File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

DC, again

Sorry to bring up the DC thing again -- but the next iteration of this map should put a thin white outline around the DC dot to differentiate it from the MD striping and the two blue tones that are currently touching but are different colors. This is the style used the outline states throughout the map -- so should be non-controversial and allow better clarity. 65.196.160.129 (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally concur. That's the way I have felt since it can be difficult to see it. Yankhill (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Although home rule allows congressional overview of laws passed by the DC council, both Republicans and Democrats have indicated that a congressional review of the new law is unlikely, considering how much is on their plates right now. Mayor Fenty has promised to sign the bill into law. Therefore I don't think it would be too presumptuous to change DC to dark blue (with a white outline around it). --Wbush89 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Washington

According to information stated on Advocate.com, the group trying to overturn the domestic partnership law submitted their signatures to put it on a ballot. Because of this, the law has been put on hold. So it may be considered to change the color of Washington- for the time being- until we have an invalidation of the signatures or a result from the November election. Yankhill (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Can go to this site for information: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid102466.asp OR Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Washington

The sigs have yet to be verified. Initiatives tend get a lot of invalid signatures. The Washington state government folks need to process these signatures to see how many are valid. It wouldn't be a surprise if proLGBT groups gave fake signatures (i.e. John Doe, 123 Fake St., Seattle WA) on these horrid referenda. Those kinds of action (which I personally find noble) are illegal and they throw off the initiatives invalidated hundreds or thousands of signatures. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

lets just wait for the signatures to get verified or rejected. If they get verified, then I will lighten WA's stripes, but until then the stripes should be dark. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have been monitoring news activity on this on a daily basis. [1] Given their current error rate, assuming erroneous signatures are uniformly distributed throughout, it is quite possible that this will not make the ballot, I will be checking this on a daily basis. If it turns out they do have enough signatures, I will lighten the stripes quickly. I do not know how to add a ballot box icon to any state, so someone else will have to do that part Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have new numbers to give? [2] --haha169 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[3]. Ignore the strucken portions of my prior statement. They changed the math (literally), so now it isn't very clear if this initiative will actually occur or not. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Coquille

I am getting the feeling that Template:SSM is not very active anymore, so I will bring the matter of Coquille to this map talk. Coquille, Oregon has recently enacted a same-sex marriage law that went into effect yesterday. Because Coquille is an Indian Tribe recognized as sovereign by the federal government, Coquille is legally allowed to perform same-sex marriages. Should we put a dot on the tribal lands as we did with DC? --haha169 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a map for reference: [4] --haha169 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are there any Coquille same-sex marriages that have been performed? Can they be performed on non-tribe members? Fortuynist (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

One marriage has already been performed. [5] The law states that one person in the marriage has to be part of the tribe, but not both. --haha169 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I for one support including the area the Coquille government has jurisdiction over in the map, in its true form rather than as a dot, if indeed they have any territory. The map linked above appears to only show the traditional homelands of the native people in question — not where their reservation is, or anything like that. I don't know anything about the Coquille people, unfortunately. Do they have territory of their own? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 07:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It might confuse some people who are not used to seeing Indian Tribes on maps. Fortuynist (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true, I guess. Also, it appears their territory is non-contiguous, so that makes the code too complicated. A dot placed in the approximate area might suffice. However, I'm concerned that it would look cluttered. It would be superimposed on a striped state. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 22:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support for the purple dot. I support Coquille as a purple dot on the map in Oregon. Remember Oregon bans same-sex marriages in the Consitution since 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Today's reservation lands grant the Coquille Indian Tribe parts of the land in the Siletz_Indian_Reservation in addition with other lands. I'm not sure if the confederated tribes of Siletz (which the Coquille are a part of) recognize the marriages, though. --haha169 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to adjust map concerning recognition of same-sex relationships

The map currently distinguishes four kinds of recognition of same-sex relationships:

1. Same-sex marriage fully legal within the state
2. Other same-sex unions granting rights equal or similar to marriage
3. Other same-sex unions granting limited or enumerated rights
4. Recognition of foreign same-sex marriages only

In the proposed replacement map, the four-tone scheme has been condensed into three. This makes the whole thing more symmetrical. And it gets rid of the problem that no four shades of blue are different enough from each other, and also from gray, to keep the map legible.

Clearly, however, one of the classes of recognition of same-sex relationships had to be discarded. In the currently proposed replacement, the "foreign" class is gone. So the scheme is marriage/similar/limited. But I think some others have proposed getting rid of the distinction between similar and limited unions, creating a marriage/union/foreign distinction. I think it's worth discussing the benefits and drawbacks of both schemes, and which one we prefer.

One issue to be decided is which option better reveals the important information. Do we want to show the viewer that NY and DC both recognize foreign same-sex marriages, unlike RI and NM? Since DOMA allows states to elect to recognize other states' same-sex marriages, I think this is important information. Or it more important that OR, CA, WA, NH, and NJ grant more substantial rights with their civil unions or domestic partnerships than HI, CO, and MD do? Some people seem to find this distinction important. Case in point, some in Washington are challenging the new "everything-but-marriage" domestic partner law on the grounds that it's too similar to marriage.

Another problem concerns DC. With the former option, marriage/similar/limited, DC would be solid medium blue. With the latter, marriage/union/foreign, DC would be striped. Some technical workarounds have been discussed to allow stripes. The questions we want to ask ourselves are: Do we want to let the technical problems determine for us which information to show in the first place? Do we want to decide what's best for the overall map, and then fix the technical difficulties it causes for DC for accuracy's sake? Or do we want to forget accuracy in DC's case and simply make an exception?

Personally, I suggest marriage/union/foreign for the following reasons:

• World homosexuality laws.svg makes this distinction, and logically this map is a subset of World homosexuality laws.svg.
• The similar/limited distinction doesn't seem vast enough to me. The general public, I casually observe, tends to not make this distinction except in the specific situation where civil union rights have been expanded "too much," such as in Washington.
• It seems more symmetrical. On the other end of the spectrum, we distinguish statutory bans on same-sex marriage, constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, and constitutional bans on marriage and civil unions. A fourth distinction can be made, and it is made in Defense of marriage amendment types US.svg, which seems to be the "antipode" to the similar/limited distinction. But we don't make this distinction.

I recognize that this introduces technical issues for DC, but I reject the idea of letting those issues defeat us. These issues ought to be separate from the overall question of which information to show in the first place. We can work out a solution separately from this discussion.

Thoughts? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 07:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider, which may or may not be an issue - are there additional states that recognize foreign marriages that also allow for some sort of civil unions or gay marriage? I lean toward removing the foreign recognition category because it felt like a placeholder - a "well, at least we've got something." But should it have technically been applied to other states? For example, does Maine recognize foreign same-sex marriages? That would seem to me to call for it to be striped dark blue and (presumably) light blue. D.C., at least, would be striped medium blue and light blue. But having two colors from the same side of the spectrum on one state seems to defeat the purpose of a graded color system. Essentially, I would argue that recognition of foreign same-sex marriages is a distinct, separate issue because it could feasibly be unconnected with the other categories.

