way they are applied, in light of the status quo. Kumorifox (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, dk blue seems inappropriate for KS. Marriage means more in MO. — kwami (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami: Then how do you think Kansas/Missouri should be colored (if you don't mind me asking)..? Prcc27 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that, while Missouri only give ssm licenses in three counties they recongnized them so Missouri is correct in having those colors that has now. Now Kansas is different because even though 47 or 48 counties are issuing licenses the government does not recognize them and I believe it will only happen when the federal judge order the state or when the appeals court strikes completely the ban. I believe Kansas should be stripe with Blue and gray. Florida might be another problem because I am not sure if they are going to recognize marriage of other states or not. I just hope the judge acts quickly and order Kansas to start recognizing so we can have less trouble in this map. --Allan120102 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: How should we color Kansas?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A federal judge in Kansas issued a preliminary injunction barring the defendants: court clerks in Douglas and Sedgwick counties, along with the secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment from enforcing Kansas's same-sex marriage ban. The Attorney General insists that the ruling only applies to the defendants. As a result, the state of Kansas is refusing to recognize same-sex marriages and only 19 of 105 counties are issuing licenses to same-sex couples. These 19 counties account for 60% of the population and any same-sex couple that receives a marriage license from one of these counties can get married anywhere in the state of Kansas. In addition, Johnson County began issuing licenses to same-sex couples before the federal court ruling in response to a precedent set by the Tenth Circuit of Appeals. The state supreme court blocked the county from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. In response to the federal court ruling, the hold was eventually lifted. However, the state supreme court decided not to rule on whether or not same-sex marriage is legal. The current consensus for Kansas is deadlocked. Here is what has been suggested for how to color Kansas: solid dark blue, striped dark blue-medium blue, striped dark blue-light blue, striped dark blue-gray, and striped dark blue-medium red.

To the right is the map & key for all the colors:

State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States¹

---

  Same-sex marriage legal²

  Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized

  Same-sex marriage legalization pending³

  No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriage

  Judicial ruling(s) overturning a same-sex marriage ban stayed indefinitely pending appeal

  Judicial ruling against a ban on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages, stayed indefinitely pending appeal

  Same-sex marriage banned contrary to federal circuit precedent

  Same-sex marriage banned

---

¹ Native American tribal jurisdictions have laws pertaining to same-sex marriage independent of state law.
² Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri. In Kansas, nineteen counties are complying with a preliminary federal court order barring the defendants from enforcing Kansas's same-sex marriage ban.
³ A ruling striking down Florida's same-sex marriage ban has been stayed until January 5, 2015.

Prcc27 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Same-sex marriage is legal in Kansas by court ruling, appeals of which the circuit court and SCOTUS have rejected to appeal. Kansas should remain dark blue in the map, should be in the table, and should appear without parenthetic comment in the box-out. It is important that the entire page that links these items should be consistent. Difbobatl (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a yellow brick pattern would be appropriate and suitable ironic :) Akerbeltz (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think mustard and dark blue seems most appropriate, as long as it looks different from other states prompting the reader to look into it further you'll be fine. SPACKlick (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no stay in Kansas, meaning there should not be yellow/tan/gold/mustard/whatever people call it. The ban was struck by the court. The fact that the Kansas administration is in denial about it does not change the striking. This is why I suggested an alternative colour scheme, with a colour depicting local compliance instead of overall compliance (this new colour would currently apply to Kansas and Missouri). But if that alternative use is not implemented, I'm sticking with solid dark blue for Kansas, based on information provided in a previous discussion section, stating the ban is struck but the administration is rejecting the ruling (effectively placing them in a contempt of court position, I believe). Kumorifox (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: I haven't heard of anyone being placed in contempt of court, do you have a source? Prcc27 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: I'm not stating this as a fact, merely as my opinion on this matter. Hence the "I believe" in my comment :-) Kumorifox (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Kumorifox is correct, no stay means no beige. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Akerbeltz: @SPACKlick: We only use the yellow color when the ban is struck down but the ruling is stayed indefinitely. The ruling is no longer stayed and whether or not the ban was struck down is debatable. IMO, the ban was left intact but what the preliminary injunction does is prevent the defendants from enforcing the ban. Since only 2 counties and 1 state official was listed, the other counties and state officials do not have to comply which is why a majority of counties and the state of Kansas are enforcing the ban. Prcc27 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas should be dark blue: same-sex marriage is legal. That some officials are acting in contempt of the law, and reality, is deserving of a footnote, but nothing more. Mw843 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Leaving the map aside, what is the consensus in the text of the relevant Wikipedia article? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Same-sex marriage in Kansas has the following first sentence: "The legal status of same-sex marriage in Kansas is currently in flux." That's not helpful. :)Naraht (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions goes with the following:

34 U.S. states and the District of Columbia allow and recognize same-sex marriages.

Most Kansas counties are issuing same-sex marriage licenses, but the state government is refusing to recognize any same-sex marriages until all appeals have been exhausted.

15 U.S. states and 2 territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands) explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages in their constitutions and by statute ...

I've had several thoughts for something more descriptive for what's going on in Kansas, but I'm self-censoring. :)

With any luck it'll all be moot in a couple of days: the ACLU is planning to go back to court for a more explicit ruling. Mw843 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bluerasberry: The Same-sex marriage in Kansas page lists the AG's interpretation of the ruling and the LGBT rights groups' interpretation of the ruling. Basically, we left it for the reader to decide. Obviously that's a little bit more difficult to do on a map. Prcc27 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support solid dark blue with a footnote, per the status quo section above and the state government's intransigence not negating the federal ruling. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dralwik: Status quo means the map remains as is until a consensus is reached, which is what we are doing now. Prcc27 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am referencing the status quo section two headings up. (Although the consensus here seems pretty clear.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: I know, the point of me adding the section wasn't to debate what consensus should be. It was to debate what the status quo was to decide how to leave the map while we are trying to reach a consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• (Two edit conflicts) Snowball Leave Kansas solid dblue per above. This RfC really doesn't need to exist, the recap somewhere above shows a clear coalescence towards dark blue, which was not Prcc27's preference. As a result and as usual, Prcc27 is trying to extend the length of the debate and trying to get their opponents to yield out of exhaustion. This is a typical (and disruptive) strategy this user has attempted multiple times on multiple proposals. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thegreyanomaly: Lol, I suggested an RfA in the Status quo section above and nobody contested (including you). If you would have said you were against an RfA and gave a good explanation why we shouldn't have one, I probably wouldn't have started one. Prcc27 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: Given your history of disruptive behavior, I knew that objecting their would have had zero effect on your decision. This is just a sequel to virtually every other failed proposal you had where you lost and you just wouldn't give up. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dark blue snowball. I'm not going to repeat the long spiel I said in the above section. Swifty819 (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Last time I vote in this I support dark blue as same sex marriage is legal even though the government don't want to accept it. --Allan120102 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Kansas should be striped dark blue/medium red since same-sex marriage was only legalized in two counties and because same-sex couples will not receive recognition from the state. Furthermore, the ban wasn't struck down; a preliminary injunction just prevents it from being enforced by the defendants (only two counties and one state official are listed as defendants). Prcc27 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

We could also stripe Kansas dark blue/pink. We could create a new light red/pink color to represent same-sex marriage recognition banned. We already have a same-sex marriage recognition legal color (medium blue) so why not have a same-sex marriage recognition banned color? Honestly, I think medium red is more accurate since most counties aren't performing and can legally refuse to license a same-sex couple but dark blue/pink is better than solid blue because solid blue implies that same-sex couples are receiving the same rights and recognition as opposite-sex couples. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

After thinking about this overnight, I'd prefer dark blue with a footnote.

I'd also note that state officials seem to have dropped the argument that the district court's order was only named at 2 counties. Their position has morphed to: "We're not doing anything until the Supreme Court decides." Maybe they noticed that the state's forms have been modified to work for same-sex couples, affecting the entire state.

The summary at the beginning of this section discusses the "ruling", an inexact term in this context. The judge wrote a memorandum that had a lot to say before he got to his one-paragraph order aimed at a few specific individuals. His memorandum made it clear that Tenth Circuit precedent makes it clear that the Kansas ban on SSM is unconstitutional.

Let's also be careful about the statement that "most counties" aren't licensing SSM. Counties in Kansas are as small as 1,300 people and as large as 560,000. Counting counties doesn't tell us much. As of this afternoon (Friday), about 64% of Kansans live in a county that licenses SSM. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: I already mentioned that those few counties issuing comprise of a majority of the state's population. What do you think about my new dark blue/pink proposal I proposed above? Prcc27 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A footnote will suffice. We already have a circus tent of color. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Dark blue, full stop. If you want to toss in a footnote that some counties are being stubborn and disregarding what is the law Іof the land that's fine, but in general SSM is now legal in Kansas. The color should reflect the law as it pertains to the state (which seems to be SSM here) rather than accommodating the exceptions. Shereth 21:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Shereth: Not just the counties, the state of Kansas is refusing to recognize same-sex marriages because they claim the ruling only applies to the defendants. A preliminary injunction doesn't necessarily strike a ban, it just prevents it from being enforced by the defendants (in this case, the state of Kansas and most counties are not defendants). Source that same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide and that the decision only applies to two counties according to AG [23]. Prcc27 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Give. It. Up. Mw843 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: No. Prcc27 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Mw843: Prcc27 is a fundamentally disruptive user. When they don't get what they want, they just don't give up but instead move on to irritate everyone else as a result. I am really tempted to reporting them to Wikimedia Commons for their long history of well-documented disruptive behavior.. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Thegreyanomaly: I started this RfA because 0nlyth3truth's tally showed a gridlock. Obviously that is changing but I started this because there wasn't a clear agreement at the time. When people were saying they were in favor of dark blue status quo, I took that as support for dark blue being the status quo until a consensus is reached. Status quo means the status quo remains while discussion is happening, which is why I thought we were still discussing. Also, I said "maybe" when suggesting an RfA and anyone could have easily swayed me not to start one. Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am tired of this, the majority have vote to change Kansas to solid blue and you continue throwing proposal after proposal. Let it go. Prcc27. Just stop it. --Allan120102 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Allan120102: Majority vote ≠ consensus. I provided a source that same-sex marriage is not legal statewide; can you provide a source saying otherwise..? Prcc27 (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why we need a footnote. Please stop. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Missouri has a footnote too (and those couples are going to actually be recognized). That doesn't mean Kansas qualifies as solid blue because solid colors are reserved for statewide cases. Prcc27 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Solid blue says nothing about statewide, just "Same sex marriage legal". I vote solid dark blue with footnote. Swifty819 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Then why not have Missouri dark blue since same-sex is legal at the local level like Kansas and unlike Kansas, SSM is actually recognized in MO. Prcc27 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, it seems that no one else dissents from solid blue. I think that we should close the RfC. Swifty819 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: There are two other people against solid blue. They support gold (which is totally inaccurate) but I'm waiting for them to explain their position further and potentially change their position once they realize the ruling wasn't stayed. Prcc27 (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Prcc27: Oh, my mistake! Perhaps our explanation confused them or something? Swifty819 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Swifty819: Yeah, that might be my fault. RfA intros are supposed to be neutral and brief. I tried using as much detail as possible while also being brief! :/ Prcc27 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• oppose dark blue while there are legal shenanigans going on. the specifics of this situation should not be "blue washed" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the RfC. This issue was settled above, and Thegreyanomaly is exactly right about this issue. You should note, Prcc27, that just as majority ≠ consensus, unanimity ≠ consensus either. For instance, I am not party to the majority because I believe dblue/grey is the best option, yet I understand the inherent value in holding the community in good faith (and vice-versa), and so I am party to the consensus. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This RfC is needed because there is no source that says same-sex marriage is legal statewide in Kansas, that the entire state of Kansas must comply with the ruling, and that any officials are in contempt of court. However, there are sources that say same-sex marriage isn't legal everywhere in Kansas, it's not recognized by the state, and that the ruling only applies to two counties according to the AG. Akerbeltz, SPACKlick, and TheRedPenOfDoom all agree that solid blue is inaccurate, but they just need to clarify their position on how Kansas should be colored (gold would be inaccurate because there is no stay on the ruling. Bluerasberry has not said how they think Kansas should be colored (same might apply for Naraht unless they already stated their opinion in another section). Btw, even if solid dark blue Kansas had a silent consensus at first, Kansas was contested because many people supported stripes (including people that now support solid dark blue). Because of this, solid dark blue went from consensus to status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The attorney general's opinion and interpretation of the law is important. When the AG of WV said the circuit court precedent was binding in the state we colored WV blue. When the AG of OR said same-sex marriage could be recognized we colored OR for recognition, despite the blatant ban on same-sex marriage recognition. Kansas's AG says that the ruling only applies to two counties so we have to go with it. It is their job to interpret the law, not ours. Going against what the AG and the reliable sources say is a clear violation of WP:OR. We don't get to pick and choose which AG opinions we honor and which ones we ignore. Prcc27 (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Leave as it is for now, for the following reasons:

1. As best as I can tell from this discussion, the map is not wrong, it simply is giving a poor and biased representation of only one perspective. Saying something conflicting could be equally correct and incorrect.
2. Some people say that the issue will be more clear soon, perhaps within weeks. I do not think this is urgent enough to make varying pictures, especially if the situation is scheduled to be clarified.
3. A footnote can add enough clarity for now and can present or link to enough information to make up for the confusion.
4. Personally, and this is an editorial decision unrelated to Wikipedia policy, I feel like this issue is not important enough at the map level to merit more debate than it has had at the article text level. I see that there is back and forth at the article level to say it is "legal" or "in flux".
5. Personally, and this is also an editorial decision, I do not think the majority readership of this article cares much about Kansas, but does need to see the map of the US. If the map is not grossly wrong, if information is changing, if there is not consensus otherwise, then the original mapmaker gets the privilege of presenting the status quo just by being first to post to Wikipedia. The original map showed a Kansas colored in a certain way, and had it been another way, I would have said to keep that for all the same reasons.

