File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 14

Making the map easier to read (Ohio and Missouri)

I'm looking at this map, and it's really busy and difficult to read. Missouri and Ohio are the biggest issues, because they're striped with colors that don't appear anywhere else on the map. It seems to me that the dark red stripes could be removed, especially Missouri. Couldn't we make Missouri all dark grey, and then change the key for dark grey to read "Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized, in-state same-sex marriage banned" or something to that effect? Similarly, the key for light yellow could be changed to read "Judicial ruling(s) overturning the ban on recognizing same-sex marriage performed elsewhere stayed indefinitely pending appeal. Same-sex marriage banned." It's a small change, and it would make the map a bit more accessible. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 01:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this. It doesn't make the map harder to read. I have suggested above to change MO's dark grey to medium blue to symbolize that out of state SSM is recognized, use dark grey for the territories which have no position and leave everything else as it already is. The point of the stripe is to symbolize that while SSM is banned, there are circumstances under which it IS recognized (both OH and MO fall in this category which is out of state). OH's ban however is stayed. Had it been active like MO's, then I would support changing both states to one color (medium blue in my opinion). So for now, I support keeping the stripes. Einsteinboricua (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. We don't indicate that a state recs OOS marriages unless you can't get married in-state. Therefore grey means you can't get married in-state, and there's no need for red striping to say the same thing twice. Striping should be avoided if possible; we certainly shouldn't use it if it doesn't add any information to the map. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: What happens if a territory starts recognizing same-sex marriages..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

... we color it blue, like we would anyway? — kwami (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Kwami: No, because the wording would be "Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized, in-state same-sex marriage banned."Prcc27 (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose ... I'd rather put up with the stripes than the longer descriptions. And what would we do when the 6th finally rules, and have to come up with a new color for "recognized and subject to precedent", which is what Ohio would be if everything is upheld? Mw843 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought long and hard about this before I say support, but I question whether or not the longer descriptions are necessary. It seems at the moment that with the exception of stripes, we've been coloring states with the highest (closest to marriage) color that they are eligible for. For example, we have not striped MD to say "You can also get DPs there." I personally would think that a gray state means that you can't get married in the state, otherwise it would be colored blue. Also, Prcc, to your question. I would think that if it was as you say, the territory would also perform same-sex marriages, since there is nothing banning them. Swifty819 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: Not true, New York was colored solid dark gray because there was no law for or against but same-sex marriage was recognized. Prcc27 (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I ""Support"" removing the Red Stripe from Missouri as "Same-sex marriage performed elsewhere recognized" and the lack of the DB color strongly imply that marriages are not performed. I suppose one of the 'light grey' territories at some point could start recognising out of state marriages and still not grant them, but I'm not sure that distinction matters. I ""Oppose"" the longer description for dark grey, as it could force us back to striping for the territories at some point.75.179.42.181 (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• If the distinction doesn't matter then why do we have a "light gray" color in the first place..? Prcc27 (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure. If somebody has a reason that we need to show the difference between (no law/must recognise foreign) and (ban/must recognise foreign) I'd like to hear it. I'm not strongly convinced either way, but getting rid of the stripping if it can be done without increasing the colors would be nice.75.179.42.181 (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I support removing the striping and changing the description for Dark Grey to something like "Same-sex marriage banned, but recognized when performed elsewhere". Either way it only applies to Missouri, and if we can have one solid color instead of the stripe it would simplify the map. Plus if the light grey goes away per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#American_Samoa.2C_Guam.2C_and_the_Northern_Mariana_Islands and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Light_grey_not_needed. We wouldn't need to worry about the ban/no law distinction, but that may be a complicated issue.75.179.42.181 (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• The light gray will not go away; the precedent color is only used for states with same-sex marriage bans. Prcc27 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, can we change Missouri to medium blue and the territories from light gray to dark gray? I think that we have waited long enough for this change. Prcc27 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - hiding negative laws (i.e., red coloring here) in favor of more neutral/positive laws violates WP:NPOV Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It does? It's not like we're pretending they'll marry folks, so what am I missing here? Swifty819 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think he's referring specifically to Missouri losing the explicit mention of the ban on performing marriages. Would the edited/clarified "Same-sex marriage banned, but recognized when performed elsewhere" description for dark grey fix the WP:NPOV issue?75.179.42.181 (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think it would... Recognizing same-sex marriage is "positive", banning same-sex marriage is "negative" and dark gray is a decent neutral/in between color. But again, what about if a territory recognizes same-sex marriage..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping the light grey would be removable. If a territory started recognizing, but not performing marriages that would create a new category, like Mw843 said earlier for Ohio and the potential for (Precedent/Foreign Allowed striping) On the one hand I think it is worthwhile for it to be a little less busy, on the other we may have to go back to striping if something changes. With Ohio if Ohio changed we could just change the description unless another state become the 'light yellow color' With the territories though any of them changing would create two categories unless they all changed at once.75.179.42.181 (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think it's best to just play it safe and leave things as is (besides the whole change dark gray to medium blue proposal). Prcc27 (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: place light blue under dark blue; and put dark gray under light gray.