What would happen if, say, Washington or New Hampshire enacted a law recognizing foreign same-sex marriages? Not only would we need to mix two positive rights in the striping scheme, we'd need to adjust the code again to allow for three different colors of stripes for the state. Like you said, the fact that something is technically hard isn't a reason to avoid doing it, but recognition seems to disconnected for me. As for the idea of modeling this map after File:World homosexuality laws.svg, New York is the only territory on that map that falls into the "foreign same-sex marriages recognized" category. The shade is not used for any other state or country, and in fact was grafted onto the map in December 2007, without any discussion I can find. I would lean against doing anything here just because it's on that map. In fact, I know there are countries in Europe that also recognize foreign marraiges, but it's not indicated on that map, even though I'm sure all the countries with some other shade of blue don't recognize foreign unions. It's a subset, not a distinct category, and I would argue the distinction between limited and similar civil unions imparts more useful information. Newsboy85 (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What would happen if, say, Washington or New Hampshire enacted a law recognizing foreign same-sex marriages? Impossible, because their state DOMAs forbid it. Every one except Wyoming's does, and conservatives there are pushing for a constitutional amendment that will ban those and more. Fortuynist (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For accuracy's sake, I should point out that it is possible to amend a statute, such as these two states' DOMAs, to allow recognition of foreign marriages. Unless these states' legislatures have bound themselves in a special way so that they can't do that, and I'm unaware of it. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

1. World homosexuality laws.svg uses that theme? Well, maybe there's not enough diversity in the world as there is between the states for that kind of distinction. There is no justification for their scheme except path dependence.
2. "The general public" has a hard time making distinctions between religious and civil marriage also. The legal difference, and practical differences for same-sex couples are vast.
3. There are unique types of bans, such as the ban on contracts between cohabitating same-sex persons as you said, and there are unique forms of recognition like recognition of foreign same-sex marriages.

I think your distinction between foreign marriages and full marriages is very artificial, and ironically, you do not hesitate to merge similar and dissimilar marriage-like unions in the same way. This is about having four shades of blue, except we do not need four shades of blue. We can use black or yellow for full marriage. Fortuynist (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

All interesting points.

Newsboy, as for states that have legalized same-sex marriage within their borders I think it's the norm that the state will also recognize other states' marriages. It's not the norm, however, for states that do not perform same-sex marriages. So stripes would be redundant for states like Maine. I think some states with civil unions or domestic partnerships grant recognition to foreign same-sex marriages, but only as equivalent to a civil union. In this case, I think the stripe showing recognition of foreign same-sex marriages would be technically inaccurate.

I don't think using two colors from the same end of the spectrum in one state is necessarily pointless, unless our goal is to show the maximum level of rights same-sex couples have, rather than maximum information. I remember when marriage was legal in California that it was striped. The state court did not strike down domestic partnerships, only the law that same-sex couples cannot marry. Both marriages and domestic partnerships were available. Connecticut had the same treatment until the legislature harmonized their laws with the court ruling. It might seem redundant, but I'm inclined to disagree.

New York is actually not the only jurisdiction shown on the world map to recognize foreign marriages (but I still recognize and concede Newsboy's point that very few jurisdictions do). Israel also recognizes foreign marriages. And the overseas territories of the Netherlands have to recognize all marriages contracted anywhere in the Netherlands, even though they themselves refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

Fortuynist, you have a good point that recognition of foreign marriages is "special" just like bans on even remotely marriage-like contracts between same-sex persons. As for the argument that my proposal is arbitrary, I don't see how it's more arbitrary than the current approach. One could argue that you're either married or you're not, and worrying about what kind of non-marriage you have is arbitrary. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The non-marriages that states compromise for are arbitrary, but they can all be seen as steps toward legal recognition of same-sex marriage, because such an institution as civil unions cannot stand because of the obvious difference between that and marriage, despite its being created for sameness between it and marriage. I would like to reflect this in a color scale. Black is marriage. Blue is steps toward, but not quite marriage. Grey is no marriage. Red is you can't have marriage, and I'm going to stop you from trying to get it in the future by setting up legal hurdles for you to cross! Fortuynist (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the marriage/unions/foreign model, even though I also think that maintaining the existing four categories is pretty useful. There is a significant diversity between different types of unions, ranging from civil unions offering all of the rights and registration procedures of marriage to "reciprocal beneficiary" laws that offer very few rights. Nevertheless, if we need just three categories, maintaing the "SSM recognised" category is more useful. In those states where SSM is recognised but not performed, such as NY and DC, same-sex couples have all of the rights of married couples. This is quite a substantial status and should be reflected on the map. Ronline ✉ 14:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally love this map: VoodooIsland (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Same-sex marriages

  Foreign same-sex marriages recognized

△  Unions granting rights similar to marriage ▽  Unions granting limited/enumerated rights

  Statute bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

Ugh. Just Ugh. Icons on the states are the antithesis of easy to use, and breaking off New England is a poor solution. Plus, the idea of the stripes is to identify both positive and negative rights equally, something that a little triangle on a big red state doesn't accomplish.

So are we going to update a map? I still think we should post up the last red/blue striped map, at the very least to see what other people think outside the core of about half a dozen people who have been commenting here. I think it would be good to get some additional opinions, since I don't think there's a consensus on marriage/similar/limited vs. marriage/unions/foreign, although there does seem to be a consensus that the new map is an improvement over the current one. What do you guys think? Newsboy85 (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the icons are distracting. Hopefully the solids and stripes is enough to convey as much information as possible. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the proposed map is way up the page, I'm going to repost it here. It has been updated for Nevada and New Hampshire. I would like to upload it soon, but I don't want to step on any toes. If you want, I can upload another version to see what it would look like on a marriage/unions/foreign split, but I favor the current proposal. Newsboy85 (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! Looking forward to seeing it being used. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  Same-sex marriages

  Unions granting rights similar to marriage

  Unions granting rights limited/enumerated rights

  No specific prohibition of or allowance for same-sex marriages or unions

  Statute bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

  Same-sex marriages

  Unions granting rights similar to marriage or limited/enumerated rights

  Foreign same-sex marraiges recognized

  No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions

  Statute bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

I went ahead and whipped it up. marriage/similar/limited is on the left, marriage/unions/foreign is on the right. They're very similar, but I prefer the one on the left. Newsboy85 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that it looks like New York may soon be dark blue, which would mean the only light blue being used on the marriages/unions/foreign map would be half of D.C. I would think the use of the shade would be much more useful to distinguish between unions similar to marriage and unions granting similar/enumerated rights. Newsboy85 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but Washington, D.C. is still a problem which cannot be ignored after July 6. I say we use a special symbol for that. Not a color, but something like a triangle. It's just like the stripes. Fortuynist (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the map and legend I see on the left. There should be distinctions between enumerated rights and separate but (un)equal rights. We should just use a new shade of grey for DC & NY. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Random Break