I regret giving all of these opinions because they are unfair but I can think of nothing better to say, and I see no better workable ideas. I would recommend that people who do not like the color to draft a footnote for the image, because I think there would be consensus for that now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bluerasberry: So would you support a footnote that says same-sex marriage is only legal in two counties? Prcc27 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 That seems reasonable enough, even though I know nothing at all about the issue or what is legal. Personally I might avoid using the word "counties" because only people in the United States would understand that term and this article is read by a lot of people who have never heard of counties. Other options might be "Same-sex marriage is legal only in some places in Kansas" or even "Same-sex marriage is illegal in most of Kansas", if it is illegal in most of the state. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, The two county count is the most troublesome depiction of Kansas right now, as on November 18 the Kansas Supreme Court issued an order confirming that other counties are within their right to issue licenses (pages 5 and 6), concluding with "While arguably only two judicial districts [the two counties] are directly affected by the injunction, the federal district court's rationale is not as localized as the State argues." The Kansas Supreme Court is binding on the Attorney General, and thus this order negates his argument of same-sex marriage in only two counties being legalized. Injunctions in other states -- from the final district court order that controls in California to the currently preliminary injunction in Wyoming -- have the same format as the Kansas injunction with state-wide defendants named with specific county clerks, and we colored those states solid blue once those injunctions were in force. The difference is that Kansas is fighting the injunction, yet the Attorney General himself does not have the power to repeal the injunction. The two county count is taking the Attorney General at his word, and taking the words at face value of a strongly biased politician who is not the controlling authority on an ambiguous and debatable situation would fail WP:NPOV. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the reason why I suggested adding a "local compliance only" colour to the map. It would solve a load of troubles at once, and might prevent these issues in future in case other states are going to be difficult. Kumorifox (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Should we give that proposal another try? That would also clear up Missouri, since if I am reading your idea right, it would be the local marriage-state recognition striping, two colors instead of three. If we get consensus for that, I'll also update Kansas on the world maps (general and marriage) to be a local dot instead of the current solid blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dralwik Can you say briefly (one sentence) what you want to happen? Is there something wrong with a note in the caption? I am not sure that I want to know more about the law or what is happening. The issue, I thought, was whether this state with local dissenting regions should be grouped with states that have no local dissenting regions. Is there something more to this discussion? If there is demand for a subset of "states with dissenting regions" colors then I would want that, but whenever possible, maps are better with fewer groupings and when as many odd places can be thrown into their own grouping called "other" just so that the main idea is easier to see. If this were a three color map, "legal" "banned", "other", then that would work too, and that would need no explanation at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally would like Kansas to be counted as a legal marriage state, with a footnote denoting the limited number of counties issuing due to state opposition, and for the two-county count to be laid to rest here. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: @Bluerasberry: The state supreme court ruling doesn't do anything because when Boulder County was given the green light to issue licenses to same-sex couples, we didn't change the map or even add a footnote. Since this map deals with legality, the other counties don't matter. Even though they were given the green light, the court didn't say same-sex marriage would be legal in those counties. I don't think a footnote will fix things, especially since the wording for the footnote is/was being disputed in one of the sections below. Basically, we're trying to find out if same-sex marriage is legal statewide or not. If same-sex marriage is only legal at the local level then Kansas would either be striped dark blue/medium red or dark blue/gray per what we did with Missouri. There is also talk of adding a local compliance color. I would only support it if Kansas would be striped same-sex marriage legal at the local level/same-sex marriage banned (at state level) and Missouri would be striped same-sex marriage legal at the local level/same-sex marriage recognized (at state level)/same-sex marriage ban struck down but stayed pending appeal. I might be willing to compromise and let Kansas be solid local compliance and Missouri striped local compliance/recognition and just add a footnote about the ban/ban struck down. It definitely seems more accurate than having Kansas solid dark blue... Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see discussion on local compliance below! Prcc27 (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems to complicated and I do not wish to learn this level of detail. In answer to the question, "Is marriage legal in Kansas" the correct answers are both yes and no. Since "yes" is the interesting, strange, and new answer, the map has a bias to note yeses. I disagree that the point of the map is to find out if marriage is legal statewide because that is a complicated question since "statewide" is a concept which most people, especially those outside the US, will not understand. It is close enough to me to color the entire state and put a footnote on it. Maps cannot give detail to this degree. If anything, Kansas could be colored "other" and grouped with anything else that is not either yes or no, but it seems to me that there is some yes in Kansas. I will not support a solution which makes the map more complicated. I might support a solution that says "no" to Kansas if there is something different about the kind of legality in Kansas, but so far as I can tell, it is the same legality just regionalized in some really unorthodox way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm in complete agreement with Blue Raspberry. The situation is in flux, and we are an encyclopedia. I see little harm in waiting for it to sort out, when our options are to add unwarranted detail to an overview map, or to replace the slightly misleading color with another slightly misleading color. Gigs (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Bluerasberry: @Gigs: Would you guys be opposed to striping Kansas same-sex marriage/ban on recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere? We could use the pink color that we used to use for states with a statutory ban on same-sex marriage. We already have a same-sex marriage recognition legal color (medium blue) that we are using for Missouri, so it doesn't make sense to not have a same-sex marriage recognition banned color. I think dark blue/pink is better than solid blue because solid blue implies that same-sex couples are receiving the same rights, benefits, and recognition as opposite-sex couples which isn't the case. There is already a footnote stating that Kansas doesn't recognize same-sex marriages which is inconsistent with Missouri. Either both states should have a footnote explaining their status on recognition or both states should have a color that does so. Prcc27 (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 I am not sure what you are proposing, but I think it would make the map more complex. I support your request for clarity, but I am not sure that new map color combinations will bring clarity. When I look at that map my personal care is to see the yes and no states, and in my mind I group everything else as "other". Right now the purpose of the map itself is not entirely clear. If it were titled "States where same sex marriage is legal" then it would be easier to break into binary plus an "other" category. Since right now the map could be titled "the variation in laws in the states" there are all kinds of distinctions being made, plus stripes. The map presents more detail than I want already, and I do not want more detail in the picture. More detail in the caption and notes is fine to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bluerasberry: Okay...but since you said "'statewide' is a concept which most people, especially those outside the US, will not understand" wouldn't a local compliance color bring the most clarity? Here's is my proposed wording for the local compliance color "Same-sex marriage licensed in certain jurisdictions, performed statewide, but not legal statewide." If you'll scroll down to the bottom of this RfC, you'll see I created a map with the local compliance color that is actually simpler than the current map (and you stated that you will not support a complicated map so this should be to your liking!) Prcc27 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• After re-reading your comment I'm starting to understand what you meant by statewide being an issue to you. However, I disagree with your claim that most people wouldn't understand statewide. After all, this map deals with "State laws regarding same-sex marriage." If there's anyway you think we can make the local compliance wording more clear for people that don't understand statewide I'm open to suggestion. But once again, the local compliance color simplifies that map (as seen at the bottom of this RfC) and it adds an "other" category that Missouri also qualifies for since same-sex marriage is only legal in one city in Missouri, but it's banned everywhere else (with a stayed ruling), and recognized statewide. (I'm not really sure how Missouri's situation has impacted your opinion on Kansas if at all). Prcc27 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You proposed a picture below. I am commenting there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• From what i'm seeing of this, the state is not recognizing same-sex marriages, but is also not allowed to enforce a ban of it. If I had to pick a color from that map that best describes this situation it would be gray until the situation progresses further. Weedwacker (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Weedwacker: Solid gray or striped gray-dark blue? Prcc27 (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: Looking again I think striped gray-dark blue would best fit it. As same sex-marriages can be obtained in some parts of the state, and because the law is not allowed to be enforced it is technically "legal" and therefore dark blue, but since they are still not being recognized by the state it requires gray shading as well. Weedwacker (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
      • @Weedwacker: Oh okay, I'm not sure if you believe same-sex marriage is legal at the state level (since once a license is obtained it can be performed anywhere in the state) or at the local level (since it is only licensed in certain jurisdictions and not recognized statewide). And I don't know how you feel about dark blue being used for both state & local levels but there is a "local compliance" proposal at the bottom of this RfC (in the Legality vs. State Policy New version of map section) that would make the distinction between states with statewide same-sex marriage and states with same-sex marriage at the local level. The proposed map at the bottom has Kansas colored solid local compliance and reduces Missouri's stripes from same-sex marriage-marriage recognition-ban struck down to local compliance-marriage recognition. But the local compliance color proposal could be altered to have Kansas striped local compliance-no recognition/prohibition or local compliance-ban with precedent and have Missouri local compliance-marriage recognition-ban struck down. Otherwise, footnotes would be used instead of having more stripes to explain that in Missouri there's a struck down ban and in Kansas the state doesn't recognize ssm. Prcc27 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Legality vs. State Policy

A couple of comments, in a new section. (Personal opinion is pro-ME)

1. Even groups that are most pro-Marriage Equality (like AFER) aren't counting Kansas as a Full Marriage equality state yet.(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZKDaWelPMI&list=UU2sJZ3e3DYvAwCCsrr34S7w)
2. The ACLU is going back to court to have the Federal District court expand its ruling, *not* to have people punished for Contempt of Court.

So as a result, at this point, with the current color choices, I support striping of Dark Blue with the Bright Red that it was a week or two ago. Yes, these seem like contradictory colors, but that more or less matches with the current contradictions there. As for a note, I oppose any note with an actual count of counties in Kansas. This is a National level map, dealing with state level situations, asking a user to go to the Article on Kansas which includes a county-by-county map is *very* reasonable.Naraht (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my undoing your new section. It's an ongoing conversation.

Per Associated Press on November 19:

[Kansas Attorney General Schmidt] said same-sex couples' marriages are legal now, but they can't yet be sure their unions will remain so. "I don't think anybody can answer the question — other than the U.S. Supreme Court — for the long-term," Schmidt said. "Everybody can speculate, but until the U.S. Supreme Court takes a case and decides the question, the reality is nobody can know for sure."

Legal now works for me, even if AP didn't use quotation marks. And it's not just a question of color. We have footnotes. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

See [24] for link to the statement. In addition, the article states the ruling is not Kansas-wide, but is up to district court clerks.
Once again, this would seem to push my request for a local compliance colour, or at least footnotes detailing such while retaining dark blue. Kumorifox (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: @Bmclaughlin9: Yes, same-sex marriage is currently legal in Kansas. However, same-sex marriage is only legal in two counties. Nothing in that source says Kansas is recognizing same-sex marriages nor does it say that same-sex marriage is valid in the other counties. The main problem with a local compliance color is that the same-sex marriage bans would be ignored. In Missouri's case, the stayed ruling would be completely ignored if we got rid of the gold stripe. I wouldn't mind striping a state with a local compliance color (MO: Local marriage-Recognition-Stay; KS: Local marriage-Ban) but solid local compliance wouldn't work IMO. I think the local compliance color would get rid of the contradictory Same-sex marriage legal/Same-sex marriage banned with stayed ruling against the ban in MO so I'm willing to support it, but only it if we stripe Kansas and Missouri with it. I might be willing to compromise and let Kansas be solid local compliance and Missouri striped local compliance/recognition and just add a footnote about the ban/ban struck down. It definitely seems more accurate than having Kansas solid dark blue... Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying solid local for either state, actually, just use it to be rid of the dark blue conundrum for now. All the different sources reveal different information, some claiming it is up to the clerks and is not state-wide, others say that it is state-wide striking that is ignored, others again state the striking is state-wide, but due to the injunction being preliminary, only applicable to the two counties, etc. and I'm confused as all get out. My main question now is, has any ruling established the unconstitutionality of the Kansas ban, whether or not an injunction was issued or whether or not the ruling is ignored. The preliminary injunction in Marie v. Moser indicates that only the two mentioned counties are affected right now, I haven't read the KSC ruling for Johnson County yet so I cannot comment there. If such a ruling exists, then light blue is the way to go, maybe with local striping (if that is included at some stage). Kumorifox (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: So would you be okay with striping Kansas local same-sex marriage/medium red and Missouri local same-sex marriage/medium blue/gold..? FYI, the state supreme court said it was okay for Johnson County to issue licenses to same-sex couples (and probably other counties as well) but did not rule on the legality of same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: If the KSC did not explicitly strike down the ban, and it is still in place in the general Kansas districts (which I was led to believe was different through a source referred to above), then yes, local blue/medium red striping is the way to go for Kansas. Missouri would be local blue/recog blue/stay gold, of course, as all three of these reflect the status quo in MO. This would free up dark blue for state-wide and halt further confusion. Kumorifox (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kumorifox: Since striped dark blue is the current local blue color for Missouri (since there is no distinction between local and statewide for the dark blue color yet) does that mean that currently you support Kansas being colored striped dark blue/medium red until we are able to add a local compliance color? The reason I say this is because rearranging the colors can take days and I really think we should make a decision on Kansas ASAP and hopefully remove Kansas's solid blue. To be consistent, I think it would be best to stripe Kansas dark blue/medium red because it doesn't make sense to have Kansas solid dark blue when same-sex marriage is legal at the local level but not recognized at the state level, yet Missouri is striped dark blue/medium blue/gold and same-sex marriage is legal at the local level and recognized at the state level! I do support the local compliance color because it would get rid of or shorten the 2nd footnote and because the transition color would most likely become the cream color we use for judicial rulings against bans on recognition (or at least that's what it would be in my proposal). IMHO, having the transition color a shade of yellow makes more sense since it is used for states with a stay that expires. A stay is a stay. Anyways, do you think we should have a separate section (and possibly another RfA) for the local compliance color proposal or do you think we should work it out on this RfA without changing Kansas and continuing the conversation for even longer? Prcc27 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am pretty strongly opposed to 'local' coloring of any variety. I do not want to see this map further cluttered by new colors or exotic striping schema; it should be simplified as much as possible. The color of a state should reflect the legality of SSM in that state and not make special exceptions for local jurisdictions who are acting against the prevailing state law. If SSM is legal in Kansas but some counties are not handing out licenses, the state should be dark blue with a footnote. If SSM is banned in Kansas but some counties are going rogue and handing out licenses, then it should be red with a footnote. That's what footnotes are for, handling exceptions; not inventing new colors. It is my understanding that SSM is currently legal in Kansas, as even AG Smith has conceded that they are legal. Any couple in Kansas can obtain a marriage license (that they may have to do so outside of their home county is irrelevant). The situation here is not as complicated as folks are making it out to be. The only wrinkle is that state officials may not want to recognize the validity of those marriages, but this does not change the fact that a same-sex couple in Kansas can legally obtain a marriage license at this point. Dark blue is the only color that makes sense. Shereth 05:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Shereth: Solid dark blue does not make sense! In Kansas, any same-sex couple can obtain a marriage license in certain counties and marry anywhere in the state. This is also the case for Missouri, but the main difference between the two states is that same-sex marriage is recognized in Missouri but not recognized in Kansas. So why is it fair to have Kansas solid blue when those same-sex couples will not receive recognition and have Missouri triple striped when same-sex couples will receive recognition? As for the AG conceding... I believe his exact words were "I don’t think anybody can answer the question – other than the U.S. Supreme Court – for the long-term. Everybody can speculate, but until the U.S. Supreme Court takes a case and decides the question, the reality is nobody can know for sure." I don't believe he ever said same-sex marriage was legal (with the exception of two counties) nor has the State Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court giving other counties the go ahead to issue same-sex marriages is akin to the state courts giving Boulder County, Colorado the go ahead to issue same-sex marriages. And you know what we did when Boulder County was allowed to issue licenses to same-sex couples? Nothing! The situation is very complicated. Prcc27 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. SSM is legal but not recognized. I advocated against striping Missouri - it too should be solid blue - and I will advocate against striping Kansas. If we had an existing color for "does not recognize SSM" I could see a case being made for striping Kansas dark blue and that theoretical color, but we don't. Until now we've been able to safely lump "does not recognize SSM" with "SSM not legal." Now we have a one-off curiosity where SSM is legal in a state that refuses to recognize it. You know what the perfect way to handle one-off exceptions is? A footnote. Not new colors, not exotic striping schemes. A footnote. Citizens of Kansas may obtain a marriage license and be wed to their same-sex partners. The state should be dark blue. The situation is not what is so very complicated - that distinction belongs to your proposed changes to the map. Shereth 16:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Kansas Supreme Court ruling stated that “In addition, the federal court’s order in Marie took on a statewide perspective when it concluded that defendant Moser, as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, is 'significantly involved with recognition of marriage in Kansas.' See also K.S.A 2013 Supp. 23-2509 (requiring district courts to comply with specifications of the marriage license forms as prescribed by the secretary of the department.)” So yes, SCOKS did say the ruling was statewide, without making one of their own. Swifty819 (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: Actually, all the state supreme court did was reiterate the fact that the Secretary of Kansas Department of Health and Environment was listed as a defendant along with the court clerks in two counties. That particular agency's job is to furnish marriage license forms and record marriages [25]. Sure- the agency is significantly involved with recognition, but the recognition is limited and not worth noting in a map that only deals with full recognition. AFAIK, same-sex couples will still not be able to file taxes jointly, adopt, have hospital visitation rights, etc. There have been many cases of limited recognition: Colorado recognizing same-sex couples for tax purposes, Ohio for death certificates, Wyoming for divorce, but for the most part- that kind of information was left to the articles to sort out. If you'll go through the template's history you'll see that I mentioned the Secretary of Kansas Department of Health and Environment in the Kansas footnote, but that has since been edited out and because they only provide limited recognition- nobody has challenged it being removed. Prcc27 (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot remember who first said "The more I know, the less I understand", but it feels apt here. I just read the order in Schmidt v. Moriarty, and the whole situation makes even less sense to me now.
In Marie, the ruling is preliminary, and is pertinent to the county clerks in only two counties, meaning those clerks are prohibited from enforcing the ban. It directs a ruling at Mr. Moser as the state representative. The Moriarty ruling states "At this time, Marie remains pending and the ultimate issue whether the Kansas same-sex marriage ban violates the United States Constitution appears to be proceeding toward final federal resolution" (page 3 of the Moriarty ruling). In other words, the actual state marriage ban is still in effect, as Marie is not finalised, but the preliminary order affects two counties directly, as well as secretary Moser, who, as Moriarty also states, "is fully complying with the federal district court's preliminary injunction in Marie" (page 3 of the ruling). Therefore, even with Moser complying, the ban is still in effect in Kansas, from what I can tell from these two sentences.
Next, however, Moriarty states that "the federal court's analysis [in Marie] was aimed directly at the epicenter of the Kansas same-sex marriage ban: Article 15, § 16 of the Kansas Constitution and K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 23-2501" (page 6 of Moriarty). Therefore, the Marie case did look at the constitutionality of the ban. Also, Moriarty further states that "while arguably, only two judicial districts are directly affected by the injunction, the federal district court's rationale underlying its order is not as localized as the State argues" (page 6 of Moriarty). From these sentences, I understand that, despite the Marie ruling not being a final ruling, it is, in effect, stating that the Kansas ban is unconstitutional, and while only two districts are prohibited as of this moment from enforcing the ban, the actual ban is no longer valid Kansas law, as determined by the judge. The only thing that remains to be done for a full striking is a permanent injunction from the Marie judge.
Based on this, and on the good points many people here are making (including Prcc27 and Shereth) I am again changing my point of view on Kansas colouring, and I'm sorry for being so inconsistent about this. My current view would be light blue/dark blue striping if people refuse to allow a local colour, or else light blue/local striping if a local colour is permitted (and it might not even persist for long, but I still think it is a good idea to have a local colour). Judging by the federal and Supreme Kansas Courts in Marie and Moriarty, the ban is on its way out, both from a judicial and a human standpoint; the judicial side just has to be confirmed by permanent injunction. Kumorifox (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: Light blue is only used when same-sex marriage is legalized or when there is temporary stay. Although there is a very good chance same-sex marriage will be legal statewide, it is WP:CRYSTAL to assume this. When a South Carolina judge announced that they would probably strike down the state's ban, South Carolina was left medium red. Medium red would seem to fit Kansas because Kansas's same-sex marriage ban is vulnerable and same-sex marriage could easily be legalized by a court ruling due to the precedent. But tbh, we can't be 100% sure that the ban will be struck down/ssm legalized or if it is- that it will not be stayed. AFAIC, "the federal district court's rationale underlying its order is not as localized as the State argues" can mean one of two things: either that same-sex marriage is legal locally but the same-sex marriage ban is vulnerable statewide due to the precedent (dark blue/medium red) or that same-sex marriage is legal locally but there is no law for or against same-sex marriage statewide (dark blue/gray). However, it is still possible to rule that a same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional but only have the ruling apply locally; this is what happened with Cook County, Illinois. That fact that the court affirmed that the two counties were directly affected implies that the rest of the state was indirectly affected. However, when the ruling says "the federal court's analysis was aimed directly at the epicenter of the Kansas same-sex marriage ban" this might mean that the ban was struck down. But this isn't necessarily the case because a ban can be ruled unconstitutional but only have a limited outcome i.e. only apply locally (Cook County), only require performance not recognition (Indiana; Missouri), only require recognition not performance (Ohio; Kentucky). So if the ban was directly struck down but only two counties are directly affected then that would mean Kansas would be dark blue/gray. But if the ruling only applies to the defendants and the ban wasn't struck down then Kansas would be dark blue/medium red. AFAIK, despite the ban being ruled unconstitutional, the ban is only unenforceable by the defendants but everyone else is allowed to enforce the ban. Prcc27 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Dark Blue, per reasoning given by User:The Red Pen of Doom.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @RightCowLeftCoast: What color(s) do you think are most appropriate for Kansas..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

One possibility is to section of the state to the individual counties for the map and color each map appropriately.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• @RightCowLeftCoast: You mean color the individual counties dark blue and leave the rest of the state medium red? This map is a text editable map so I don't know if we could do that here. Or were you suggesting we come up with a color for states with local same-sex marriage (as suggested above)? Prcc27 (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IMHO the wording of categories presently is POV-pushy in favor of civil marriages for non-heterosexual couples.

My understanding of what is occurring in Missouri is some counties are granting civil marriage licenses and some are not. Color each county accordingly. Again, color individual counties the appropriate color. I understand my view is a minority view, and that consensus of editors here are supportive of advancing a POV. I cannot change that. However, coloring individual counties appropriate colors to match the scheme would be more clear than the triple stripe color.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: The unfortunate issue with that otherwise good idea is that the situation can change very rapidly. Plus, this map is designed to be text-editable, so it would take an enormous amount of coding and knowledge to even draw in the individual counties and independent cities, and even more knowledge to colour the correct ones. We have a county map that is used for the striking down of sodomy laws in the US, but that is all settled and the map won't change, whereas this one will keep on changing for a while.
I maintain that a "partial compliance" colour will solve a lot of problems. Kumorifox (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• @RightCowLeftCoast: The details for the local compliance color have been discussed above. Prcc27 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Paint it Black - Cause I see a red state and I want it painted black......... (who's going to get that reference?). No, but for realz, fact is that none of the categories/colors are exactly right. I'd be for two potential solutions, 1) Simplify the color scheme to include three categories. States where there are no notable ongoing legal challenges to SS marraige. States where there are notable ongoing legal challenges and/or legal ambiguity to the status of SS marraige. States where there are no notable ongoing legal challenges to a ban or restriction on SS marriage. Failing solution 1, option 2) Paint it Gold As gold seems like the least bad fit. NickCT (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @NickCT: Hmm... Gold might work if we reworded it "Judicial ruling(s) against a same-sex marriage ban, same-sex marriage not currently legal statewide." That would mean Kansas would be striped gold for the preliminary injunction against the ban and Dark blue for it applying at the local level. Although I don't support gold, I prefer it over solid dark blue (and Akerbeltz & SPACKlick have indicated their support for gold). There are also downsides to coloring Kansas gold since this is the color used for stayed judicial rulings and Kansas's ruling is in effect but only applies to certain counties. Prcc27 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: - I don't know. I look at "Dark Blue" and think "Declared Legal. Statewide". That's inaccurate, right? It's basically in a state of legal limbo. Gold strikes me as the best color for legal limbo. Regardless, I think this whole debate arose because the color scheme is just too contorted and confusing. I'm not sure who came up with it initially, but it should really be redone. NickCT (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • @NickCT: So much was happening in the different states that a variety of colours was used to show where exactly the states were in marriage legality. The map is trying to convey a lot of information at once, attempting to give as full an overview as possible. And with every new development, the scheme is upset. Right now, gold is the colour used for indefinite stays on judgements striking bans, where the stay will only be lifted once the litigation process is finished, or if the bans are upheld. This came about as a result of the Kitchen v. Herbert stay issued late 2013 by SCOTUS, after which pretty much every state imposed stays immediately. After the refusal of SCOTUS to hear the cases brought to it back in September, we got stays with definite end dates, which were coloured light blue (like Florida is right now), showing that in the near future, marriage equality is likely to come to the state in question. However, with temporary stays being converted to indefinite stays in many cases, I don't see a need for light blue as a temporary stay colour any longer. If we convert the gold meaning to "Stay imposed on ruling striking down the marriage ban" or something like that, and note temporary stays separately, we could use light blue for the confustates like MO and KS, and no doubt more in the future unless SCOTUS sorts out the 6th. Kumorifox (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• @NickCT: Missouri has a dark blue stripe and same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide (it's only legal in St. Louis); what do you suggest we do there..?
• @Kumorifox: I strongly support using the yellow color for both temporary and permanent stays with a footnote used on states with stays set to expire. I would simply remove the word "indefinitely" from the gold color and reword it "Same-sex marriage ban overturned, decision stayed". As for having a separate color for Missouri and Kansas... TBH, I can't bear to even look at this same-sex marriage map because I know that same-sex marriage isn't legal statewide in Kansas or recognized by the state. I support a local compliance color but I could also support a color for "confustates" since as noted by many on this RFC, Kansas doesn't quite fit any of the colors we currently use. A "confustate" color could be good because it means "the situation is too complicated for this map to explain, please see footnote and read article" but it can also be bad and unnecessary and it would be difficult to determine which states qualify as confusing. Personally, I think if we're going to have a color for vague states it should be light gray. However, I oppose removing Missouri's medium blue and gold stripes so I would either replace Missouri's dark blue stripe with a local compliance color (light blue) or a vague situation ("confustates") color (light gray). Prcc27 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

New version of map

Local compliance map proposal:

---

State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States¹

---

  Same-sex marriage legal statewide

  Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized

  Same-sex marriage licensed in certain jurisdictions, but not legal statewide²

  No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriage

  Same-sex marriage ban overturned, decision stayed³

  Same-sex marriage banned

---

¹ Native American tribal jurisdictions have laws pertaining to same-sex marriage independent of state law.
² In Missouri, same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis and there is a stayed ruling overturning the state's same-sex marriage ban. Only select counties in Kansas issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state government.
³ Florida's stay is set to expire on January 5, 2015.

Does anybody support the map proposal I created to the right..? Prcc27 (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 I support this as better than the map above. It is not urgently better or strikingly better, but it is better.

I still think it is confusing for being overly detailed and would prefer a four-color map: "legal", "not legal", "no position", and "other". I prefer to keep maps simple and text can be more detailed. In your map, I dislike that two states have their own coloring which is not used elsewhere, and because there are so few yellow states, I would prefer to group those with the alternative blue ones.

The audience I have in mind for this are people who will look at this only for a few seconds. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I support this map. It is much clearer than the one we had, and much closer to the true situation. It also shows the different stages of the states even when looking at the map for only a few seconds, despite scanning the map not giving all the details. Kumorifox (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27 and Kumorifox: - I agree it's better, but I'd still suggest just moving to a super simple three color solution (i.e. legal/not legal/ambiguous).

re "The map is trying to convey a lot of information at once, attempting to give as full an overview as possible" - I understand that. Do you understand that trying to convey too much information in one graphic leads to conveying no information at all? NickCT (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: Of course I agree. However, with the newly suggested simplifications, I personally cannot see how people would get no information out of the map. That is why I support it. Kumorifox (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Support this new map as it's simpler than the current map and more accurate for Kansas' obstinance. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Question: Does MO recognize the marriages that are performed in STL? Swifty819 (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: The recognition ruling that was issued before same-sex marriage was legalized in STL seems to indicate that same-sex marriages performed in a jurisdiction where it's legal must be recognized. However, I'm not sure if there is a source out there that St. Louis's same-sex marriages are being recognized; that might be something ask at the reference desk. But AFAIK, Missouri is supposed to recognize STL's same-sex marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: Then yes, I support the map. I suppose I might be nitpicking here, but I could unfortunately imagine people who look at MO and think that they recognize marriages from other states but not their own statewide. The thinking would go "I see blue stripes, so MO recognizes marriages from other states. I also see light blue, so a jurisdiction in MO legalized same-sex marriage, but the state isn't recognizing those", which isn't quite true. I know I'm being long winded, but...I'm not quite sure how to phrase what I see. Swifty819 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC) EDIT: The light blue wording seems strange to me. If I didn't know better, I'd call it contradictory. "Performed statewide, but not legal statewide" seems to be....off. Also, I think MO marriages don't quite fit this bill, because you have to go to St. Louis to get married, but once you do, that marriage is legal statewide. 08:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Swifty819: It isn't contradictory! The "not legal statewide" is referring to same-sex marriage not being legal in the rest of Missouri which means that same-sex couples aren't allowed to be licensed anywhere but St. Louis. Despite this, even though same-sex marriage is only legal in St. Louis, once you get that marriage license you can have your marriage performed anywhere within the state of Missouri. Prcc27 (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