  Same-sex marriages

  Unions granting rights similar to marriage

  Unions granting rights limited/enumerated rights

  Foreign same-sex marriages recognized

  No specific prohibition of or allowance for same-sex marriages or unions

  Statute bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

My proposal. I added a new shade of grey for foreign marriages. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call D.C. a problem. I would think it's more of a problem that we have a color being applied to a state and half a circle - possibly just half a circle - that could conceivably be striped onto any state that approves gay marriages, or could need to be striped as a third color onto any other state, something the map can't handle. (After all, on the current map, why aren't there light blue stripes on every purple state? It's not worded in a way to prohibit this.) I think it's an issue that's better left of this map entirely, allowing it to simply be about what each state makes allowances for, not how the state treats things performed elsewhere. Newsboy85 (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And ... discussion dies again. I think we're just going in circles at this point. Let's gauge how everyone's feeling with an informal poll. (As always, this isn't a vote, just a way of checking how opinions are running.) I really want to get something done if we're going to do it. I'm still putting my support behind marriage/similar/limited. The other options are marriage/unions/foreign, marriage/similar/limited/foreign (with the extra shade of gray) and to keep the current map as it stands. Newsboy85 (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I like Same-sex marriage in USA new4.svg, the marriage/similar/limited option with the extra shade of gray. I don't think the words of the legend need to be changed, correct? If so, then after consensus, these new colors can be phased in. But we must not neglect other language Wikipedias this time. Fortuynist (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the map with 2 shades of gray and i think it should be posted now to see what other people think too but if not i like marriage unions foreign The truth maker (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know the map I posted above is simply the same as the current version of the map except with colorblind-friendly colors. I could easily change the color scheme on the current map to match CB-friendly colors. Also, we have change the hexadecimal colors numbers in the svg file and in the wikimedia description. (and we will need someone to go to all the articles that use this map and fix the legend colors, which can be time consuming) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The coding of File:Same-sex marriage in USA new4.svg now matches the coding structure of File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the map with three shades of blue and two shades of gray. That seems like a suitable compromise. But if for some reason we decide against that map, I still back the marriage/unions/foreign distinction over the alternative. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 16:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems we have a consensus. Unless major objections are soon registered, I will move to implement map 4 and start changing the legends on all the pages that use the map, on English Wikipedia and foreign. Fortuynist (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's at least better than the current one. All I can hope is that these states get their acts together and eliminate the dark gray and stripes for me. :) Let me know if I can lend a hand with anything, though the code looks good, and I can't really help with translations. Newsboy85 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have transitioned the image everywhere except for a locked Italian page. Fortuynist (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That page has been fixed Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone, and the help with implementation. I think the new map is a definite immprovement. Here's to the day we don't need stripes (or shades of red) anymore. Newsboy85 (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

possible need of triple striping on MD

http://lezgetreal.com/?p=13899

it is not for sure whether or not foreign SSMs will be recognized in MD, but if they are, we will need someone to triple stripe Maryland Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed a slight possibility, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Legally, I'm not sure how his opinion could run counter to current state law. The Maryland courts have already upheld the SSM ban in the state and I don't think Gensler can just wish that away. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

His opinion, by definition, cannot run counter to state law, unless the state supreme court disagrees. The idea is he is interpreting the law, in his authority as the state's top legal advisor, to determine whether the law even forbids recognition of foreign same-sex marriages — and thus, whether such a ban should be enforced. The state courts may have upheld the ban on same-sex marriage within the state, but recognition of foreign marriages as it relates to domestic laws regulating marriage is a separate matter. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interpreting the law, as you put it, is the job of the courts--they determine what the law means, not the Attorney General. Maryland's current ban that was upheld by the the Maryland Court of Appeals states, "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State." I don't think that can get any clearer and Gensler is totally overstepping his authority. In any event, the entire discussion is hypothetical. If, for some reason, Gensler feels he can permit state agencies to recognize out-of-state gay marriages his decision will be immediately stayed by the courts. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 02:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The executive branch of the government — to which the attorney general belongs, if I'm not mistaken — is tasked with enforcement of the law. To do that, it must know what the law actually says. Ultimately, that's why the judicial branch exists. But since they only get to consider the issue in the context of a court case, and since the executive may want a legal opinion right away, at least until the judiciary finally has a chance to weigh in, that's why the attorney general exists. He decides what the law says, with the important caveat that his say is not final.

I haven't looked at the Maryland court's opinion, but I'm guessing the court only addressed the issue from a wholly domestic point of view. If they had specifically added, "and by the way, foreign marriages are covered by this ban too," then the attorney general wouldn't even be considering the question, because there wouldn't be any question. If he were really overstepping his authority, a whole lot more people would be exclaiming this. You say the law is clear, and at first blush it looks clear to me too, but there must be a reason the attorney general is even considering the law's effect on recognition of foreign marriages.

I will look up the situation in Wyoming, where I've heard foreign marriages might have to be recognized according to the law, and in New York, where there's apparently a statute banning same-sex marriage domestically but the governor has ordered recognition of foreign marriages. I'm guessing the situation in Maryland is similar. But I'll have to see. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 02:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just about technicalities: If the AG does make the state recognize foreign same-sex marriages, then we're screwed. There is no way that three colored stripes could be implemented with the current stripe thickness without making the DC area and MD area look like a rainbow. --haha169 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There would be no purpose for the yellow if the state did recognize foreign same-sex marriages, since the DOMA ONLY deals with the recognition of marriages in Maryland; eligibility is determined in another place which happens to use gendered language. Fortuynist (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. You're right. --haha169 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Michigan, Virginia, South Dakota, Nebraska

Also, what should be done about the mentioned four states when the time comes to agree on a new map? Those four states ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships; with Michigan and Virginia going even farther to ban all forms of private contracts between members of the same-sex. I feel that this is an important distinction to make, especially if the proposed domestic partnership bill is passed in Wisconsin, as I'm sure that quite a few people will be scratching their heads when they see Wisconsin striped (if we use stripes) with a domestic partnership stripe and a "constitution bans all kinds of same-sex unions." Only Michigan, Virginia, South Dakota, and Nebraska truly do this: though the list could grow if the Supreme Court interprets a ban in the same fashion as Michigan. Several other courts in various different states have also ruled that their ballot bans did not limit domestic partnerships, which was the case in Utah and Wisconsin. Either way, I feel that the current titling of the red-colored ban is very misleading, and could perhaps be changed to "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and civil unions," while the proposed color for Michigan, Virginia, South Dakota and Nebraska could be "Constitution bans all forms of same-sex unions." VoodooIsland (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

'Civil unions' is a bad term to use, because it doesn't have a consistent legal definition, and California and Oregon's domestic partnerships' names imply something weaker than a CU but are in fact just as strong. "Bans same-sex marriage and similar legal unions" is fine for red. We can and should change that right now. We just need translations for it. Fortuynist (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, I think that wording is much better. Anyway, I have zero experience with translations on Wikipedia, so if anyone can do the translations, that would be great. VoodooIsland (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The map is complicated enough. The distrinction between banning marriage and banning more than that is sufficient imo. For specifics about the amendments people can look at their articles and the featured list of marriage amendments. Hekerui (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

While that would be a possibility, neither of the four states nor the majority of US states have articles about same-sex unions on Wikipedia, and even then, I feel that such a distinction could be helpful to those who were interested in seeing how limiting each ban was per state, or if a same-sex union could be enabled in a particular state. Anyway, it was just an idea, so I'm interested in hearing feedback from anyone interested or doesn't mind adding their thoughts. VoodooIsland (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Types of defense-of-marriage constitutional amendments.

I should note that there is no consensus on Wikipedia, or elsewhere, that I know of that says SD and NE have bans similar to those in MI and VA. This is why the map showing the types of constitutional bans all the states have (to the right) only shows MI and VA as having the most restrictive bans. It's also why the relevant article treats the issue similarly. The issue has been discussed on the relevant article's talk page. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 05:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

i think that we should have a new color (black) for states banning domestic partnerships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth maker (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

New york dc and states with civil unions

I think the color scheme would be better if the colors used for similar rights unions and foreign marriage were switched because this is a primarily marriage map so any form of accepted marriage should be above civil unions. please camment The truth maker (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What colors are "above" each other is subjective right now. We plan to move to a graduated red to blue color scheme anyway. Fortuynist (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

i see the same problem in the proposed new map it puts unions above forign marriage i think it should be the other way around —Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth maker (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe practically, for those rich enough to fly to Spain for their marriage, it is higher, but under the law, recognizing foreign marriages is no more than what states would be obligated to do under the Constitution if it weren't for DOMA. It's not a negative denial of rights, but it is less than a positive affirmation of rights with civil unions. Fortuynist (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Foreign same-sex marriages recognized" should read "Out-of-state"

This is just a note that I have been bold and changed the English legend on Commons (and {{Samesex marriage in USA map}} on en.wiki) to read "Out-of-state" instead of "foreign" (more accurate wording). New York and D.C. (effective tomorrow) recognize all out-of-state SSM's, not only foreign SSM's. I will not edit war if someone reverts this, but leaving a note here in case anyone objects. Wikignome0529 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Foreign" does not mean "foreign country", but "foreign jurisdiction", since states have their own laws. Fortuynist (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

fair enough, though even if you did specify in the legend that it referred to "foreign jurisdiction", many people (lay people at least, like me) would mistakenly think it was referring to out-of-country SSM's following common usage of the word. :-/ Wikignome0529 (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Will D.C. recognize same-sex marriages from out of country? If they won't, the "out of state" language might actually mean something. Fortuynist (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet, New York recognizes those from Canada. --haha169 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Found this pdf through ref#13 of Recognition of same-sex unions in the District of Columbia... appears to accept both US and non-US unions: “Sec. 1287a. Recognition of Marriages from Other Jurisdictions. - A marriage legally entered into in another jurisdiction between 2 persons of the same sex that is recognized as valid in that jurisdiction, that is not expressly prohibited by sections 1283 through section 1286, and has not been deemed illegal under section 1287, shall be recognized as a marriage in the District.” Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, "out of state" implies an exclusive recognition of national marriages to the exclusion of international ones, because by "state" you are meaning "U.S. state" How does "out of jurisdiction" sound? Fortuynist (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Foreign jurisdiction is the probably the clearest we can get. Also, out of state wouldn't work. DC is not a state. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support either grey's suggestion above (though it uses "Foreign", at least it is less vague than "Foreign marriages") or "Marriages recognized, but not performed" as Template:SSM uses (that might be too vague also though). I still think out-of-state (or "Foreign and out-of-state" to avoid implying only-US out-of-state marriages) fits more with non-lawyer/layperson speak, but not sure how to address Grey's point about DC without getting very wordy ("Foreign and out-of-state/territory/district/commonwealth....") Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized Does that work? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the best so far. Fortuynist (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

agree, it gets the point across in plain language. works for me :) Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated the legend on Commons, and the legend template on en.wiki Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that other languages seems not to have had the same ambiguity that the English legend had, I don't think we have to get a translator to fix the other languages. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Including US territories

I was wonder, now that we have adopted a colorblind Wikipedian-friendly color scheme, the next big improvement for the map would be to try to add the territories to the map. Does anyone know how this can be done? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

On a normal map, include the code from a map with territories, like this one. But we would need stripes for this map. Fortuynist (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  Same-sex marriages

  Unions granting rights similar to marriage

  Unions granting rights limited/enumerated rights

  Foreign same-sex marriages recognized

  No specific prohibition of or allowance for same-sex marriages or unions

  Statute bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

I copied that code, except from another map (File:United States Administrative Divisions.svg). Striping may eventually be necessary in the future. I am not sure if we need it at the time being. I am still looking into the SSM laws for the territories, so I can now which class to put each of them into on the svg coding. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I need someone to find out the laws in American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Puerto Rico and Guam were relatively easy to find out, but I can't find the legal situations in the aforementioned territories Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which one is which (except for Puerto Rico), so I'm not sure which island is named what - but three of them are shaded black. What does that mean? --haha169 (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The black ones are American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. They are black because they have not been assigned a class Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is this information on Puerto Rico? According the the "LGBT_rights_in_Puerto_Rico" entry, same-sex marriage is not banned (and may even be mandated) without a constitutional amendment, which was rejected. Everything I've read has indicated local law or custom does not recognize gay marriage, but the same could be said of New Mexico and Rhode Island. If there is a specific law, can you site a code section?Theknightswhosay (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the statues and the constitutions of both Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, and I can confirm for a fact that neither of these places have any form of ban on same-sex marriage or other kinds of same-sex unions (akin to New Mexico.) I read that a proposal was submitted in 2003 to ban same-sex marriage in American Samoa (not clear if it was statute or constitutional ban), but I do not know the outcome of the ban. I will check the statues and constitution. VoodooIsland (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• No constitutional ban in American Samoa;[6] not yet clear on statutes...
• UPDATE: No statutory ban either: [7]

Great! Now all we need to do is get the information for the US Virgin Islands and the territory map will be good to go. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

After doing some wikireading it appears VI does not have any constitution, so I will look out to see if they have any statutes. It looks like VI will either be grey or be pink Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead an update the main map with territories as no one seemed to opposed the idea of adding them Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the additions! The map looks much better with their inclusion. VoodooIsland (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

New Map is Ugly and Hard to Read

I know that the colors were changed to help red-green colorblind people read the map, but it makes it harder for everyone else! Can't we display the original map and include a link underneath it for colorblind people? 96.233.145.220 (talk)

When I saw this map for the first time, I too thought it was uncomfortable and strange. But as I got used to the colors, as I and you did before when they were much more diverse (and arbitrary), they made better sense. How are yellow, orange, and purple intuitively connected to anything? Red means a ban, and blue means affirmation. Lighter is weaker, darker is stronger, both ways. I don't think many people agree with your opinion of the new map, by the way. Fortuynist (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with the IP on this one. The new map is really pretty terrible. It actually makes my eyes hurt if I look at it for a few seconds, and the different shades of blue are particularly hard to tell apart. Making changes to help colourblind people is a good thing, but not at the expense of readability. Can we get a consensus to revert to the old one until we come up with something better? Firestorm ^Talk 22:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was to change it to these colors. I don't think there is anything wrong with the current scheme Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Be more specific about what you don't like. Which states hurt the eyes, and which don't? Can you figure out why? No, an immediate revert would not be possible, because while changing the English Wikipedia is easy because of a template, changing it on the German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Chinese, etc. Wikipedias is not. The current change took weeks of negotiating between many consensus criteria, not just colorblindness. Read this discussion for one of them. Fortuynist (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The new map is a giant improvement in colorblind accessibility (getting away from red/green), and shifting to 1 color for positive rights and 1 color for negative rights/bans. The color scheme could use a little refinement to be easier on the eyes though, if they could be shifted away from loud shades (like the cyan on Unions with limited rights & the loud red on Constiution bans SSM) and more toward toned down/darkened some? (some of the shades are a little loud -- and while the pink on "statute bans" isn't loud, its light color at first glance implies a positive right, not a negative right/ban) Here is 1 possible change, (though the shades might look too similar? more hex color codes are at [8] and [9])