However, since the fact that a couple can get married anywhere in Missouri as long as they get a license from one of the jurisdictions within the state doesn't really have anything to do with the legality of same-sex marriage- I would be willing to remove the "performed statewide" wording. I updated the proposed template, does that look better/make more sense..? Prcc27 (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Yeah, it does. I knew what you meant by the original wording, but my thinking is that aside from the small group of us that regularly comments on this, most viewers of the map either wouldn't understand/want to understand it. I try to look at the map as if I understood no legal stuff and just wanted to understand what was going on. That said, it looks perfect now Swifty819 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I came in here, courtesy of an unusual RfC request. Rather than the usual Legobot invite or being already involved in an article and an RfC begins, I was invited by Prcc27. That said, the state is taking a rather unusual stance in claiming only two counties were covered under a law that a US district court has dispatched. If the law is unconstitutional in one county, it's unconstitutional in all counties, the Constitution does not vary based upon county boundaries. That said, the court cannot compel the state to abide by its order until a complainant can show the court injury in a non-compliant county. As such, perhaps we should have a new color key for scofflaw state. Otherwise, I think it's fine as it stands nowWzrd1 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Wzrd1: Hi, thank you so much for joining the discussion. We just proposed a new color for states like Kansas and Missouri with the wording "Same-sex marriage licensed in certain jurisdictions, but not legal statewide." Also, it isn't unheard of for a district court to rule a state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional while only being applied to certain jurisdiction(s): "Although this Court finds that the marriage ban for same-sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause on its face, this finding can only apply to Cook County based upon the posture of the lawsuit" (Lee v. Orr). Prcc27 (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Courts most certainly can derive strange decisions. A state law, which is statewide, is only unconstitutional in a couple of counties. I've explained our government to Europeans, who can't grasp federal, state, county and municipalities all having their own laws, but demarcated boundaries laid out by the US Constitution and secondarily, state constitutions. Hanged if I could explain this one to them. Had earlier courts decided like this, we'd still have segregation.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Wzrd1: Do you support the current map (Kansas dark blue; Missouri dark blue-medium blue-gold), the local compliance proposal (Kansas light blue; Missouri medium blue-light blue), or do you think we should have an "other" color for states like Kansas? If you support an "other" color what do you think the wording should be and what color do you think we should use..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support, but with stripes for Kansas - since the state has areas where its legal and those where it is currently in dispute or undecided. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Scalhotrod: What color would you stripe Kansas? Would you add an additional gold stripe to Missouri as well? Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Just going by the color chart, the "dark red"/"burgandy" color because its not accepted statewide. But Thegreyanomaly makes a good point below... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a place in Kansas where SSM is legal. Many counties issue valid licenses to same-sex couples. The state recognizes no same-sex marriages anywhere. So where is SSM legal? (Note that the federal court order did not say a law was unconstitutional in two counties. He said it was unconstitutional. Period. He then, having explained the basis for his order with that statement, issued an order to two county clerks, not to two counties and not to all state officials in those counties, just the clerks. Kansas is an anomaly, an outlier, an exception, so an "other" color makes most sense. White with a scattering of asterisks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Temporary stays need to blue and the map needs color stability. We cannot keep changing the colors of the map every few weeks on a whim. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • But how can there be stability if situations change all the time and new things pop up constantly, like two conflicting rulings or states not accepting rulings in full? We never planned for anomalies. Kumorifox (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Kumorifox - either add new/no-longer-used colors or add footnotes, but don't disrupt the existing color scheme. Readers get confused when we change the meaning of a color changes every other month. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thegreyanomaly: It makes no sense to have two separate colors for stayed rulings overturning same-sex marriage bans. Florida and Texas are essentially in the same situation except Florida's stay is set to expire. That minor difference can easily be addressed with a footnote which would suffice. In fact, we already use a footnote for Florida so it's not like we're providing more information by coloring Florida transition light blue. The same information can be provided using just one color which would make the map simpler. Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • except Florida's stay is set to expire is a very big difference large enough to merit a different color. Changing the colors every other month is in no damn way useful as it only serves to be disruptive and confuse readers by stripping the map of consistency. I urge all supporters of this proposal to think about the readers. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
      • But that's the thing; we are constantly updating this map back and fourth between a ruling with an expiry stay (light blue) and ruling stayed that isn't set to expire (gold). Constantly updating the map for light blue when there is an expiry stay to gold when that stay is extended back to light blue if a circuit court ruling upholds a district court ruling and has yet to issue mandate to gold when that stay is extended yet again is not stable. For those who want real stability, I urge you to support using the gold color for both temporary and permanent stays. An expiry stay does not merit a different color, but it does merit a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Wrong. Updating a state when the status changes is appropriate. Constantly redefining the color meanings is utterly disruptive and utterly inappropriate. We just set up the transition color in July/August. We need to let it be. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
          • I disagree. We deleted the "limited/enumerated privileges" wording of light blue in order to create the "legalization pending" AKA "transition" color so I don't see why we can't do the same thing and delete the transition color wording in order to make way for the local compliance wording which would make the map "clearer" and "simpler" (as noted above). Prcc27 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Dead wrong: Boy don't you get it... We didn't delete anything. That category became vacant, so it was able to be re-purposed. You are asking to delete a category that is actually in use and liable to be used after any individual court case. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
              • @Thegreyanomaly: The category was not vacant! here is Wisconsin before the transition color was implemented (Wisconsin was colored as "limited/enumerated privileges") and here is Wisconsin after we replaced "limited/enumerated privileges" with the "transition" color. Please note that we changed the medium blue (used for states with Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships providing full rights) color's wording in order to consolidate it with the light blue color (used for states with Domestic Partnerships providing limited rights). Medium blue went from "Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting privileges similar to marriage for same-sex domestic partners" to "Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting some or all state privileges of marriage" so then it would be applicable to Wisconsin as well. Same-sex marriage wasn't legal in Wisconsin until October 6 and the transition color was implemented in August; which means it would have been colored light blue if we didn't consolidate the two same-sex union colors and implement a transition color. The fact that we consolidated the same-sex union colors is a good example of why using one color for two very similar situations is a good idea. It's time to consolidate the transition color with the stay color! Prcc27 (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
                • @Prcc27: But how long ago were those changes, a mere few months. Changing the color scheme on every whim to make the map more efficient is plain, bloody wrong. Users get confused when we play around with these colors. We have no pressing need to change colors when footnotes are sufficient in these matters. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • Users also get confused when we triple stripe Missouri with a bunch of contradicting colors. Users that only skim the footnotes or don't even read them at all are mostly likely confused about the status of same-sex marriage when looking at the current map. If we use the local compliance map then the reader will be able to get the gist of what's going on by looking at the map and then reading the footnotes for more information. Basically, this map needs to be as clear, simple, and accurate as possible in order to easily explain the status of same-sex marriage. The current map is a mess and having the footnotes try to explain the confusing stripes of Missouri is a bad idea. We can easily sum up what's going on in Kansas and Missouri with a local compliance color. Prcc27 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • You really don't know what you are talking about. Using existing colors in various combinations on any given state is not comparable to redefining what those colors mean. Avoiding reader confusions means colors to continue to mean the same thing, not that states don't change colors. A reader is expected to read new footnotes each time they look at the map. If a user does not want to read, then screw them; however, a reader in turn should be able to expect that the colors they are looking don't take on new meaning every other month. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • But we can't rely solely on the footnotes to explain everything! The colors are supposed to explain the status of same-sex marriage as much as possible and the footnotes are supposed to explain the extra stuff that the colors can't. The current map is using a bunch of colors on Missouri that don't make sense and expecting the footnotes to justify the clutter and unclarity on the map. What's the purpose of having a map if the color patterns don't make sense? Prcc27 (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Then suggest adding a color instead of re-purposing an in-use color. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that current proposed changes are likely to be more for us than for people viewing the map. We're looking for a way that we can convey the most information while maintaining some organisation in the facts and some sanity amongst ourselves, even though some of the states are going insane with law interpretation. I admit that I did forget who this map is for: people trying to find information. It is not for me to feel good about, or for me to have had a hand in its organisation and feeling proud of that. Colour stability is indeed a first priority, aside from noting changes once they occur (and with the progression of the current lawsuits, I don't think anything major re map-changing is expected soon, right?). So the colours are something that need to be set. Right now, people are wondering about the necessity of the transition colour, and whether it will flip-flop between transition blue and gold (prime example is MS). But aren't we acting like MS, which said they didn't want the on-again off-again legality problems UT had, by using on-again off-again transition/stay? My suggestion here is, keep transition blue active but do not implement it as soon as a ban is struck and stayed. Instead, use gold for the initial stay, temporary or not and only implement transition blue if the state does not appeal (like WY), or if appeals and/or further stays are rejected by the 8th or 11th CoA (the only ones left without full legality, or stays and/or certiorari petitions only) and by SCOTUS (like FL). As for complicated states, like MO or KS, we have repurposed old colours before (medium blue, light blue, dark grey, medium red), so for clarification purposes, is there an old colour that could be used for these states instead, rather than changing a currently used colour? It would add to the map's accuracy, while at the same time it avoids colour confusion as current colours are not touched. It would also (in my eyes, at least) not be wrong to do so, as highlighting the confusing states is more accurate than what we currently have. Besides, the map is changed every time a state changes the SSM laws, so there is no "stable" map for the time being anyway. As long as we get a stable colour scheme, like Thegreyanomaly rightly pointed out above (though this does not automatically preclude repurposing old colours, of course). Kumorifox (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So just to be clear, you now oppose Prcc27's proposal? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, yes. So far, both colours serve a purpose on the map. We have cream/light gold/whatever as an unused colour, so that can be inserted for a new category if required. Kumorifox (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: California didn't appeal either and that case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, Nevada didn't appeal either but there was still confusion because Idaho appealed which affected Nevada as well. It's also a little WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the stay won't be extended just because the ruling isn't appealed by someone because someone else could try to appeal. Furthermore, we would have to wait for both the AG & Governor, and possibly the counties listed as a defendant to announce that they won't appeal. BTW how would we reword the transition color: "Same-sex marriage legalization pending; ruling not being appealed"? Prcc27 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's WP:CRYSTAL what I was saying, I admitted that immediately. What I meant was, at the time of transition introduction, the cases were pretty clear-cut where transition was intended. But with initial temporary stays followed by permanent stays (like MS), which is what people were wondering about, I say make them gold right away so we don't flip-flop about, while clarifying that gold means a stay without an immediate proviso that it will be lifted any time soon (phrased more elegantly, of course). Your suggestion for the wording on light blue looks acceptable to me. Kumorifox (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: We're not allowed to do anything that violates Wikipedia policy. Prcc27 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• BTW, you said "we have repurposed old colours before (medium blue, light blue, dark grey, medium red)" but light blue was not an "old" color as it was actively in use when we repurposed it. We used to have two colors for other same-sex unions: a full rights (medium blue) color, and a limited rights (light blue) color. We consolidated the two similar Civil Union/Domestic Partnerships colors to make way for the transition color which is why it is totally appropriate to consolidate the two similar stay colors (gold & light blue) to make room for the local compliance color (light blue). Stability is important, but so is keeping this map as simple as possible while still providing the same information. If we keep the transition color and add a new color for local compliance then we might have too many colors, especially since the two stay colors are similar & can be represented with one color and because many users have stated that there are too many colors as it is. That is why many support consolidating the two stay colors, because this map doesn't need to have excess colors that basically mean the same thing. Prcc27 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I had to think about this for a while, but I oppose the proposal. For as much as I am all for simplifying the map, I do not find it a compelling argument that the indefinite and temporary stays are similar enough to be collapsed into the same category. A temporary stay is guaranteed to result in legal SSM without contravening legal action; the outcome of indefinite stays could go either way depending on the outcome of future legal decisions. These are fundamentally different and I see no real reason to combine them together. I am not especially concerned about minor changes to the colors, I don't think users will find it THAT confusing, so I could support a different proposal intending to simplify the map, but I cannot get behind one that removes the distinctions between the types of stays. Shereth 19:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Shereth: @Kumorifox: @Thegreyanomaly: The problem I have with Florida being light blue is that it totally ignores that there is still a same-sex marriage ban in place which IMHO is WP:POV. We currently have Florida colored to represent the future status (Same-sex marriage will become legal) and not the current status (same-sex marriage is currently banned but the ruling overturning the ban is not yet in effect). IMO, Florida should be colored to reflect the current status and footnoted to reflect the future status not the other way around! Furthermore, Florida is currently solid blue and Missouri isn't- even though a same-sex couple can actually get married in Missouri and have their marriage recognized, but same-sex marriage is still banned in Florida. If we don't go with my proposal and still want to reflect the future status of same-sex marriage on this map then maybe we should use the cream color or the medium yellow color to reflect states with temporary stays and leave the light blue to the territories that don't ban same-sex marriage if they every legalize same-sex marriage. The current light blue wording does not imply that there is a ban on same-sex marriage or that there is a stayed ruling striking it down. I would word the temporary stay color "Same-sex marriage ban overturned, decision stayed temporarily". As for the local compliance color... we could use the light gray we used to use for states with no law for or against same-sex marriage. I'm having a hard time rearranging colors/categories so I can't show you what the proposed map would look like. But I still think it would be a lot easier if we just consolidated the stay colors since they are pretty much the same thing. Prcc27 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P.S. Or we could stripe Florida transition-stay and leave solid transition for the territories. Prcc27 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That is why there is a transition colour, to show there is an advanced process in legalising SSM but it has not gone the full way yet, and marriage is not yet legal in that particular state but is expected to be within a more or less defined time frame. And that is also why I am currently against using transition blue as soon as a ban is struck, as the remaining states have been shown to be stubborn with bans and are highly likely to request permanent stays (and Florida is also likely to get one from justice Thomas, knowing him). Kumorifox (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: Yes, but the fact that same-sex marriage is currently banned means that any shading of blue is WP:POV, regardless of whether the state decides to appeal or not. Prcc27 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Right now, dark blue is the only shade that implies no outright ban. Even medium blue means marriage itself is banned, though it is still recognised. Does that mean we should also recolour recognition to something other than a shade of blue? Kumorifox (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: No, because any state that bans same-sex marriage but recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is either striped medium blue-red or medium blue-gold (Missouri). But we color states that have no law for against same-sex marriage solid recognition. That's my point, the only time it's acceptable to color a jurisdiction solid transition light blue is if there isn't a law for or against same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In what way does transition blue "ignore" the fact that a ban is still in place? If anything it is an explicit acknowledgement; it says, quite succinctly, "same sex marriage is not legal in this state but it will be on a defined date in the future." Shereth 06:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Shereth: There is a difference between same-sex marriage not being legal and same-sex marriage being banned. Same-sex marriage isn't legal in Guam but it isn't banned either. Solid light blue implies that same-sex marriage isn't banned just like solid medium blue implies that same-sex marriage isn't banned. That's why it was acceptable to color a state with recognition and no ban solid recognition and a state with recognition but same-sex marriage banned striped recognition-ban. That's why if we're going to color states with bans transition, there must be striping that lets us know that same-sex marriage is banned too. Prcc27 (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for a possibly stupid question, but when was this particular definition (no ban but no explicit law legalising) decided for transition blue? As far as I know, that definition fits dark grey, and was never meant for transition blue. So many changes occurred in a short space of time that I'm getting confused again. I thought the transition colour meant the actual ban was still in effect for the time being, until a ruling or statute explicitly legalising SSM goes into effect. Kumorifox (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: AFAIK, all the transition color does is say that same-sex marriage was legalized; it makes no mention of whether or not there is a same-sex marriage ban. States that legalized same-sex marriage used to be colored dark blue and the transition color was a compromise between coloring a state dark blue before the law goes into effect and coloring states according to their current status. Right now Florida's ban is indicated through a footnote "A ruling striking down Florida's same-sex marriage ban has been stayed until January 5, 2015." However, representing the pro-ssm aspects with a color and the anti-ssm aspects with a footnote is WP:POV. Furthermore, we don't color states with same-sex marriage recognition solid medium blue and then give them a footnote saying same-sex marriage is banned so why should we do this with the transition color..? Also, a temporary stay doesn't mean the ban is gone because the stay prevents the ruling from having effect until it expires. Prcc27 (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Basically, we'd use the same color for a state transitioning from ban to same-sex marriage as we would with a territory transitioning from no law for or against to same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I see where this discussion is going, and it is time to stop feeding Prcc27. Over the summer, Prcc27 did not like the transition color; when the consensus had formed in favor of the transition color, they started disruptive section after disruptive section to try to stop it, and they ultimately failed. This is just a sequel to that. Prcc27 didn't get their way, so they are going to be disruptive as usual and keep bringing it up until the end of time. Transition color was a recent, well-forged compromise between updating the map when a law/decision is enacted/ordered and when it goes in force. It is a necessary color. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Thegreyanomaly: I didn't start any section on this RfC (I didn't create the "New version of map" section, someone else must have) nor was I the one that initially suggested we get rid of the transition light blue. I also said that we don't necessarily have to get rid of the transition color but that coloring a state that bans same-sex marriage solid transition is WP:POV because it ignores that a ban is in place. You don't get to bypass my WP:POV concerns by calling me disruptive, either address them or we're going to have to recolor states like Florida. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm "disruptive". Please stop! Prcc27 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it looks like nobody is opposed to this map (Kansas and Missouri colored light gray for local compliance) right..? However, if the WP:POV issues aren't addressed then this or this (light yellow for expiry stay) would be the map since it makes no sense to have Florida colored solid "Same-sex marriage legalization pending" while ignoring that same-sex marriage is currently banned. Furthermore, many users have indicated that the map should be simpler, clearer, and without clutter. I think NickCT made a good point when they said "trying to convey too much information in one graphic leads to conveying no information at all". I think that the current map and the three maps I just linked to have way too much information. This map is the simplest and I feel that it makes more sense to color a state according to its current status and footnote the future status than the other way around (which is how the map is currently presented). Nonetheless, we should implement at least one of these maps especially since Florida might become a local compliance state pretty soon. For those against using light blue as the local compliance color, do you at least support using light gray? Prcc27 (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be the only one who believes that transition blue somehow ignores an existing ban. Saying that the map violates NPOV because it does not show all the information you want it to show is kind of .. well .. exclusively your point of view. Thegreyanomaly is right in saying this conversation is going nowhere and I do not intend to engage you further on this point, but for the sake of clarity, I oppose all of the maps you have proposed here. I oppose the local compliance coloring and I oppose removing/collapsing transition blue. Shereth 14:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Shereth: Well the transition color does ignore that there is a ban and I already explained why. The light blue doesn't imply "same-sex marriage banned, same-sex marriage legalized" because we distinguish between states that actually ban same-sex marriage and states that have no law pertaining to same-sex marriage but don't have same-sex marriage. Instead, the transition color implies that "same-sex marriages don't occur, same-sex marriage legalized." Those are two significantly different things. The fact that we reserve solid recognition for jurisdictions that don't perform same-sex marriages but don't ban it is a great example of solid blue only being appropriate for jurisdictions with no law on the matter. I think the reasoning behind reserving solid recognition for states with no same-sex marriage law applies to the transition color as well. Prcc27 (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I support local compliance (light grey if necessary) but I oppose removing transition blue. The case for light blue is clear: those states are set to have SSM in a measurable time frame, and are going through a waiting period. Chief examples in the past were IL, WY, and SC, and now FL. The colour has its uses, so I vote we do not change it. Kumorifox (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is an appetite for a local compliance color, it should probably be discussed separately from this map proposal, as some people may be tuning this one out. Shereth 14:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Shereth: I won't start a separate section for the local compliance proposal because I don't want to be accused of being disruptive. If same-sex marriage becomes legal in Florida, I will let it be known that I oppose Florida being colored dark blue and that a local compliance color would be more appropriate for cases like we're seeing with Kansas and Missouri. I will definitely try to stop Florida or any state with local same-sex marriages from being colored solid dark blue! Until then, I'm too scared to start a new section on the matter. However, light blue for Florida seems inaccurate since it's only being legalized in one county, so I think I'll start a section on Florida's light blue color...

Just to be clear on my stance for the local compliance color, I have no problem striping Kansas with the local compliance color and another color and tripling striping Missouri local compliance-recognition-stay. The reason why I didn't propose two stripes for Kansas and three stripes for Missouri is because it's still being debated whether Kansas qualifies as gray or medium red. I didn't think it would be fair for Kansas's ban (or de facto ban) to be unrepresented while Missouri's was. I think consolidating Missouri's dark blue and gold stripes to light blue might be WP:POV. But that might not be true since same-sex couples can get married anywhere in the state and have their marriage recognized, but they can only get a marriage license in St. Louis. However, since Kansas isn't recognizing same-sex marriages- having Kansas solid light blue is more likely to be WP:POV. The reason I didn't see that as a problem is because if dark blue for Kansas isn't considered WP:POV then neither should light blue so changing Kansas to light blue would still be a step in the right direction. I don't mind the local compliance color being light gray either. Light gray would also be accurate, if not more accurate. Prcc27 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27, it is time you face the fact that you are the only one who thinks POV is relevant to Florida. You are disruptive user, I and multiple others have been saying this for months. A wide number of users have frequently thanked me each time I call you out. You clearly have more time that anyone else to miring this talk page with merit-less proposals that do not have snowball's chance in hell of passing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Thegreyanomaly: I didn't argue that POV was relevant to Florida in the last paragraph, I was clarifying my stance on the local compliance color. In fact, I was actually arguing that it might be POV to use the light blue as the local compliance color and that light gray might be more accurate. If anything, I was moving passed the POV argument for Florida (even though I still think Florida is POV) but you jumped to conclusions anyways. I wasn't the one that proposed we consolidate the transition color with the stay color so we could use light blue for Missouri and Kansas, I was just a strong supporter of it. And some of my "merit-less" proposals eventually did pass: consolidating the statutory, constitutional, and same-sex unions ban colors, using a shade of blue for recognition states, consolidating the two same-sex union colors, making this a same-marriage map rather than a same-sex union map. I think I at least proposed most of these if not all. Prcc27 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27: Please no revisionist history,
  • "consolidating the statutory, constitutional, and same-sex unions ban colors" - No, this was not you. People did not like three shades of gold and three shades of red to correspond. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "using a shade of blue for recognition states" - I know you failed at this once, then you got it to pass later so far enough. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "consolidating the two same-sex union colors" - No, this was not you. This was part of the discussion to make the transition color without adding a new color. You disruptively railed against this proposal (see Archive 12, here is an example) as your impossible "update when enforced" proposal failed
  • "making this a same-marriage map rather than a same-sex union map" - This claim is utterly, despicably false. This was not a proposal, nor was it you. The last remaining CU/DP states (CO, NV, OR WI) became SSM states over the last few months, and thus the CU/DP color(s) became superfluous.

So you had one proposal pass out of your countless merit-less proposals. A broken clock is right twice a day. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Thegreyanomaly: I'm saying that I proposed those before (which you thought were merit-less if I remember correctly) but they eventually passed. Prcc27 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Your proposals are/were meritless. #1 and #3 passed on completely different merits than your false ones. The point is you really should stop making disruptive proposals. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I warned that we would have too many colors due to the civil union distinctions. Nobody really cared until we implemented four stay colors, that's when we got rid of the CU ban distinction due to readability. So the merits weren't "completely different". Prcc27 (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Dude(the), quit it with the revisionism, we merged the Cu/DP colors so that we would not need to add an extra color for the transition color. So yes the merits were completely different, and the overwhelming majority of your proposals are disruptive. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Wrong, we got rid of the CU ban color and CU stay color due to readability. We kept the blue CU colors while adding a footnote noting that CUs/DPs were banned in some states and that some states had stayed rulings against CUs/DPs bans. We got rid of those CU ban distinctions before we merged the blue CU/DP colors to implement a transition color and before we got rid of CUs/DPs altogether! So the merits for getting rid of the CU ban & CU stay colors weren't "completely different". Prcc27 (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

revival

Alright, let's get back on track. Personal differences can be dealt with on user talk pages and should not be piled on a public talk page, IMO. We were discussing Kansas colouring in this RfC, and we haven't gotten anywhere with it. A lot of proposals have been made, and half of those have been buried under other arguments and off-topic talk. Let's make a list (yes, again) as I go through the proposals brought up in the RfC (and if formatting is improper, my apologies, could someone improve it if necessary?), then let's analyse it in light of the information we have and what we are doing with this map.