Current scheme

  SSM

  Unions similar

  Unions limited

  Foreign SSM

  No specific prohibition or recognition

  Statute bans SSM

  Constitution bans SSM

  Constitution bans SSM and other

shades changed:

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Wikignome0529 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The colors selected are web-safe colors. While not strictly necessary on modern computers, it's a good way to maximize differentiation between shades. I realize this means it's a little off-tone for the lightest shades, but it does make it easier to read - I don't think there's enough difference in your suggested color scheme, especially between medium red and light red. I know you're trying to avoid an outright pink, and I attempted the same thing, but I did my best to strike a balance between clarity and aethetics. Newsboy85 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do have to say that I now enjoy this map better than I had previously, and I'm glad that the shades did change a little. They do help make it better and easier to read. I now appreciate the symmetry of blue being pro same-sex marriage and red being against it. It looks good. Thank you. Yankhill (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Web-safe colors aren't as relevent as they used to be, except for any mobile devices still using 256-color screens... The pink actually is the least of the problems imho - it doesn't hurt the eyes, it just intuitively looks more like a "positive" (rights) colors until the reader checks the legend, which is why I tried to darken it some to fit better into the red gradient used. It's not a big deal, though. The bright red (constitution SSM ban), cyan (Unions with limited rights), and the blue/red shades combination (West coast) are the biggest offenders toward making the map "loud"/hard on the eyes, like original poster pointed out. All of that aside though, the map is a great improvement as some other posters noted, and I have no desire to edit war or fight this. just jumped in once the issue was raised. (doubt this will be the last thread posted on this topic) Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(response to above) The consensus of about three people. I guarantee you, most people are like me and like the older map better. These are not majority decisions here, there is no strawpoll, no nothing and the bold person wins out. Fine with me. But, I have red-green weakness and Colorado looks really crass. Hekerui (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Love the new map! Glad to see it was finally implemented. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There were way more than three people involved in the decision to use this color scheme. Look at the extensive number of users who participated in the discussion above. Anyways, I am soon going to update the map to include the territories (see the discussion above), please try to keep them on the map if you attempt a revert war Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to the question of what exactly makes my eyes hurt, its the striping on California, Nevada and Colorado. that red/blue striping contrasts really weird and I can't look at it for long. The other striped states I can look at just fine. I do have somewhat of a red-green weakness (but not full-on RG colourblindness), but i'm not sure if that's a valid possibility as to why that happens. Firestorm ^Talk 03:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, California, Nevada, and Oregon really contrast horribly, and make my eyes hurt. I don't like this new color change either. CTJF83Talk 07:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In the end, color contrast is always going to be somewhat of a problem as long as stripes are used. I argued for their removal, but I understand the idea of the need to display both positive and negative rights. Indigo and orange stripes weren't any better than the current red or blue, they were simply arbitrary color selections. At least the color scheme now makes logical sense, and is readable for colorblind users. Newsboy85 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In defense of the old map, the old color scheme was NOT arbitrary. The colors used went in the order of colors on the rainbow: red meaning the most repressive restrictions on same-sex relationships to violet meaning full marriage rights. Hot colors were restrictions and cool colors were rights granted. 96.233.145.220 (talk)

California, Oregon and Nevada are extremely difficult to look at and give me a headache. Please consider changing the shades of red/blue slightly so that I can actually look at these states for more than 5 seconds. By darkening the shades of red, this could be easily fixed. --68.184.215.186 (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents — I supported the new map over the old one; though I can see why the new map is gaining some criticism. I agree that the combination of the shades of blue and red on CA, OR, WA and CO are irritating to the eyes; and I could only glance at them for a moment. I love the new map much more than the previous, though I feel it could be useful to find a somewhat less grabbing shade of blue and red. VoodooIsland (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with what's been said above. Looking at this map, specifically the West Coast, is really painful to my eyes. 75.82.129.74 (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We should have TWO maps

With more and more same-sex partnership laws being placed on the books, and other states poised to recognize them, things are going to get very hairy very quickly. We should have two maps: one that shows legalized same-sex relationships and another that shows prohibitions on same-sex relationships. 96.233.145.220 (talk)

Check out these. Fortuynist (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin

Wisconsin might soon allow domestic partners 50 percent of the rights and responsibilities of married couples, because the Wisconsin legislators recently passed the Budget Considerations And Domestic Partnerships Act 2009 - Even though the Wisconsin Constitution clearly outlaws them anyway!

The text of the Wisconsin Constitution are as follows:

Marriage. SECTION 13. [As created Nov. 2006] Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state. [2003 J.R. 29, 2005 J.R. 30, vote Nov. 2006] Same−Sex Divorce and Wisconsin Courts: Imperfect Harmony? Thorson. 92 MLR 617. [10]

So very clearly all marriages, civil unions AND domestic partnerships are ILLEGAL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.61.118.3 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state Well it can be argued that such act does not make an legal status SUBSTANTIALLY similar to marriage, but just a new intermediate status. If said act becomes law, Wisconsin will become light blue - dark red striped (and probably a bigger eyesore that the west coast)

A lot of commentary but no link to a source. I wish a better post started this topic. Here's one. Keep in mind, however, legislators in both houses passed different versions of the bills, and they will be reconciled in secret conference committees, and domestic partnerships could be taken out. Fortuynist (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Passed in both houses, budget will go into effect July 1st, map is updated. Niew (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Colors

This color scheme is just plain awfull. Can we revert to the old one? It literally hurts the eyes to look at the map--Kdebem (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea (provided we have a link on the template to the colorblind-friendly map), let's wait and see if we can find a consensus. Niew (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I dislike the old colors--they seemed arbitrary and it was difficult to identify trends (which states were more same-sex friendly compared to others, etc.) I understand the colors used previously were of the rainbow, with red being more restrictive and purple being most gay-friendly), but anything in between was hard to draw comparisons from. I personally like the 2-color scheme, as varying shades make it easy to identify trends, and I find it easier on the eyes. If there is strong dislike for the 2 colors currently being used, can anyone suggest alternatives? My vote is to NOT return to the rainbow color scheme. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. It seems most complaints are specifically directed at the clashing colors used for Oregon, California and Nevada. If there is a way this can be addressed directly, that would certainly be easier than considering a whole new color scheme. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The opposite could be done, with this map being used normally, but with a link to the old-color map (which will be maintained) on the template. Niew (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The old color scheme was almost as bad as the current one. And while it is being discussed, I think using stripes to display two dimensional data in a choropleth map is always ugly and harder to read. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your idea of a link to a colorblind-friendly version. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a proposal to remove the stripes, but it was pointed out that the map needs to display both positive and negative rights. The alternate versions that show just bans and just allowances are much clearer, but also reveal less data. Unfortunately, as long as there are some states that are striped, things are going to clash - the orange and indigo stripes we used to have weren't any better. As for a colorblind-friendly version, this is it. The old version was the problem because it used colors such as green and red which appear the same to colorblind users. Newsboy85 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much as a clashing of stripes but rather the shades of lighter red and lighter blue — the maraschino shade of red is an eyesore, and I think it should be changed to the shade of red used in the prior color scheme. I also think the light blue for limited rights needs to go. Once those colors are swapped, I think the map will be very easy on the eyes. VoodooIsland (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to mock up a proposal to tweak the current colors, feel free. You can overwrite one of the older proposals farther up this talk page, since we had three or four alternatives going. Newsboy85 (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the limited blue is necessary in order to distinguish cases where CUs/DPs are almost equal to marriage versus where they are not close to marriage. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with the old maps with yellow, purple and red etc. We could edit the other maps of the world in that color scheme too. This was is simply unberable to look at, and it makes anything but clear what is happening in CA, NV etc. Can we revert to the old color scheme? PLEASE?!--Kdebem (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It was not an effective graphic both for ease of use or for colorblind users. (What was so much clearer about orange and indigo stripes anyway?) If you would like to make an alternative proposal that fulfills those two criteria, feel free and it can be discussed here. Newsboy85 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I too was initially bothered by the change in the image, although I at least partially understand the purpose behind it. I find the western coast to be a bit of an eyesore due to the stripe issue, as others have already pointed out. After thinking about it for a bit, I think the reason so many are complaining about the map is due to the amount of red used in the image. Red is often found to be an alarming, distressing color, yet it's the color that's dominating the map. Frankly, I think it makes people want to look away. For this map to be useful, it must first be inviting. People must feel comfortable looking at it.