• Keep Kansas dark blue
• Yellow brick pattern (not sure how serious this was)
• Mustard (gold) and dark blue
• Dark blue with footnote
• Dark blue with medium red
• Opposing dark blue as long as confusion exists
• Local compliance (or scofflaw, as someone referred it as later on)
• Striped dark grey/dark blue
• Light blue/dark blue striping
• Local compliance/dark blue striping
• Simplification of colours to legal/unsure/not legal
• Gold

Quite a few users agreed that gold is an improper colour, as there is no stay in Kansas, so a stay colour is unwarranted. Some proposals (including my own, until people pointed out that a Kansas license isn't worth much on the legal front) included dark blue, either all over, or else incorporated in stripes. Other people opposed dark blue for the reason of no state recognition, or due to the confusion (which has not been cleared up). People seem to be against my local or limited compliance suggestion, which is fair enough. Mostly, people seem to be against a complete colour definition reshuffle, and I agree with that. We had reshuffles after marriage ban and all forms of union ban colours were consolidated, after non-marriage union colours were no longer needed, then upon the introduction of foreign recognition, banned with precedence, and transition blue from by then unused colours. The idea behind colour stability is firm, and though we live in a changeable world, we need something steady to go on.

SO! What do we know about Kansas? The Marie ruling is out, it is preliminary, it states the Kansas ban is unconstitutional, but it only lists a couple of defendants and officially seems to affect only 2 counties. The Moriarty ruling affects Johnson County only. So people can get marriage licenses in these counties, and a large number of counties has followed suit despite not being affected by the rulings out right now. But these licenses are not recognised by the state of Kansas for legal purposes. People cannot change their names on driver's licenses. They cannot file joint tax returns. They cannot benefit from joint healthcare plans. In effect, these people are likely happily married to each other, but from a Kansas state legal viewpoint, these marriages do not exist.

So back to the original RfC question: what is the best colour for Kansas that is consistent with the status quo, and with the map colours as we defined them?

Here's my answer to that question: dark grey comes closest, for the following reasons. The state itself does not recognise. This, in my eyes, precludes both dark blue and recognition blue, because how can we say Kansas has legal SSM when a marriage isn't recognised by the very state itself? Gold and light blue are also out, since there is no stay in any of the applicable cases. Red does not really work either, I think, though it comes close as marriages are not recognised. That leaves dark grey, for neither ban nor recognition. The ban was struck, but the state does not recognise. Kumorifox (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - my messages above are proper on this talk page as it directly pertains to disruptive behavior that has been occurring on this talk page. In fact, one user has already thanked me for my last edit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Dark Blue/Oppose any changes - No consensus formed. People are now used to the status quo. The current color and footnote solution is sufficient. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

While I respect your right to oppose changes, I do feel the need to point out that this map should not reflect what people are used to, but what the situation is re marriage equality per state. Kumorifox (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Even though I don't think the ban itself was struck down, dark blue-dark gray would be more accurate than solid dark blue. Prcc27 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

From page two of the ruling: "Because Kansas’ constitution and statutes indeed do what Kitchen forbids, the Court concludes that Kansas’ same-sex marriage ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Seems pretty clearly a striking down of the ban to me. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The court stated that the ban is unconstitutional, but it did not strike the ban state-wide in its orders. The order just prevents two county clerks from enforcing the ban. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however, as I'm not sure about this point. Kumorifox (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence immediately before the one I posted: "Consequently, this Order applies the following rule, adopted by the Tenth Circuit in Kitchen v. Herbert, to the Kansas facts: '...A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.'"

As an aside, I found the order in the Illinois case, where the judge stresses that the ruling was only Cook County due to only the County being sued. Here in the Kansas case, we do have a state-wide defendant from the outset, and multiple such defendants in the amended complaint. This also raises the idea that had the Illinois lawsuit been against the state, we'd have had Illinois to full marriage four months earlier. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would gray still be appropriate though or no..? Prcc27 (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: OK, that makes sense, thank you for the clarification. So de jure, Kansas has no ban. But how do we clearly explain the de facto status, where the state is clearly scoffing at the injunction and refuses to recognise any marriages performed? I'm going to be bold here and suggest that we make this a chiefly de facto map, with de jure indicated with stripes or footnotes. Trying (and possibly failing) to put my mindset as someone who glances at the map without a major thought other than getting quick information, they likely won't really care what the juridical status is, they'd want to know what is actually going on. Hence my current preference for grey, no ban and no recognition (maybe with blue stripes like we did with NM?). Kumorifox (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I could go along with gray (and I'd like marriage blue stripes). That way we'd also know what to do if Florida pulls a similar piece-meal situation. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dark Blue/no change. The first question to ask when trying to determine a color that a state should be on this map is "Can a same-sex couple obtain a marriage license in this state?" In Kansas, the answer to this question is "yes". One may have to travel to a county in which they do not live, but it can still be done. This alone is a compelling argument for dark blue. Of course I acknowledge that the situation in Kansas is complicated by the refusal of the state to recognize said marriages, however whether or not the state is currently choosing to recognize them is immaterial to the fact that one can be married. A footnote is sufficient to explain this complication. I do understand the argument for the dark gray color since it superficially seems to fit the bill, but I believe this is due to an unfortunate choice in wording for the gray color. I've stated elsewhere that gray carries with it an implicit "neither" tone, that SSM is neither available nor explicitly banned, that there is simply no rule one way or another. This is not the case in Kansas. Shereth 15:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Shereth: I think the first question to ask when determining what color fits a state should be "Do same-sex couples have marriage equality?" In Kansas, the answer is "no". Sure a same-sex couple can get a marriage license and get married, but to the state of Kansas it's nothing more than a piece of paper. Same-sex marriage equality means a same-sex couple can legally obtain a license in their county, get married in their state, and have their marriage recognized. The dark blue color is marriage performance and recognition consolidated. Otherwise, we'd stripe every same-sex marriage state with medium blue as well! If a same-sex couple gets married in Oklahoma and they want to move to a state that will recognize their marriage, they might look at this map and see Kansas dark blue and think the state recognizes same-sex marriages only to be disappointed if/when they read the footnote. And then there's Missouri, if Missouri was solid dark blue too then Kansas wouldn't be as big of a problem. But because Missouri: a state with performance and recognition, is triple striped rather than solid dark blue, it makes the map more confusing. I guarantee readers ask themselves "How come Kansas's is solid dark blue but Missouri isn't?" even after they read the footnotes! The footnotes don't explain the inconsistency between the two states! Gray seems okay for Kansas since same-sex marriage is "not recognized". The wording allows for Kansas to apply as gray and I don't see a problem with that.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • This has never been a "same sex marriage equality" map but a "same sex marriage legality" map and the law in Kansas is that same sex marriage is legal. You are absolutely correct in saying that the dark blue color implies recognition, because with the exception of Kansas there has never been a situation where SSM was legal in a state that refused to recognize it. Because Kansas is an exception to that rule it warrants a footnote to explain the exception - that is precisely the function that footnotes serve! Gray is deficient as an option for Kansas because it is a fundamentally negative category, no ban / no recognition - while technically correct, it ignores the fact that SSM is explicitly legal and that licenses are given to SSM couples. Shereth 16:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, but same-sex marriage isn't fully legal unless same-sex couples have the same marriage rights as opposite-sex couples. I know it may be a personal opinion but I think solid dark blue should be reserved for full marriage rights for same-sex couples. If gray ignores that same-sex marriage is legal then we wouldn't have striped New Mexico marriage-no law (but we did). Also, Kansas is inconsistent with Missouri so either Kansas needs to be striped or Missouri needs to be solid dark blue..Prcc27 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Personally, I don't understand why MO is colored like a peanut butter candy cane. You can get married somewhere in MO, AND the state will recognize it. If anything, MO should be dark blue and Kansas shouldn't be. Swifty819 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I also support a dark blue Missouri. Should I start a section on it? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27:, you keep trying to compare apples to oranges. New Mexico was a unique situation, Missouri is a unique situation, and Kansas is a unique situation. Stop trying to conflate them. This is the first time we have seen a state with legal SSM that the state refused to recognize and the solution does not lie in what was done for other confusing situations. I do not find your arguments persuasive; Kansas should remain dark blue as SSM is legal there, regardless of recognition. @Dralwik:, I would happily support a discussion on the merits of making Missouri solid dark blue. Shereth 19:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: Please do. Swifty819 (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shereth: Of course they're all unique situations, but I personally believe it is inconsistent to color a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages solid dark blue while coloring a state with same-sex marriage and recognition partially dark blue. Even though I'd rather see solid dark blue reserved for states that perform and recognize same-sex marriages, I wouldn't have a huge problem with Kansas being solid dark blue if states like Missouri are also colored solid dark blue. I'm more likely to support solid dark blue for Missouri than I am for Kansas. Prcc27 (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I know this isn't "consensus" but I still think it's completely misleading to color a state which simply does NOT recognize same sex marriages (yeah, they are supposed to, but tell that to people filling out their state income tax forms right now and having to do three different returns because their state and federal returns don't have the same marital status) dark blue and call it "legal". It's not legal there in the eyes of the state, end of story. It either needs to be colored differently or "legal" in the legend needs to be changed to "recognized by federal government and marriages can be performed within the state" AND there still needs to be a footnote for Kansas. Consensus doesn't give the WP community the right to put in false information. That's not what consensus is about. I also completely disagree that "that is the function that footnotes serve." Footnotes are for notes, not for making false information correct. What the heck function is the map supposed to be serving? 68.199.96.18 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for dragging this up again, but I found a new source stating the current KS ruling is not state-wide. See here It states, and I quote "That injunction specifically prohibits KDHE, and Sedgwick and Douglas counties, from enforcing the Kansas bans on same-sex marriage recognition." I don't know how reliable this source is, can anyone confirm this? Kumorifox (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missouri to full marriage blue?

Right now, we have two states with same-sex marriage in a partial, ambiguous status: Kansas and Missouri. Kansas is under a court order in effect, but refusing to recognize marriages, yet we have it solid blue due to the court's state-wide reach. Missouri is under a local court order in effect and a stayed state-wide ruling, yet the state government is recognizing any valid same-sex marriages within the state, regardless of place of residence. I am proposing to turn Missouri to the solid dark blue for full marriage rights for multiple reasons:

1. Consistency with Kansas. We have been debating the status of Kansas for five weeks, and with no clear consensus for striping Kansas emerging, since we have one locally ambiguous state being full dark blue, for consistency's sake we should have the other.
2. The situation on the ground. Missouri recognizes same-sex marriage while Kansas is not, meaning Missouri is much closer to full marriage rights than Kansas is. A couple in most of the state would have to travel to St. Louis or out of state to wed, but once wed they are given full protection by the state. Thus a solid blue fits the state's current status (mentioning the recognition aspect in the footnote, see below).
3. Simplifying the map. I personally would rather have a footnote than a mass of striping, and turning Missouri dark blue would also permit us to take a color (out of state recognition) out of the legend.

My rough draft proposed footnote would be "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri, and the state recognizes all same-sex marriages performed in a legal jurisdiction." Here is what the new map would look like. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

YAY. Strongly support. Swifty819 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. It goes without saying that the current striping is, at best, counter-intuitive and confusing. Solid dark blue conveys the reality of the situation, a same-sex couple in Missouri can legally obtain a marriage license in said state. The nuances are better served by a footnote (which the map already needs anyway), and switching to solid dark blue would go a long ways to simplifying and clarifying the map. Shereth 20:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as Kansas remains solid dark blue I strongly support coloring Missouri solid dark blue. If Kansas: a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages is counted as a same-sex marriage state then Missouri: a state that does recognize same-sex marriages should also be counted as one as well. I've avoided looking at the map because I can't even bear to look at the inconsistencies between Kansas and Missouri. Coloring Missouri solid dark blue will make the map more consistent, and I'm hoping it will encourage the reliable sources to start counting Missouri as a same-sex marriage state (since Kansas is already being counted as one). The stripes on Missouri also seem to contradict each other. However, I would also add in the footnote that there's a ban (with a stayed ruling against it) because the ban prevents same-sex marriages from being licensed statewide (which I still think is important to note). Prcc27 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I support changing Missouri to solid blue. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly support. MO has much more right than KS to be solid dark blue, based on the situation on the ground. Kumorifox (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• If the WP:SNOW keeps up, I'll change Missouri sometime tomorrow afternoon, US Central time. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• I support, so long as the footnote is descriptive enough. I suggest two separate footnotes on "Legal": one for Kansas, and one for Missouri. Missouri needs to include that all marriages are recognized, but licences can only be obtained in St. Louis, and possibly that there are multiple, inconsistent, ongoing lawsuits. Mw843 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You can obtain licenses in Jackson and St. Louis Counties as well, although those are of uncertain legality. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

New map is in. Feel free to work over the footnote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I modified the footnotes a bit so there aren't two "3" footnotes, as well as simplified a bit. Linking to the article that discusses the situation in Missouri is a better option than trying to describe the situation fully in a footnote; a summary and a link should suffice. Shereth 23:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back to "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" since it's not legal in the two rogue counties. The counties in Kansas are "within their right" to issue but the counties in Missouri are not. I also added that Missouri has a ban that was struck down but stayed. Prcc27 (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I liked the verbal parallel with the Kansas footnote better, and find it rather POV to declare the two Missouri counties "not within their right" to issue, given that there are active rulings invalidating the ban. A situation like Boulder County, Colorado where the licenses are being issued without a ruling are a different matter, but given the complex situation in Missouri I feel the neutral "some areas are issuing" wording is better without trying a judgement call on what is legal and what is not. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: It is not POV to declare that rogue counties aren't "within their right" to issue licenses to same-sex couples because I was specifically referring to what the Kansas Supreme Court said about counties issuing. The stayed ruling is not "active" because the stay prevents the ruling from having any effect until it is lifted. At first Boulder County may have been a different matter, but Colorado's same-sex marriage ban was eventually struck down (ruling stayed) and the next day a judge refused to issue a restraining order against the clerk in Boulder County. Any county that issues a license to a same-sex couple when same-sex marriage is banned (even if there's a stayed ruling against it) is a rogue county, period! If the readers want to know about the rogue counties they can click on the link to the article that's in the footnote and they can even look at the map which shows which rogue counties are issuing. "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" has been the wording for quite a while, so I'm changing it back to that wording until you get consensus for yours per WP:STATUSQUO. Prcc27 (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I still find an elegance in the parallel footnotes for Missouri and Kansas, and would argue the new coloring largely negates STATUSQUO concerns. Besides, I have better things to do on Christmas Eve than to argue on Wikipedia. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the extra verbosity for Missouri. The extra counties are rogue, so what? There is apparently a rogue county in South Carolina that refuses to issue, so why is that not mentioned in footnotes as well? Prcc27, you have tried to make this map as de facto as possible, and normally I would agree. So why insist on making the footnotes de jure only? The counties are issuing, so let's mention that. Those licenses are unlikely to be revoked (touch wood).
There is such a thing as being too exact. If we were to detail every single exception in footnotes, we'd have a page of footnotes a mile long. Let's strive to avoid that. Kumorifox (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: The current footnote on Missouri is way more verbose than the original one! I know I may have come off as being pro de facto but I have always wanted this map and the footnotes to be as de jure as possible. IMO same-sex marriage in Kansas is either banned but it just can't be enforced by limited officials or the ban was struck down but the injunction only applies to limited officials. Which is why I believe that same-sex marriage is de jure legal in KS only to a degree. Furthermore, counties in Kansas are allowed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because the Supreme Court of Kansas said they have the right to do so. The rogue counties in Missouri have not been given the right to do what the counties in Kansas can do. Please note that in the past we left rogue counties out of the footnotes and left it to the articles to explain the situation on them. And technically Missouri doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in those rogue counties since they're only required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions where it is legal. I don't know if the county in South Carolina is "rogue" but if same-sex marriage is not de jure legal statewide in South Carolina, I would have no problem with having a footnote on it as well. Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find a source other than Twitter, but apparently, and I quote, "NB District court in MO has issued declaratory judgment applying to all of MO even though injunction applied only to 1 clerk." This was tweeted by an ACLU attorney. Could someone verify this? [26] Kumorifox (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have not read the above, but I would like to point out that the footnotes for KS and MO are state-government-centric. There should be a comment about federal recognition. (I presume they are recognized given Holder's pro-SSM views, but I think someone should look up a source). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• @Kumorifox: I already tried arguing that the judgment applied to the entire state of Missouri but the injunction applied to 1 clerk but I got refuted because the judge only has jurisdiction in St. Louis. It's in one of the marriage in the United States.svg/Archive_15#Missouri_just_got_more_complicated previous sections pertaining to Missouri. Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a possibility that Missouri might become the 36, 37 or 38 state to legalize same sex marriage depending of Florida and Arkansas if the court of appeals of the eight circuit lift the stay, but knowing that the eight is the second most conservative it might very well not happen. I hope they do it so the Missouri case can finally be settled... At least for now.https://twitter.com/JoshACLU/status/547953618226147328 .--Allan120102 (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Federal government in footnotes

I was WP:BOLD and included the federal government into the footnotes. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

“ ² Only select jurisdictions within Kansas issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; same-sex marriage is recognized by the federal government but not the state government.

³ Only select jurisdictions within Missouri issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. All legal same-sex marriages are recognized by the federal and state governments. The state's same-sex marriage ban was overturned but the decision is stayed indefinitely.

”

I'm ok with the addition of "federal government" even though it feels superfluous. The third sentence in the Missouri footnote, though, seems like trying to cram too much information for a footnote. Shereth 19:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the "federal government" should be added... any same-sex couple that's married is supposed to be recognized by the federal government, it does't matter if they live in Oklahoma, Missouri, or Georgia! Prcc27 (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The third sentence is extremely necessary because it lets the readers know that same-sex marriage is banned; the ban keeps every county in the state from legally issuing same-sex marriage licenses and most counties are not issuing because of the ban. Prcc27 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I adamantly oppose Prcc27's latest attempt to ignore the maybe-legal counties in Missouri. The Attorney General and the state agencies of Missouri recognize the marriages in St. Louis and Jackson Counties -- a key difference from say, Boulder -- and I am inclined to take the state's word over his interpretation. :Missouri is a good example where blindly following de jure would give a misleading result to a reader. Couples can get married in Kansas City with a license recognized by the state but without court protection -- the situation identical to West Virginia. We fully counted West Virginia, we should fully count Jackson and St. Louis Counties.

Prcc27's insistence on excluding these counties is making this map less accurate, and his persistent reversion of the footnotes has become disruptive. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 05:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Do you have a source that Missouri is recognizing marriages in those rogue counties..? The state is only required to recognize legal same-sex marriages and it's not legal in those counties. The rogue counties in Missouri are not akin to West Virginia because same-sex marriage was legalized statewide in WV due to executive action saying the circuit court precedent was binding on the entire state. Missouri has no circuit court precedent and no executive action legalizing it throughout the state. Reverting back to the status quo until consensus is established is not disruptive! Prcc27 (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It is once consensus emerges (Shereth, grey, and I v. you). Also, note the December 8th update on this page. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 08:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: If Shereth & Thegreyanomaly support the vague wording for Missouri instead of the de jure wording that has been up for about a month they still need to explain and elaborate on why that is. 3-1 is not a consensus if only one of you has fully explained your reasoning especially since I've refuted your comparisons to Boulder County, Kansas, and West Virginia. Besides, Thegreyanomaly seems more concerned with federal recognition than Missouri's status. Do you know where that page you linked to got their information..? Prcc27 (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• West Virginia was legalized via an executive deciding to perform marriages based on a controlling precedent in another jurisdiction. Jackson County, MO was legalized via an executive deciding to perform marriages based on a controlling precedent in another jurisdiction. See the parallel? As for Show Me Marriage, they are involved in the lawsuits so I presume they asked the AG's office themselves. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• West Virginia and Missouri's rogue counties are not parallel. If anything they're perpendicular! West Virginia legalized same-sex marriage because the precedent applied circuitwide and Jackson County became rogue due to a stayed ruling by a federal district court. Boulder County wasn't noted when Colorado's ban was struck down with a stay and neither should Jackson County. Also, noting an executive action at the county level due to a ruling that only applies to another jurisdiction is ridiculous! Did we add a footnote for Johnson County, KS when they became rogue when the Tenth Circuit's rulings in UT and OK were implemented? No we didn't, and St. Louis County is actually more rogue than Johnson County, KS because the Tenth Circuit's rulings were binding precedents in Kansas (even though it wasn't legal in the state) but the St. Louis ruling is only binding in St. Louis and has no legal effect anywhere else. As for Show Me Marriage.. they didn't say that the AG said the state would recognize the marriages in those two counties so we can't be sure that those marriages are actually being recognized. Prcc27 (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• • But the Missouri AG is recognizing those marriages (not buying your attempt to sidestep the source). If the West Virginia AG can decide to recognize licenses based on a ruling in another state, why can't the Missouri AG recognize licenses based on a ruling in his own state? If the state says you're married, who are we to say you're not? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Dralwik: So basically the Missouri AG is recognizing the marriages from the rogue counties even though they said the St. Louis ruling was only "binding on the parties before the court"? I don't believe it! When did the state say people licensed it rogue counties were married? The AG does recognize licenses in his own state but AFAIK only the same-sex marriages licensed in St. Louis are being recognized. Prcc27 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, an "early consensus" is not an established consensus (which is what WP:STATUSQUO requires). If anything, it's a developing consensus. Until then, "the status quo reigns."Prcc27 (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• So when does "emerging" become "established?" When does the gavel of consensus strike? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well it's obvious you don't have established consensus when I am constantly refuting your arguments and when you are the only one stating your case for the footnote! Prcc27 (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• • This argument happening in the early morning hours didn't help. It's now midday US time and no one has stepped up to restore your wording, while we've had multiple reverts to the Shereth phrasing. If no one else reverts to your phrasing, I'd say it's time to let this go. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Dralwik: It doesn't matter. The point is that the status quo is what should be reflected while we are discussing the footnotes. The reason for this is to allow everyone to give input on the proposal as well as improve the wording to it or propose different wording. You don't have consensus so until then the status quo reigns! Prcc27 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

We should probably discuss the Missouri footnote somewhere else since this is the "Federal government in footnotes" section. Or we could change the section's name to "Footnotes discussion".. Prcc27 (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am in strong agreement with Dralwik and thus have reinstated their edit that they undid. The federal gov't comments are important, because these are states with irregularities in SSM, and thus statements of federal recognition are needed (more for KS than MO though). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thegreyanomaly: If we're going to have footnote(s) on federal recognition I'd rather just reinstate the one we used to use nationwide especially since AFAIK the AG of the U.S. hasn't announced that they will be recognizing same-sex marriages in KS (and MO?). Since federal recognition is supposed to apply everywhere I think it would be better than the individual ones on KS & MO. Prcc27 (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Missouri footnote

This discussion seems to have petered out, so I'd like to try again. The text of the footnote can be discussed apart from the color of MO on the map. At present it reads: (with the 3 sentences displayed on different lines.)

Same-sex marriages are licensed in three jurisdictions in Missouri, but is only legal in St. Louis.

All legal same-sex marriages are recognized by the state government.

The state's same-sex marriage ban was overturned but the decision is stayed indefinitely.

Sentence 1: The text uses the shortcut "legal" to distinguish between the rationale or lack thereof for what different counties are doing, but the reader is unlikely to understand that someone thinks acting under court order is legal and acting not under court order is illegal. We shoudl say what we mean: "Three MO counties, only one under court order, license SSMs.

Sentence 2: Again that word "legal", which depends who thinks what is legal. How about "The state recognizes SSMs from St. Louis and from jurisdictions outside the state."

The 3rd sentence tells us nothing about the state of SSM in KS. It's pure distraction. Thus:

Three Missouri counties, only one under court order, license same-sex marriages. The state recognizes same-sex marriages from St. Louis and from jurisdictions outside the state.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, although the state is recognizing marriages from the two sort-of-legal counties as well, per the Show Me Marriage link I posted. How about the second sentence reading "The state recognizes same-sex marriages from all performing jurisdictions?" Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case (and I'm not surprised to hear that), then again let's be straightforward:

Three Missouri counties, only one under court order, license same-sex marriages. The state recognizes same-sex marriages from those counties and from jurisdictions outside the state.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support this. Here is the link. To be clear, the state recognition is why I am so adamant on including those counties in the footnote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

1. The AG & the Recorders' Association of Missouri has said that the ruling is only biding on St. Louis [27]. As a result, St. Louis deserves its own distinction and I'm against changing the wording to something more vague like "only one" especially since St. Louis City isn't a county! As for recognition... that link is not reliable; who said same-sex marriages were being recognized from the rogue counties- the AG? Or are they assuming that because Missouri recognizes same-sex marriages the rogue counties will have their SSMs recognized as well? Their claim isn't backed up by a source or by a state official's statement. But we do know that the state officials say same-sex marriage is only legal in St. Louis. We haven't included rogue counties before and I'm against including them now; I'd prefer the original wording: Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis.
2. The word "legal" fits because the ruling that legalized recognition specifically referenced recognition of legal same-sex marriages. As a result, I don't think we have to change this wording but I don't have a problem with the proposed wording (minus the rogue counties since the link isn't reliable).
3. Same-sex marriage is still banned in Missouri so it is a very important distinction! It does tell us about the state of SSM in MO because everywhere but St. Louis is prohibited from issuing same-sex marriage licenses as a result of the ban. This sentence is important since we got rid of Missouri's gold stripe. Prcc27 (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am inclined to find a Missouri group involved in the case's update from December more reliable than a British tabloid article from a month earlier. Note your link is before the federal decision. Another part of my advocacy for including the Missouri counties is the parallel with the Kansas situation: if we are to give the Kansas AG the benefit of detailing his stance that the state-wide decision there does not force the state to recognize marriages, why are we so quick to deny Missouti the benefit of detailing its recognition of marriages off a local decision? Both states are trying to interpret court orders in different ways than the on paper jurisdiction, and honoring Kansas while ignoring Missouri flies in NPOV for me. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 08:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that a British tabloid isn't a reliable source. However, the article was originally posted by Associated Press. It is very possible that same-sex couples married in one of those rogue jurisdictions are receiving recognition, but it could be an isolated case like Kansas. Some same-sex couples have successfully had their marriages recognized in Kansas, but others have been denied recognition. So yes, some same-sex couples married in one of those Missourian counties might have received some sort of recognition, but have all of them received recognition, are any of them going to receive full recognition..? Will they be able to file joint taxes, be recognized on a death certificate or a birth certificate, etc.? The AG hasn't announced that the state will recognize those marriages or else we would have heard about it. The update in November is incorrect because Jackson County started issuing same-sex marriages in response to the federal court ruling, not the state court ruling like your link claims. If that part of the update is incorrect then it's possible that their rogue county recognition claim is incorrect as well! Prcc27 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, Show Me Marriage is "a grassroots public education campaign to Show all Missourians that Missouri is ready for marriage equality", they are not a news source and AFAIK they are not even involved in the case! Prcc27 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll start with a side note. We don't need need a reliable news source, just a reliable source. And Show Me Marriage may well be that, much like Equality Kansas. But I've seen nothing there of interest.

So for the sake of discussion and in the interest of making some headway:

Three Missouri jurisdictions, only one under court order, license same-sex marriages. The state recognizes the validity of same-sex marriage licenses issued under court order and same-sex marriages from jurisdictions outside the state as well. A federal court found the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, but the decision is stayed pending appeal.

The key issue for me is that the text in place at present takes sides. We/Wikipedia say some licenses are "legal", implying that others are not. But the clerks in 2 counties think what they are doing is "legal" too. We should not say or imply that they are right or wrong. What the state says and the clerks assn says may or may not not prove true in the long run, but we have to leave that for another court to decide. It's not for us to say who is right, even though I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that the City of St. Louis has a far cleaner, clearer case than the counties. It's still a matter of dispute that we should present NPOV.

Still, it's important to make clear the state's position since it's the key actor here, and that is accomplished by the second sentence. I've changed "recognizes" to "recognizes the validity of" in the second sentence even though I think that's bad writing, but I expect that's what's wanted. Or "recognizes the legality of"? That's equally bad writing.

I've also added xrefs to help the reader who wants to follow up.

While I still think the last sentence superfluous, I've recast it in active voice and added specificity. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Show me marriage is not a reliable source because at least some of their information is false. It is not "taking sides" to leave out rogue counties and only include jurisdictions where it is legal. The fact of the matter is the state is claiming that same-sex marriage is only legal in St. Louis, the judge that legalized same-sex marriages only has jurisdiction in St. Louis, and the rogue counties are issuing on their own interpretation of the rulings- even though neither of the rulings are binding on them. This map deals with laws and AFAIC same-sex marriage is not the law in either of the rogue counties. We didn't add a footnote for rogue cases like Boulder County, CO; Johnson County, KS; etc. so it doesn't make sense to even mention the rogue counties of MO. The main reason why people want to include MO's rogue counties is because same-sex marriage is actually legal somewhere in the state, but St. Louis's same-sex marriage law has no effect on the rest of the state's same-sex marriage law. The rogue clerks may claim that what they are doing is "legal", but until a court of law agrees with them- same-sex marriage remains illegal in those counties. Prcc27 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So what's wrong with my wording aside from the fact that it is not yours? what does it not say that the reader needs to know? I think it says what you want said without being tendentious and argumentative. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's not what it does not say that's the problem- it's what it does say that bothers me. I strongly oppose including rogue jurisdictions in the footnote since this map deals with laws. Would we mention a county in Mississippi or Arkansas if they went rogue? Why all of the sudden is it okay to mention rogue counties in Missouri when we left rogue counties out of the footnotes countless times before..? Prcc27 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am confused as to why we are bending over backwards trying to distill the complexity of Missouri's situation into a footnote. Footnotes should be short, succinct and to the point. Why does the footnote need to indicate the exact number of counties handing out licenses? Why does the footnote need to indicate which ones are doing so under an explicit court order? We're talking about a footnote here, not a synopsis. As it stands, the footnotes take up almost as much screen real estate as the map itself in the template. I do not know why we need anything more than "Not all jurisdictions in Missouri issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples". Let the details of exactly which counties do and do not offer the licenses and under what authority they offer them, along with all of the pertinent details, reside in the article itself. Why does a link to it not suffice? Shereth 18:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the exact number of counties shouldn't be indicated. However, we don't have to be vague in order to shorten the footnote. "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis" should suffice and it's actually shorter than your proposed footnote! If the reader really cares about rogue counties they can read the article, but this map deals with laws and same-sex marriage is the law in St. Louis only! Regardless of whether we include the rogue counties or not, I have a big problem with removing any reference to St. Louis. Same-sex marriage is actually legal there which is worth noting on a de jure map. Prcc27 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

How's this:

In Missouri, only St. Louis issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples under court order. The state recognizes the validity of those licenses as well as same-sex marriages from jurisdictions outside the state. A federal court found the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, but the decision is stayed pending appeal.

Or must we say the City of St. Louis for clarity? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I still need some help understanding why we need to cram so much information into the footnote. Why do we have to list St. Louis by name? Why do we have to specify that it's under a court order? Why do we have to spell out which licenses are being recognized by the state? I'm not going to stand in the way of a loquacious footnote (considering that's already the status quo) but I remain unsatisfied that one is required or that any of these questions have a satisfactory answer. Shereth 17:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, MO is quite complicated. Even people who pay attention (or like to think so) will assert that SSM is legal there. And just this morning I ran across a news article written in MO that said the Barrier decision might only apply to one county, which is pure nonsense. Also, we've treated MO very inconsistently in this WP entry as well. I've tried to focus on the writing quality as well as length. And I've suggested dropping the last sentence since, if this is about the de jure picture, a stayed court decision is quite beside the point. It might as well not have been written. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a matter of looking at the same problem in a different light. To me, the very fact that MO is a highly complex situation is a perfect argument for a quick and succinct footnote with a link to an article. I don't one can cover all the bases in a satisfactory manner and remain within the scope of what is a footnote; so much is going on that it really cannot be covered in such a context, and it is both futile and counterproductive to try. The dark blue color on the map, without qualification, communicates only the fact that SSM is legal in Missouri; the footnote need only indicate that this is the case in limited situations/jurisdictions, so long as it links to an article that goes into the specifics (ie. where is it legal and under what authority, etc). I just don't see the value in going beyond the single line of information with a link. Shereth 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri" would work but the proposed wording might be a little clearer so I could support it. The recognition sentence doesn't need to be changed IMO. I strongly support the last sentence. Prcc27 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm having trouble understanding your comment. Did you just say you could support my last version with the 3rd sentence?

For your amusement, Associated Press today says: "Other states still enforcing same-sex marriage bans are... Missouri (except in Kansas City and St. Louis)...." ?!?! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Medium blue=partially legal

The map is somewhat misleading for KS and MO, as it implies marriages are freely available and recognized anywhere in state, which is patently false.

So why not repurpose the now-disused Medium Blue color, and color both KS and MO solid medium blue.

The MO and KS footnotes can remain exactly the same as they currently are.

Of course "partially legal" is always a bit ambiguous and needs clarifying, but that's what footnotes are for!

This "partially legal" color would be used for any present or future states where same-sex marraige is routinely performed and/or recognized in some jurisdictions of the state.

This prevents the need for both striping and misleading information.

Sound good?