I understand that color-blindness is an issue, but have we considered using a different combination of colors? Perhaps replacing the red with green? Green and blue are colors often used on maps to distinguish land from water, and I believe this would still be readable by those with red-green colorblindness. Additionally, both of these colors are "cool", creating less of a contrast on the striped states. Thoughts? I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert when it comes to this sort of thing, and it's far past my bedtime at the moment, but I thought I'd at least try to throw some ideas out there. —MearsMan ^talk 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Orange tones soften the harshness somewhat, but the striped states still look a bit busy. Are there colorblindness concerns with orange and blue?

Current scheme:

  SSM

  Unions similar

  Unions limited

  Foreign SSM

  No specific prohibition or recognition

  Statute bans SSM

  Constitution bans SSM

  Constitution bans SSM and other

Proposed scheme:

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Elysion (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Darkening the shades of red even the slightest bit would help relieve the great stress caused by looking at the West Coast. --128.135.224.106 (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wisconsin 2

The color scheme on the map currently states that Wisconsin bans same-sex marriage and other forms of unions. Yet, it legalized limited partnerships in its new budget. Isn't there a conflict here? --haha169 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See the Wisconsin section above, their constitution said that institutions substantially similar to SSM could not exist. This is 50% of the rights, and hence it can be argued that this is not substantial and that this is just intermediate. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DP law goes in effect 8/3/2009, not 7/1/2009 http://fairwisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-rep-mark-pocan-wisconsin-becomes.html Gavino (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You should cite the source directly: http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2009-11Budget/Budget%20Papers/391.pdf Hekerui (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Delaware and Minnesota

Delaware and Minnesota should be light blue with pink stripes because those 2 states have 4 rights out of 345 rights - so intern very very few rights for same-sex couples. For example hospital visitation rights, parentage/adoption rights, health benefits and rights in Insurance claims.

Source: [11] [12]

Please let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these unregistered schemes similar to that of in Maryland? I've never heard of such recognition of same-sex couples in these states, but I suppose they could have slipped past us all. Just because I haven't ever heard of these rights until today, are they in the same context as the rights in Maryland? I'll link this debate to the talk of Template:Same-sex unions since many of the regulars there are more knowledgeable in this area than I am. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Stepparent/"Second parent" adoptions are available in many more places in Minnesota, and are not a certain thing, depends on jurisdiction and judge. That's why you need a lawyer. As for Delaware, the health care law is interesting, but it doesn't define "domestic partner" or a registration process for it like Maryland. So it doesn't amount to a recognition of a same-sex union. Niew (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can of Californian worms

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4047 http://cbs5.com/politics/gay.marriage.bill.2.1070021.html http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/09-18 http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=a45b1e80-7c72-4151-9035-0c69f25312a4 http://www.tips-q.com/news/msm/1125412-new-bill-addresses-status-out-state-same-sex-marriage-ca

Considering that both Californian houses passed resolutions condemning prop 8, it would seem unlikely that this bill would not pass. Assuming it does get to Arnold's desk and he does sign it, this means any SSM performed anywhere before the November 4th election would be recognized by the state of California. Furthermore, it stipulates that any SSM performed on or after November 4th would be recognized, except the state couldn't call it a marriage (i.e. they are legally married but it is not called marriage, nor is it called a domestic partnership). If this passes, we really will need a triple stripe, or we will need to give California its own color and give a caption entry explaining the situation. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If this measure passes, I think it's too obscure to be worthy of a third stripe or separate color. The status can be explained in the Same-sex marriage in California article, and I think that will be enough. It's definitely an interesting situation, though. VoodooIsland (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it would effectively be recognizing foreign SSMs, but just not calling them marriages. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Recognizing foreign SSMs from before the November election. That would be same with the 18,000+ marriages from before the november election. Since the 18,000+ plus marriages aren't mentioned in the map, I'm not sure if this one should be, either. But still, California deserves some sort of caption on this. --haha169 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My point isn't about those marriages. My point is, if a same-sex couple got married anywhere anytime after November, they could come to California and their marriage would be recognized in all the legal senses, but the state would not be allowed to call it marriage. This is essentially the same as recognizing OoS marriages.

I think I might be missing something, but is that any different than say New Jersey recognizing out of state same-sex marriages as civil unions? VoodooIsland (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This bill does not specifically talk about CU/DPs at all. It just says that OoS postNov SSMs need to be treated as marriages, but can't be called marriages due to the prop8-induced mess Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just color California with the pride flag and categorize each respective color with another unique situation that California has gotten itself into? California has honestly over-stretched this map - I honestly don't think it will be possible to integrate every unique law that California has on this subject into this map. Its kinda like the state's budget crisis.

Or, we could just assign California its own unique solid color and list its situation that way. (That is, assuming the bill passes)--haha169 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My thought is that if this passes the legislature (which is likely) and gets signed by Arnold (likely-hood of which is unknown), there are two possible solutions

• turn California black and right "see article"

OR

• put a caption trying to succinctly explain wtf is going on here in CA.