Chessrat (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Chessrat: This sounds like the Local compliance proposal. I agree the map is a little misleading and it would be more accurate if we colored KS and MO something other than solid dark blue, but people don't seem to be in favor of having a separate color for the two states. I also don't think the fact that medium blue is currently in disuse is a reason to re-purpose it because we might need the recognition color in the future! Prcc27 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• • @Prcc27:Recognition but not performance counts as partially legal! Partially legal covers local performance, statewide recognition but not performance, etc. IMO a catch-all halfway color plus footnotes would make the clearest possible map. As for your other point, I guess if people don't want a separate color then there's not a lot that can be done about that...Chessrat (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Chessrat: I don't know... using the same color for local compliance states and states with foreign recognition would make the color kind of vague. Prcc27 (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need a different set up for Missouri and Kansas.I believe Kansas should be stripe Red and Blue as some counties still en force the ban. and Missouri was ok when it was triple stripe but that its me, because Missouri recognize outside state marriages have a stay and it perform ssm in three counties.--Allan120102 (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Allan120102: Yeah.. but we've been unable to come up with a consensus on how to color Kansas at the RfC I started..! :/ Prcc27 (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

We've been discussing this topic for a while, mainly because MO and KS are confustates (one ignores the law, the other has two concurrent rulings), and a consensus was never reached. I agreed to a compromise when people put their foot down with Kansas by having Missouri coloured solid blue. I don't think it'll go any further than this, however, so I say we let it rest for now. Kumorifox (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed ... mainly because I don't think "Sam Brownback is being a ****" deserves its own color. Mw843 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• The color would also be used for Missouri, not just Kansas.. Prcc27 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that if KS is solid blue, MO should be as well, but I think it's misleading to list KS as solid blue in the first place. SSM is NOT legal there. You can get a license in some place that will give you federal recognition, but that is not the be all and end all of legality. No matter where you get married, the state is not recognizing your marriage as legal. I don't support having a million colors, but KS is not a place where "SSM is legal". MO can remain dark blue as once you go to the trouble of getting married, be it within or without the state, your marriage is recognized by the state and the feds. In KS that's not the case, so it should get a different color... medium blue, purple, or even gold or red would be more appropriate than dark blue. And P.S. the footnote doesn't cut it. The caption says "legal" not "legal as far as the Federal govenment is concerned." 68.199.96.18 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

We had discussed that topic to death, and no consensus was ever reached. We even had an RfC on it, and nothing came out of that. People are going by what the ruling says, not by the situation on the ground, and the ruling states that the ban is unenforceable by state officials. Therefore, regardless of recognition, many people insisted on seeing Kansas coloured solid blue. I stated before that I don't like it either, but without consensus, it won't change a thing for the map. Kumorifox (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if another state ends up like KS or MO more people would be open to a partial legality/local compliance color. But since there are only two states that would qualify as medium blue, we should probably save this proposal for when we have three states in this situation. Prcc27 (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Unenforceable by state officials." Irrelevant. What is legal IS the situation on the ground as it's being carried out by the government. There is not legal marriage in KS currently, regardless of what some court said. Consensus or not, the map is misleading. That it is only one or two states does not mean that it should be considered the same situation as in other states. There are 50 states, not 50,000. Adding one color when appropriate doesn't make it a confusing patchwork. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, there is uncertainty with respect to the legality of same-sex marriage in Kansas. What we know is that two counties and one state official are required not to enforce the ban, at least one county (possibly all counties) are "within their right" to issue licenses to same-sex couples, and even if the ban was struck down- the state is claiming that they aren't required to recognize same-sex marriages because they weren't listed as defendants. One thing we all seem to agree on is that Kansas and Missouri should both be colored the same to maintain consistency. Now that we finally got the inconsistency out of the way maybe it's time to consider using a different color for states like KS & MO. I previously stated that I am for keeping the recognition color but I'm starting to have my doubts. First of all, we don't have a recognition ban color to counter the recognition color which I think might be a little WP:POV. Furthermore, it makes no sense to have a recognition only color while having a dark blue used for either recognition/performance consolidated states (Oklahoma) or performance only states (Kansas). We shouldn't color a state that recognizes same-sex marriages and provides benefits medium blue when we color states that perform same-sex marriage but don't provide recognition or benefits dark blue. In fact, performance only states only receive federal recognition but that goes for all married same-sex couples living in the United States. I'd much rather have a state that recognizes same-sex marriages but doesn't perform them colored dark blue than a state that licenses same-sex marriages only to treat those licenses as meaningless pieces of paper. Same-sex marriage is banned in Texas and Georgia, the only difference between those two states is that Texas's same-sex marriage ban was struck down and stayed. If we distinguish between states with bans and states with bans in the process of being tossed out then I think we should distinguish between a state with full legality and a state with partial legality. I mean c'mon, we distinguished between Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships that provided full rights/benefits and CUs/DPs that provided limited rights/benefits so why shouldn't we do the same with same-sex marriages? I also think that it makes no sense that we colored states that provided full rights and benefits under a different name than same-sex marriage medium blue but here we are coloring Kansas dark blue when same-sex marriage is only partially legal without benefits and recognition being provided by the state. TBH, I would have rather seen a civil union state dark blue than Kansas since unlike Kansas some civil union states actually recognized same-sex couples married in another state as civil partners and provided them with rights/benefits. In Missouri you can only be legally licensed in one city, but a civil union state would've licensed civil unions in every county. A limited same-sex marriage color is totally appropriate and now that KS & MO are consistent with each other I think it's time to stop treating these states the same we treat full same-sex marriage states. Prcc27 (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@68.199.96.18: I agree with you, but we have not been able to reach a consensus on this topic. Also, people are getting edgy every time it is brought up. I'm not saying that that is a reason not to bring it up at all, but it will most likely ensure that those opposed to the changes will oppose them even more vehemently. But I'm open for suggestions on what to do. So far, recolouring the two states to indicate a difference, adding a new colour for partial legality, or rephrasing the meaning of one of the colours have been shot down multiple times on this talk page, with various people invoking WP:NOTVOTE and stating that WP:CON applies. Unfortunately, consensus has never been reached, so the status quo is maintained.
What is necessary here is a definition of what this map portrays. Is this map supposed to be de jure or de facto for conveying information? The name is simply "Same-sex marriage in the US", which does not discriminate. However, if I were to casually look at this map, I would want it to convey what is actually happening (i.e. de facto information) rather than what rulings have been made, regardless of whether they are implemented. People are refusing some changes to this map for fear of confusing viewers, or to avoid changing colour meanings for the umpteenth time. Those are valid concerns, in my eyes. However, IMO, those concerns do NOT outweigh the fact that the information presented by the current map is factually incorrect (if this map is supposed to be de facto, that is). But until the basic purpose and definition of this map is set, this discussion will keep going without any change visible on the horizon. Kumorifox (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree this map is seen everyday by a lot of people and this map is confusing lets be honest not everyone read footnotes we should reflect the reality in the map. Kansas and Missouri should be different as there is no statewide decision yet and one of those just look at same sex marriage licenses like a piece of paper. The judge in Kansas might reach a conclusion and finally struck the ban completely in February but until then Kansas should be other color. It hurts me because for me Kansas is a state I love but right now is not the bagon of marriage equality.--Allan120102 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

And it's not like we would be "adding" a new color. We would simply expand the current recognition color to include all partially legal cases. It makes more sense to distinguish between states that have full legality and partial legality than to distinguish between states with same-sex marriage (performance and/or recognition) and same-sex marriage recognition only. Dark blue is too broad, it covers statewide same-sex marriage, local same-sex marriage/statewide same-sex marriage recognition & ban, and local same-sex marriage/statewide ban. Partial legality should not be represented by two colors (dark blue & medium blue), it should only be represented by one color (medium blue). Since this proposal is different from the local compliance color proposal- I think we should consider it. I strongly support a partial legality color. Prcc27 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, even though the partial legality proposal may work- the discussion for states like KS/MO has died down every since we colored Missouri solid dark blue. Nonetheless, I've already proposed it on other maps. Prcc27 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think a partial legality color would be a good idea, although we ought to find a significantly different color rather than some blue or gray shade. Green is a tricky color with color blindness, but what about a fluorescent lime color? The contrast ought to be sharp enough to make the difference clear enough, and the lime would avoid confusion with the blue colors we have used before, or with the gray of the territories. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Lime green works for me. If we implement a new partial legality color would we still keep the recognition color (and stripe Missouri partial/recognition) or would recognition be consolidated in the partial legality color? I think we could have both if we use the partial legality color for performance/licensing only and the recognition color would obviously be for recognition only. Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have Missouri striped. When I get home in a few hours I can try a test map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 06:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dralwik: Would the lime color conflict with the precedent color..? Prcc27 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think it'd be a sufficient difference, although I forgot to make a test map until I was away from the computer. (On my phone currently.) When I get a test map ready, I'll post it here. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dralwik: Why don't we just use light blue for the partial legality color and light gray for the transition color..? TBH, a gray color would be more accurate for a state that bans same-sex marriage/legalized it than a blue color. We would be on the right side of WP:POV if we changed the transition color to gray. However, it might be problematic for a territory with no ban to go from dark gray to light gray when it legalizes same-sex marriage, but we could solve this problem by placing the light gray color above the dark gray color in the map key. Prcc27 (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The only problem with using light blue for partial legality and light gray for transition is what happens if Missouri legalizes same-sex marriage..? It can't go from striped medium blue/light blue to striped medium blue/light blue/light gray or something like that. And if we kept the transition color as is and used light gray for the partial legality color (which I have no problem doing since both states seem to be halfway in between marriage equality and marriage inequality) it wouldn't make sense for a state that partially legalizes same-sex marriage to go from light blue to light gray when the law goes into effect. If we used a different shade of yellow for states with temporary states that would free up the light blue color altogether. But then what do we do if one of the territories with no law legalizes same-sex marriage..? Any shade of yellow would be totally inappropriate for a territory transitioning from no law to same-sex marriage. So maybe lime green is our best option (as long as it's accessible).. Prcc27 (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Or we could just continue to do what we're doing and use footnotes to handle exceptional cases rather than coming up with some garish "this state is an exception" color that will need a footnote, anyway. Shereth 15:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shereth: That depends on how major or minor the exception is. Places like Michigan and Arkansas have their own section in the template due to their small (but not insignificant) number of marriages that took place there. However, they are not stated on the map, because as a whole, they would not influence it unless (like on the old "rings" map and the world map), individual cases are highlighted. Missouri and Kansas, on the other hand, stick out like sore thumbs due to the very conflicting natures of their recognition and performances of marriages, and the significant number of marriages that are performed in the here and now. Kansas is being deliberately difficult whereas Missouri is more accommodating. Kumorifox (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. If the distinction between states that ban same-sex marriage and states that ban same-sex marriage with a stayed decision overturning them is made then partial legality merits a distinction as well. Remember, this isn't the first time we've had two separate colors for full rights (medium blue CUs/DPs) vs. partial rights (light blue: Wisconsin). As a said in one of my previous paragraphs: "TBH, I would have rather seen a civil union state dark blue than Kansas since unlike Kansas some civil union states actually recognized same-sex couples married in another state as civil partners and provided them with rights/benefits." That's right, same-sex couples in a civil union/domestic partnership state actually received recognition but Kansas deserves to be solid blue even though same-sex couples receive no recognition..? Same-sex marriage may be "legal" but same-sex marriages are not recognized and recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is still banned in Kansas since the judge didn't strike down Section 23-2508! It is WP:POV to have a color for recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere legal but not have a recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere banned color. As for Missouri, it's inaccurate to color Missouri solid dark blue because if a same-sex couple lives far away from St. Louis they could just hop the border, get married their, and receive recognition just as easily if not easier than driving all the way to St. Louis, get married somewhere in Missouri, and receive recognition. For Missourians that live far away for St. Louis, how is their situation any different now than before St. Louis legalized same-sex marriage? Missouri may have some statewide implications (being able to get married anywhere in the state once a license is obtained from St. Louis) but there is little to no effect on same-sex couples that live closer to a marriage equality state than St. Louis! And even same-sex couples that live near St. Louis are inconvenienced since they can't marry in their county. BTW, St. Louis only makes up about 5% of the state population. If having to travel outside of the county you live in to get a marriage license in order to get recognized = same-sex marriage legal then why didn't we color Missouri dark blue when they started recognizing out-of-state marriages..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

First, bringing civil unions into the discussion is a non-starter. Back in the day when different blues meant civil unions (or even 'enumerated rights') there was a different paradigm in place; we aren't talking about civil union states, those don't exist anymore, so what we did "back then" is not relevant to the situation today. Second, it isn't a point-of-view violation to lack a special color for "out of state marriages not recognized." Until Kansas this was implicit (blue states recognized out of state marriages, red states did not). There is no need to create a color for a one-off scenario, and claiming that the failure to do so violates NPOV is grasping at straws. Finally, the fact that someone in Missouri has to drive to St Louis (or Kansas City - I have yet to see a source that says the state is not recognizing those marriages) does not change the fact that someone in Missouri can get married. Blue does not signify "states where all the counties offer SSM licenses". All it signifies is the fact that someone can obtain a SSM license within their state (or rather that someone can obtain an SSM license in that state, regardless of their state of origin). The notion of 'local compliance', which you are suggesting here, has been soundly rejected. Shereth 00:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Shereth:What we did to New Mexico and Missouri is relevant. Both of those states were striped and the only reason why KS & MO aren't striped is because the people that didn't want Kansas solid dark blue (which was a lot of people) couldn't agree on what to stripe it or people thought that Kansas was breaking the law by not recognizing same-sex marriages (which isn't necessarily true). I'm not saying we have to create a special color for Kansas's ban on recognition since a partial legality would make it clear that same-sex marriage isn't fully legal, but I do find it point-of-view to color a state that bans it dark blue when only same-sex marriage performance is legal (in some counties), not recognition. Before Kansas, all dark blue states had full statewide same-sex marriage and dark blue was a consolidated color for both performance and recognition. Which brings me to this- who has more rights: a same-sex couple that can get married but doesn't receive recognition from that state (Kansas) or a state that recognizes same-sex marriages and provides them with benefits as long as they were married somewhere else..? Why should Kansas be dark blue while a state where a same-sex couple actually has marriage rights is colored medium blue? Using a color that has traditionally been for consolidated cases for Kansas is wrong, especially since we have a none consolidated color for same-sex marriage recognition. It does seem weird that we don't have a none consolidated color for states with same-sex marriage performance only but a partial legality color that we could also use for Missouri would suffice. Same-sex marriage is still illegal everywhere in Missouri but St. Louis which consequently prevents a same-sex couple from being able to legally obtain a marriage license in every county. And while you claim "blue does not signify 'states where all the counties offer SSM licenses'" the same could be said about gold or red: gold does not signify "states where all the jurisdictions do not offer SSM licenses". Blue signifies states where same-sex marriage is legal and only St. Louis qualifies as that. Gold signifies states where same-sex marriage is banned with a stayed decision overturning it and everywhere in Missouri but St. Louis qualifies as that. Chessrat already explained that the partial legality color is a "catch-all halfway color" proposal, not a local compliance color proposal. If Florida decided to not recognize same-sex marriages even though all counties were issuing same-sex marriages, the state would qualify as partial legality and with every county complying it wouldn't make sense to consider that "local compliance". Prcc27 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Missouri should be stripe then because not all counties are issuing like we did with NM and for Kansas I say to stripe it with dark blue and red as there is still the ban in half the counties. That would solve our problems I believe .--Allan120102 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that those states should be striped, but we couldn't agree on how to stripe/color Kansas in the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Lets finish with Missouri and then we continue with Kansas.--Allan120102 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, the main reason Missouri is solid blue is because it doesn't make sense to have a state that bans recognition solid dark blue (Kansas) while striping Missouri when they recognize same-sex marriages. Otherwise, I would have opposed coloring Missouri solid dark blue. However, if Kansas becomes less complicated and becomes solid dark blue without a footnote, I will propose re-striping Missouri. Prcc27 (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes

How about:

2 Kansas: The ban has been struck down in federal court, but recognition and access to same-sex marriage is not consistent across the state.