Yes, Californian law is extremely screwed up, we have a retarded constitution, making a new initiative law is pretty much just as easy as passing a new amendment (other than needing more signatures). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I hope that the ballot proposition to limit ballot proposition access to the same strain as that in Iowa gets enough signatures and passes. Oh, and the repeal of 2/3 budget requirement. Back on topic, however, I think that if this passes legislature, black California is the best way to do it. A caption would be too long, especially when viewed in an article. (Same-sex marriage in California still needs to be improved and updated, though.) --haha169 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually well the DP stripes should stay (as the DPs are unaffected), it is the marriage laws that are confounding. Anyways, here is where the bill information can be found http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_54&sess=CUR&house=B&author=leno

Yeah, you're right. Striped Blue/Black. (On a technical note, this would fix the eyesore that is the American west) The link says that the bill has already been voted on in the Senate. Is that true? I haven't heard word that it progressed so fast... btw, you forgot to sign. :) --haha169 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read an article saying that it will be going to the Assembly floor before the Senate floor [13]. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The link you posted [14] provides a Senate floor vote, AYES 24. NOES 14, on 05/14/2009. That was what I was wondering about.--haha169 (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

yea because this bill used to be a healthcare bill that has been completely overhauled Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. It was a healthcare bill? --haha169 (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Worms revived!

http://www.outinhollywood.com/home/news.asp?articleid=33591

Passed the Assembly, pending in the senate, then Arnold will either sign it or veto it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[15] SB 54 is on Arnold's desk Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Maine and the People's Veto...

[16]

Looks like the People's Veto will make the ballot. Once the SoS confirms the signature, we will have to revert Maine back to enumerated/statuteban stripes, as the PV will block the SSM bill from taking effect. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we still going to use the ballotbox SVG? We should come to a consensus now to avoid conflicts later. --haha169 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If and when the people's veto appears on the Maine 11/09 election page [17], I will revert Maine to the lightest blue lightest pink setting. I do not know how to make a ballot box, someone else will have to put ballot boxes where they are necessary. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to do some experiments to see if it works. --haha169 (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

the ref. will take place so some one should change maine the way they did washington

Not until the ballot initiative has its sigs verified and is put on the Maine SOS elections page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are references.

• http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/updates/updates/gay-marriage-law-officially-on-maine-ballot

• http://capital.villagesoup.com/news/story/sec-of-state-certifies-people-s-veto-of-same-sex-marriage-bill/200564

• http://www.myfoxmaine.com/dpp/news/maine/20090903_Gay_Marriage_Veto_to_Appear_on_Ballot.

I dont know why it has not changed on the gov page, it could be a slow update. You cant deny 3 reliable references though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2009 (AT)

WASHINGTON REFERENDUM 71 QUALIFIED FOR BALLOT. PROP-8-LITE LIKE BALLOT FIGHT WILL ENSUE

Anyways, R71 made the ballot[18], meaning that same-sex couples will not be getting the same rights as married couples in Washington unless Washington votes APPROVE this referendum (yes it is confusing, instead having to vote "no" to defend gays like in CA, you must vote "yes/Approve"). If someone can get a ballot box onto Washington that would be great. Soon we will need a ballot box for Maine too (as it extremely likely that Maine will be facing a Prop 8 equivalent), so if anyone could get those done, that would be great.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I have read an article that said that Maine had already qualified, though it was in passing - and likely an incorrect assumption on the part of the reporter. As for the color change, it is premature b/c the Secretary of State will not officially announce Ref 71's passing - and there is a [BLACKLISTED URL COMMENTED OUT --ed.] about the conduct of election officials and the signature verification process whose verdict will be issued on Wednesday as well. Wednesday should be the date of change. (Although that is tomorrow, so I guess no revert should really be necessary, unless the court overrules the SoS) --haha169 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/09/02/case-on-validity-of-petitions-in-washington-rejected-on-procedural-grounds-case-will-be-re-filed/

ATM, R71 is about to be certified and right now the law is being stayed anyways so the image is currently accurate. There most likely will be a court-battle, but it is likely that they will still stay the law (unlike prop8, R71 can have retroactive effect as it is "upgrading" an institution instead of opening the door to another insitution, so even if it the law is let take effect, if the anti-gay lobby wins the law is removed and no legacy of it will remain) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes need translation

1 May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have not entered into effect yet.
2 The bill that legalized same-sex marriage in Maine, has been stayed and will be subjected to voter approval on November 3rd, 2009
3 The bill that gave DPs all the rights of married couples in Washington, has been stayed and will be subjected to voter approval on November 3rd, 2009

We need to translate these notes into other languages Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a German translation and improved the English version. Hekerui (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

California might need to be restriped

Read File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Can_of_Californian_worms if you haven't already.

A bill SB 54 is on Arnold's desk.
If he signs this, it will mean two things:
-A same-sex marriage performed anywhere will be recognized in California IF it was performed before 11/5/08
-A same-sex marriage performed anywhere will be given all the rights of marriage, except no one would be legally obliged to describe it as a marriage, IF it was performed on/after 11/5/08

It was proposed that California's prop 8 stripes would be become black, and the caption would say something of the sort:
"California's laws regarding same-sex marriage are complicated, please see Same-sex marriage in California"
Is anyone opposed to doing this? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear the bill is passed? If it isn't, then I opposing doing anything until the bill is signed by the "wonderful" Governor. CTJF83Talk 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

All the latest news articles have stated it passed both houses [19] Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Arnold is unique type of Republican. He completely lacks any form of significant social conservativism, and it is pretty clear he does support SSM and LGBT rights, the question is will he accept the legislature rationale for the law being constitutional. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's wait till he signs before changing the color though. CTJF83Talk 01:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading the law, isn't this in effect allowing a de-facto recognition of SSMs from out of state minus the name without changing the law for California? But how many are those? I would say let's be cautious with changing the map, this seems like a comparatively minor issue. Hekerui (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The law indicates that same-sex married couples who got married after prop 8 still get their marriage recognized, but that they won't be called married by the government. It is a grey area, which makes things really complicated. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

** Those who got married after prop 8 outside California. His male lover (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know the time limit the CA governor gets to sign a bill? If he does sign it, the marriage stripe for California will need a unique stripe. This kind of de-facto marriage recognition is not present anywhere in the world. --haha169 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[20] This source says he has 12 days, but the bill still has to be enrolled by the house clerk, so I believe it has yet to reach his desk. Thegreyanomaly (talk)

[21] - Says it was enrolled September 10? --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it still is in the process of enrollment then. There hasn't been any new news on the issue since it passed the senate. Also, if Congress passes the Respect for Marriage Act, this bill will be much more important than it is right now. Assuming Arnold signs the bill, SSCs in California would have two options to get the rights of married couples (to get a DP or to get marriage somewhere else). If the Respect for Marriage Act passes through Congress, SSCs in California who married after prop 8, will still get de facto recognition from the state and will get complete recognition from the federal government (rendering California DPs pointless). A while ago, I remember reading an article that said this bill would allow gays to snub the domestic partnership system

(SSC = same-sex couple)

• • • something I needed to clarify about de facto - in RI there supposedly is de facto recognition of SSM, though it is not legally on the books, SB 54 gives de facto recognition in a defined way, that will be on the books if SB 54 is signed. There is a big difference between Rhode Island and SB 54, and I just wanted to clarify that (i.e. there would be no need to blacken Rhode Island) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. The situation in the United States is becoming almost as complex as Australia... (btw, enrollment seems to be taking quite a bit of time; or is it just because its California? The marriage bills in VT, NH, and ME reached the gov's desk pretty quickly.)--haha169 (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[22] They say it is at Arnold's desk. Assuming he got it yesterday, he has until about the 9th to sign it. I search "SB 54 marriage" on google news daily, if anything changes I will post the link and update the image if necessary. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[23] Assuming weekends count, Arnold has until Wednesday at 10:30 to sign or veto the bill. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, on a side note, he will also have to act on the Harvey Milk Day bill by 1:00 pm that same day. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Update, a source against SB 54 claims the date to be October 11th (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/ca/pdfs/sb54-sb572-going-to-gov.pdf) I don't understand how they are counting, 10/11 is a Sunday, when the 12th day is a Sunday, the constitution gives Arnold a free extra day Thegreyanomaly (talk)

NVM, Sunday/Monday seems right [24]. Apparently he has like 700 bills on his desk... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

SB 54 has been signed. http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2248216.html Newsboy85 (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Map updated

I updated the map, and the template associated with it. We need someone to go to create translations for all other languages and to update the image on all other wikis Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a French translation. Correct it if necessary Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It would have been much more prudent to do the translations (at least machine ones so native speakers could correct it later) for all the Wikipedias first before changing the actual map on the Commons. Now the map is not functional for the others that use it. Pepe Silvia (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Texas

Although not a Supreme Court case, and almost definitely going to be appealed, but a judge has seemingly invalidated the constitutional ban in Texas. [25][26] --haha169 (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a local thing and no law has been passed on it, why does the map have to reflect one district of texas? I feel the choice does not apply to the state as a whole. - Knowledgekid87 7:09, 2 October 2009 (AT)

Someone please revert, the chance of this having the effect of annulling the amendment is zero. Hekerui (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, yeah, premature modification. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is going to the TX supreme court, so we should wait until they make a ruling to change the map. Reverting image Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Standardizing rules for striping?

I figured we should make standardized rules to dictate how to appropriately stripe.

Here are my proposals, please tell me what you think. (in order to make this easier to read, I am treating DC and the territories as states)

1. Any state that performs same-sex marriage must be solid dark blue as long as they perform same-sex marriage.
2. No state should be striped with two shades of the same color
3. Due to California's screwy situation, unless SB 54 is struck down in court or prop 8 is repealed (either by initiative or SCOTUS), California should have black stripes. Currently, no other state has such confusing SSM laws.
4. We should revert (or should not update) for any act/statute/law/etc, which affects SSM/DP/CUs, if said legislation is being stayed (i.e. the current status for Maine and Washington). This means to say, that I support the current striping for Maine and Washington Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
5. If a state has some shade of grey (or black in the case of California) that overrides their otherwise necessary shade of red (i.e. NY and DC don't need to be striped pink for their statutes banning SSM)
6. The lightest grey shade should never be striped with a shade of blue. For example, if I remember correctly, New Jersey does not have a SSM banning statue, but they do have civil unions, by leaving NJ solid intermediate blue it is already implied that there is no laws for or against SSM. The lightest shade of grey and the intermediate shade of grey should not appear on the same state (also in the case of NY and DC this would be inaccurate)

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with just #1, and #3. I feel other than that things should be left be, as it reflects the current status and act/statute/laws in place (Like it or not they are still there and in effect along with the other ones). What do you mean also by striped two shades of the same color? If you did that then the color would be solid. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the map follows all of my propositions as it currently. Two shades of the same color means, for example, that a state has two different types of blue stripes or two different types of red stripes (e.g. having both intermediate blue and light blue) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to anything other than California? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

California

Hawaii has nonstandard marriage laws: the Constitution restricts power to the legislature to define marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the new California law clarifies that (1) Same-sex couples married before Prop 8 in Calif. are recognized as married, and (2) Same-sex couples married elsewhere now are recognized as domestic partnerships. Part (1) is interesting historically, but doesn't represent serious deviations in law, as it only affects some 18,000 couples, and deals with the past, rather than present law, which this map should cover. Part (2) is no different from New Jersey converting same-sex marriages to NJ civil unions, which it does. Like NJ, I believe California should be striped red/blue. Is there any compelling reason why it shouldn't? Ssahsahnatye (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the post above, and both of his arguments I have tried to raise before with little success. I think we should formulate a given consensus as to whether we should revert back to red/blue or stay with blue/black. Personally, I would revert it, but I'm open to other opinions. VoodooIsland (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm for reverting as well, the current version is unnecessarily confusing. Hekerui (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The new law does not have the words domestic partnerships anywhere in it. There is another discussion above on this matter and I updated the map originally because other than Hekerui no one seemed to oppose. SSMs performed after prop 8 are given all the state-level rights of marriage, just not the name. Because Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment that allows the legislature to define marriage, the legislature's definition of marriage is an ordinary statute; it is quite clear an amendment like that does not merit red stripes, because the only thing actually banning SSM there is that statute, something which the legislature could easily overturn if they ever come around. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I want to sincerely congratulate Thegreyanomaly and everyone else who was involved in the basic design of the map. The overall scheme does a great job of representing the whole spectrum of variation in a clear and concise fashion. However, I essentially agree with the three preceding comments from Ssahsahnatye, VoodooIsland, and Hekerui about reverting to the original red with blue stripes to represent California on this map. Even though SB-54 changes the situation somewhat, I think altering the background color to black is more confusing than helpful. The previous red with blue stripes was much more effective at providing an accurate overview of the situation, since the constitutional ban does exist. The black color is visually very difficult to distinguish from the dark blue, so it makes the situation appear closer to the opposite extreme from the current reality. Given the caption on the blue stripes (indicating rights similar to marriage), I think that category is already sufficient to include the support for out-of-state "just don't call them marriage" unions which SB 54 recently added. In my opinion, if additional clarification is needed, then adding the caption about California to that shade of blue better maintains the overall scheme of the map while still providing the link. StephenMacmanus (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just changed the background color for California from the confusing black into the shade of red matching the constitutional status, and moved the cross-reference for the California-specific caption accordingly. Annoyingly, the Wikipedia commons hosting the file wouldn't create an account with my current name, so the edit took place using a new "alter ego" I was required to create. StephenMacmanus (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The way it's now is much better. The note in the text is enough. Hekerui (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Necessary translations

• Portuguese: black and notes (already requested)
• Esperanto: black and notes
• French: notes (translation request made already, I could do it on my own, but my French is getting rusty)
• Italian: black and notes (already requested)
• Chinese (both): notes (already requested)

Cross these off as they are completed Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

California problems

the black makes California look like ssm is legal may i suggest making it solid since we are referring people to another page anyway?The truth maker (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Solid black is problematic, because SB 54 has nothing to do with domestic partnerships. Removing the blue stripes creates greater confusion, implying that the state does not have DPs. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DC Note

Hey all. User:Thegreyanomaly made a change to the map showing that D.C. will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and added a note stating the unique feature that the law could be overturned by Congress (not just the House of Representatives). I removed this note for the following reasons: The situation involving D.C. laws is complicated and the fact that Congress could intervene is not specific to the District new marriage law. In reality, Congress could pass any legislation in regards to the District of Columbia at any time; they could even pass a law tomorrow that would dissolve the District's government entirely. In that sense, the extra mention is a bit premature. Indeed, we could even add a caveat to this map that says that Congress could still pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages that would invalidate laws in the states that currently issues licenses. That's just as much of a possibility (and has actually gained much more traction than D.C.-specific legislation). My point is that until Congress actually takes some concrete action to alter same-sex marriage in the District, anything we say is completely hypothetical and difficult to explain in a small map legend. Best, 72.83.78.60 (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Insightful. Hekerui (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, point taken Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10