3 Missouri: As a result of state court rulings, legal same-sex marriages are fully recognized, and there is limited access to same-sex marriage. A federal ruling striking down the ban has been stayed. Mw843 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the word "limited" would also have to be added for Kansas and the word "licenses" would probably have to be added to the end of the first sentence of footnote 3. But even though I could compromise with this wording I still think it's too vague. This map & template has consistently left out rogue counties and only noted the de jure. AFAIC Same-sex marriage is only de jure legal in St. Louis. Prcc27 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The current wording for Missouri should say "licensed" in three jurisdictions not "performed" since same-sex marriages are performed statewide. However, to avoid violating WP:3RR I will leave it. Prcc27 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

However, since adding words doesn't qualify as a revert, I added St. Louis's de jure status to make the footnote less vague. Prcc27 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Florida 2

All doubt now removed [28]: Florida will be dark blue at 12:01 AM EST on January 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw843 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks for the update. Kumorifox (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Was just about to add this myself. Glad someone beat me to the punch. Congrats to all Floridians! AstareGod (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Was about to add as well lol. As a Floridan, happy for this ruling. Congrats to all who are affected by this. Ghal416 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2015

Congrats Florida if only Kansas and Missouri would be as easy.--Allan120102 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Kansans might order clarification from the judge like the Floridans did. After all, if the Constitution requires the state of Florida to issue and recognise, then it should, by extension, allow Kansas to issue and recognise as well. Kumorifox (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Kansas judge had a teleconference a few days back, setting up a briefing schedule on the new defendants (by the end of January). The Kansas judge seems to not be in much of a hurry, unlike in Florida. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The judge said that the constitution requires the clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples but not the preliminary injunction itself. Basically, the judge is warning the clerks that if they don't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, they could have lawsuits against them. However, even though the ruling only requires that Washington County issues a marriage license to the plaintiffs only- they said "There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case." Here's the AG of Florida's response. So basically the preliminary injunction doesn't legalize same-sex marriage for any county. This seems akin to the Kansas Supreme Court giving clerks the right to issue licenses to same-sex couples without legalizing it statewide. And I'm still not sure Florida is going to recognize same-sex marriages in full. I'm going to reiterate that a local compliance color would be nice since in Kansas and pretty soon Florida same-sex marriage may not be legal/legal statewide but counties are allowed to comply with the ruling if they choose to do so. At the moment I'm not sure how I feel about coloring Florida solid dark blue since same-sex marriage isn't actually being legalized in any county. Does dark blue apply when same-sex marriage isn't legal but counties are allowed to issue licenses to same-sex couples? [29] Prcc27 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So you completely missed the judge's rhetoric and persist in your misreading of the situation. Not surprised. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: I can't properly respond to your comment unless you clarify what it is I misread.. The judge makes it very clear that the ban is unconstitutional but the judge also says that the ruling doesn't require clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Also, I see nothing on recognition! Prcc27 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

From the order [30] "The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses." Mw843 (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Mw843: Oh okay, then it looks like Washington County will be required to issue licenses to all same-sex couples but clerks in other counties can refuse to do so at their own discretion. Furthermore it doesn't look like Florida will be forced to fully recognize same-sex marriages, so with the current consensus Florida would be solid dark blue with a footnote but I'd still prefer implementing a local compliance or partial legality color for states like MO, KS, and now FL. Prcc27 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Read that again: "But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses." (emphasis in original document) - any clerk who refuses to issue a licence will find themselves in state or federal court so fast it will makes their heads spin. And recognition was settled in the original order; see [31] for details, and a link to the original order. No footnotes or new colors needed. Mw843 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Mw843: The judge is referring to the clerk in Washington county only which is why they used the singular form of "clerk" instead of the plural form in the quote you just provided. And clerks in any of the other counties are advised that if they don't issue licenses to same-sex couples they might end up with a preliminary injunction against them. Basically same-sex marriage will only be legal in Washington County, other counties have permission to issue licenses to same-sex couples but can also legally deny them marriage licenses until a judge says otherwise. As for the recognition... I'm not sure who is required to recognize same-sex marriages, the original ruling said something about the defendants and those who work in concert with them but Idk if that covers all aspects of recognition. Only two state departments were listed as defendants and I don't think every state departments acts in concert with them. Yes, footnotes will be needed if counties that weren't listed as defendants refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples or if same-sex marriage recognition is only limited to select state departments. I support solid dark blue for Florida so then it can be consistent with Missouri and Kansas, but I still think it is misleading and would prefer an alternative coloring. Prcc27 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You seem to be the only one who is interpreting it that way. Even the law firm that had previously advised the county clerks against issuing SSM licenses to avoid the threat of fines and jail time has reversed their opinion and is now advising that “The order states that the Constitution requires all clerks to issue marriage licenses to all applicants, regardless of gender” [32] (emphasis mine). Everyone else is interpreting this as "SSM legal across the state" and not "pending patchwork". Even Bondi is relenting on this fight. Why do you persist? Shereth 05:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Shereth: As you said yourself the law firm's interpretation is not legally binding. Bondi didn't concede, instead she said "My office will not stand in the way as clerks of court determine how to proceed." So yes, counties outside of Washington County are allowed to issue licenses to same-sex couples but they can also legally refuse to do so if they're willing to potentially go to court. "In the order, the court specified that the injunction does not require a clerk to issue licenses to same-sex couples other than the plaintiffs" (Attorney General Pam Bondi News Release). The judge said that the constitution requires the clerk (the singular form of the word should be a hint that the judge was referring to Washington County) to issue licenses to all same-sex couples even though the preliminary injunction only required the clerk to issue a license to the plaintiffs only. Prcc27 (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Prcc27: (Quotes are from the order [33]) Yes, the injunction specifies Washington county and the couple(s) in question, since they were the index case, but for every other couple and every other county: "The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses." ... the judge making an order covering any other county would be redundant, a higher authority already controls the clerks' actions ... "There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case. And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees."

And note the statement from the lawyer for the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers: "Judge Hinkle's order (Thursday) states that any clerk refusing to issue a license could be subject to civil damages and liability for the plaintiffs' fees and costs. Greenberg Traurig has advised the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers that clerks should follow the judge's ruling for all marriage-license applications or face the consequences identified by Judge Hinkle."

As for recognition, the departments specified in the original order control the issuing of licences ... once people are married, there is no different treatment. Mw843 (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Mw843: "The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses." "The Clerk" is only referring to Washington County, if the judge was referring to all clerks in the state the judge would have said "the Clerks." Of course any clerk that refuses to issue licenses to same-sex couples could be in deep trouble. However, a same-sex couple will have to go to court and state their case before a county refusing to issue same-sex marriages is required to start issuing them. And there were only select state departments in the original order that were ordered to recognize same-sex marriages. This does not guarantee full recognition for same-sex couples which would merit a footnote. Remember, this map never treated limited recognition as "same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized": Ohio (death certificates), Wyoming (divorce), Missouri & Colorado (joint tax filing). Prcc27 (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Prcc27 give it a rest even Pam Bondi is trying to stay out now. Florida now allow same sex marriage and like other states it will recognized in everything. Even the firm that was saying to county clerks to not issue licenses now say that they can and that all clerks should abide by the constitution. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-gay-marriage-begins-january-6-20150101-story.html http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article5296830.html .--Allan120102 (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Allan120102: First of all, Florida will not recognize everything because only two state departments are required to recognize same-sex marriages. This is very similar to Kansas since only one state department was required to stop enforcing the ban, which is why the state of Kansas is refusing to recognize same-sex marriages. So since Kansas has a footnote about the state not recognizing, Florida will probably have a footnote stating that same-sex marriage isn't recognized in full. "A federal judge says that Florida's county court clerks have a legal duty to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but he has stopped short of ordering them to do so" [34]. The only reason Bondi is "trying to stay out" is because the judge is allowing clerks to follow the ruling but not requiring them to do so. If all counties were required to issue licenses to same-sex couples the judge would have threatened them with contempt of court, not a separate preliminary injunction. Prcc27 (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Prcc27:Stop focusing on one or two sentences, and look at the whole decision. Pay attention to this part: "There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case. And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees."

To summarize: the ban has been struck down by a US District Court judge, a ruling that applies state-wide, he says that the Constitution (his emphasis) requires the clerk in question to issue licences to any same-sex couple, and he warns all the other clerks not to ignore his ruling. And Florida will recognize same-sex marriages: the department that regulates marriage must recognize same-sex marriage, and no other department has a mechanism to not recognize what that department does. Bondi and Scott were dismissed from the original suit because their presence was redundant; only the departments that mattered were covered. Mw843 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mw843: You say "only the departments that mattered were covered", but properly only the departments that mattered to what the plaintiffs were seeking were covered. These plaintiffs weren't trying to adopt or file taxes jointly. So there may be gaps and ultimately Hinkle may even have to expand the list of defendants, as I've said below. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Mw843: "There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this case. And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes, allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees." This means clerks are allowed to issue marriage licenses to all same-sex couples but aren't required to. The clerks that don't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples might eventually have a preliminary injunction against them but until then they can legally deny same-sex marriages. So he says that the Constitution requires Washington County to issue same-sex marriages but even though he warns all other clerks not to ignore his ruling- he didn't order them to comply with it either. As for recognition, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services will administer retirement and healthcare provisions that apply to current and former state employees and the Surgeon General is responsible for the state's death certificate form. It still doesn't look like same-sex couples will be able to file joint taxes, adopt (step-child adoption is legal for same-sex couples though), divorce, change last name, etc. but I could be wrong. Prcc27 (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Prcc27:I'm sorry, but at this point, I think you're just being obtuse; give it up. Mw843 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Mw843: I provided a source that says the judge stopped short of ordering all clerks to issue same-sex marriages. You seem to be interpreting the ruling directly which is original research. Prcc27 (talk)

There's no doubt that Hinkle hasn't ordered other clerks to do anything. He's said what they should do and that if they (and other state officials) don't get his point he's prepared to add plaintiffs and defendants to this case, including even a class of defendants, and make the defendants bear the costs.

Other than that, this is largely an argument about the future. How will a variety of state officials respond? There's no way to be sure. Some resistance wouldn't surprise me, but I think that after Biondi's latest comment we can expect substantial compliance or Hinkle will make it happen quickly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"In a highly unusual order, a federal trial judge in Tallahassee on New Year’s Day moved Florida a long step closer to becoming the thirty-sixth state where same-sex couples can legally get married. The practical effect of the order, though not its specific terms, appears to be that county clerks in all sixty-seven counties will begin issuing licenses as early as Monday." [35] Swifty819 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have added: dark blue as of next Tuesday makes sense to me, given the unlikelihood of any failure to recognize SSM on the part of a FL official in the face of Hinkle's threat. We can add a note if necessary should the situation change. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A footnote should be added if some counties refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as well since they weren't ordered to do so. Prcc27 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No a footnote shouldn't be add because all 67 counties had a conference and agree to issue same sex marriage licenses. This is no Kansas and you should add equality Florida in Facebook so you can see it for yourself that Florida will recognized in everything the same sex couples. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20150102/ARTICLES/150109936 .--Allan120102 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• In that case we wouldn't need a footnote for counties not issuing. However, we'll have to see how recognition plays out. Prcc27 (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait until Monday Tuesday (my mistake) and see what it brings. As it stands, map precedence will have Florida coloured solid dark blue. If there is no resistance from clerks and/or state officials/departments, dark blue will be a flawless and accurate change. If there is any form of resistance, we can always debate about changing the map, since that would make Florida the third state that imposes confusion and difficulties, and by that stage, we can always press the point for further clarification or better colour schemes. But, as some people were pointing out in different discussions, immediately anticipating that Florida will be a difficult state is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot predict this, and we'll have to wait and see. No two ways about it. Kumorifox (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Not Monday. Tuesday. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, so far every Florida Clerk who has been surveyed will issue licences - the only difference has been between "regular business hours" and "12:01 AM". Secondly, you can't lump Missouri in with Kansas; Kansas has imposed confusion and difficulties, Missouri has been scrupulous in its legal dealings. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Missouri and Kansas are pretty much opposites. Kansas is trying to ignore a state-wide decision, while Missouri is trying to expand a local decision. My gut feeling is to stick with dark blue and footnotes for ease of simplicity. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What time does Florida go dark blue..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

At 12:01 am Tuesday January 6, when Hinkle's stay expires. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Eastern Time right? Does the law go into effect at 12:01 a.m. EST for most of the state and 12:01 a.m. CST for the rest of the state since Florida has two different time zones or does it go into effect at the same time since it's based on the time zone of the court that issued the ruling? Also, why 12:01 and not 12:00..? The stay expires at the end of the day Monday which means the map could be updated at 12:00 since it ends at 11:59:59 or earlier right? [36] Prcc27 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Eastern time (the court is in Tallahassee). As for 12:01, that is a legal convention to avoid the potential ambiguity of 12:00 am between noon and midnight, as well as which midnight is meant by "midnight on Monday." See Midnight#Start and end of day. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Dralwik is correct. And Wikipedia isn't NASA. So worrying about time zones and split second transitions just plain doesn't matter. Getting the day correct does. That where I'm seeing confusion. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Miami-Dade stay lifted, marriages starting

According to the Miami Herald, Judge Sarah Zabel lifted the stay she imposed in the Miami-Dade County case, and the county clerk will start issuing licenses at 2 PM Eastern (a little over two hours from now). Since this is a court decision in lieu with the St. Louis City case, should we color Florida blue at 2 PM Eastern, or just wait until the state-wide start tonight?

There may be a better poster child in Wikipedia for WP:NOW than this article, but not many. But even with that, making sure this map is true on a an hour by hour updates for anything other than a real life 28 Days Later or something similar seems a bit much. I say wait for the statewide start at 12:01 AM EST Tuesday.Naraht (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone really wants to flip it to dark blue in an hour, then so be it. If we wait until sometime tomorrow, then so be it. Let's not get caught up in any kind of pointless arguments or, worse, edit wars over the timing; if someone does pull the trigger early and goes dark blue in the interim, I'd rather not see people reverting over nonsense like the exact hour. Shereth 17:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait and let someone else add Florida. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for same-sex marriage to be legal statewide. However, for the sake of consistency Florida should be dark blue right now! Prcc27 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

People are already confused about Florida being dark blue "Wikipedia is calling it a few hours early" (Joe.My.God.). Now might be a good time to implement a partial legality color. And since not all counties will be complying at 12:01 a.m. we might still need a footnote until all counties are complying (with the exception of Washington County because regardless of when they start issuing, the ruling that affects them goes into effect at 12:01 a.m.). Prcc27 (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's my proposed wording for Florida when 12:01 a.m. strikes: "Only select counties within Florida issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but all counties announced that they will be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on January 6, 2015." Same-sex marriage is currently de jure legal in Miami-Dade, will be de jure legal in Washington County at 12:01 a.m. (regardless of when they start issuing), and will be de facto legal/somewhat de jure legal in the rest of the counties when they start complying which will be 12:01 a.m. for some but not all. Prcc27 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Do I even have have to state why? If all counties are issuing then all counties are issuing, no footnote required. The distinction is nitpicking at its worst. Shereth 01:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I would leave off a footnote for Florida until we come into difficulties like a county outright refusing. We didn't wait to check if every county in say, Montana was issuing as soon as the ruling went into effect before coloring it blue and I don't see why Florida would be any different. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh okay. Prcc27 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Kansas footnote

Could someone explain why we are invited to discuss the Kansas footnote with a link that points to no specific discussion on a talk page other than this one. What's the issue? I'm sure we can write a better footnote, but the person adding the discussion tag should lead off the discussion and link to that discussion, no? I've modified the discuss tag to point here.

The footnote reads:

Only select jurisdictions within Kansas issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state government.

I would say "Not all jurisdictions" rather than "only select jurisdictions", since as of January 7, 2015, the counties that do issue SSM licenses cover 80% of the population. And I'd make the second half of the sentence active voice. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: The main issue was Missouri's footnote, but someone tried to add federal recognition references to both states' footnotes and we settled with a broad federal recognition footnote instead. Someone proposed changing the wording for Kansas here so I kept the discussion tag up for Kansas even though the recognition part of the footnote was settled. Prcc27 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying the 2 discuss tags can be removed or not? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support Kansas's discuss tag being removed, but I still think Missouri's footnote needs to be discussed. St. Louis is the only jurisdiction in Missouri where same-sex marriage is legal; the other jurisdictions are rogue counties and don't need to be noted. Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So point the MO discuss tag to a discussion (as I did the discuss tag for KS) and explain the issue. If there's no place for discussion, the tag is pointless. Or eternal. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to re-propose the text I suggested about 10 days ago ... discussion sort of fizzled out:

2 [Same-sex marriage in Kansas|Kansas]: The ban has been struck down in federal court, but recognition and access to same-sex marriage is not consistent across the state.

3 [Same-sex marriage in Missouri|Missouri]: As a result of state court rulings, legal same-sex marriages are fully recognized, and there is limited access to same-sex marriage. A federal ruling striking down the ban has been stayed.

I think it would be preferable to make the footnote a brief, high-level, summary, with a link, rather than try and include every legal nuance. Mw843 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Your Kansas footnote suggestion isn't too bad but it seems kind of vague. Also, the "federal court" and "state court" references in both footnotes might be a little excess. Missouri is not a "legal nuance" whatsoever; same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis and St. Louis only and that's all that needs to be noted. "Limited access" is way too vague since it is quite clear that St. Louis has legal same-sex marriages. The rogue counties on the other are not bound by any of the court rulings, nor are they permitted to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Even if we went with your "state court ruling" wording (which I don't think we should) it would be inaccurate since one of the rogue counties is issuing in response to the federal ruling. I prefer the original wording: "Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis, Missouri." Prcc27 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Missouri's footnote is being discussed here. Prcc27 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I still think it's ludicrous to have Kansas and Missouri in dark blue. Bring back the medium blue! The map is simply not accurate, and no amount of footnotes can change that. Kansas and Missouri are not in the same class as, say Massachusetts or California. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree strongly: medium blue with footnotes. Also, I don't know if anyone noticed but the map here is different from the world map of same-sex marriage, where MO is green blue and KS is light blue! This REALLY needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.70.183 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather use a green or gray color for partial legality so we don't have to get rid of the recognition color (however, I do think this map needs a recognition ban color for Kansas). I agree that the current setup is grossly inaccurate! There's already a partial legality proposal in one of the previous sections. Prcc27 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If they're not blue with footnotes, KS and MO can't be the same color; their legal situations are virtually the opposite of each other. Mw843 (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• KS and MO have more in common with each other than the other dark blue states. Missouri would be striped medium blue-partial and Kansas would only be colored partial so they wouldn't be the same color.. Prcc27 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

80.99.70.183 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)OK, but something needs to change either in this map or the world map. Providing contradictory information is worse than providing no information at all.

South Dakota struck and stayed

Ruling here [37]. Mw843 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)