It's just to make a bit less confusing when a user is looking at the map and is looking for a color that corresponds to that description. Just an idea I'm throwing out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.111 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, the recognition color has consensus to change to medium blue and the no law for/against color has consensus to change to dark gray; but nobody has acted yet. The reason why the recognition color is above the transition color is because if a state legalizes recognition, it wouldn't make sense for the state to go from the third highest color to the fourth highest color when recognition actually begins. Besides, dark gray is darker than light blue anyways. Once someone acts on consensus, this will all change; don't worry! Prcc27 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, once that is done, it will be fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So this map? Looks like it's a 4-1 vote for which is consensus. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I say we go for this scheme. Supported Kumorifox (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. And the island territories are SO much easier to see in the dark gray. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the Commons admin to update the map. Edit: I've also left a request on the Commons AN. New map is in. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious, but should Missouri just have the medium blue color for SSM being performed elsewhere, instead of having the striped distinction? I feel that it could be implied from the description that only same-sex marriage from outside the state is recognized, not within. Perhaps having the dark red stripe is redundant? Just curious. Ghal416 (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's redundant, but no agreement above. 207.192.243.66 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The striping makes it clear that the state recognises foreign SSM but explicitly bans SSM from being performed, and that this decision isn't stayed, has no precedent etc. However, Missouri colouring sets precedent for the remaining states, in that striping must be added as long as any ban is only partially in effect. Kumorifox (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah okay, just wondering in case there was an issue. From your explanation, I can see how it might be needed to clarify. Ghal416 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We are famous everyone!

Take a look at what I found (: http://purpleunions.com/blog/2014/10/victory-alaska-30th-marriage-equality-state.html/comment-page-1#comment-701175 aharris206 (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah, I saw this earlier... Joemygod also likes to post the map on their blog! I'm glad our hard work is paying off and being recognized by the public! Prcc27 (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's really exciting, but at the same time, nerve wracking. There are so many sites spreading misinformation about where marriage is/isn't legal. I saw one map with all but 15 states filled in. At this point, we are the most reliable source (I like to think it's because we have so many people checking/double-checking that our information is correct.) Every time I see an incorrect statement, I just refer people here now. We are now in the public's eye now, keep up the good work everyone! (: (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This map should probably be a poster child for WP:NOW.Naraht (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Question on the 6th

The Sixth Circuit will rule eventually, and if they uphold, 3 states are easy: Michigan will go blue, Ohio will be precedent red & dark grey, and Tennessee will be precedent red. The question is Kentucky: The case that turned the state gold wasn't one of the cases heard at appeal, the case that was heard was similar to the Ohio case. So, would Kentucky stay gold, or be dark grey and gold, or something else? I'm not trying to be speculative ... this case is confusing, and I think we're better off getting ahead of it. Mw843 (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't the 6C deal with arguments from all the four states? Coulda sworn they did. If so, then all states could go dark blue if the ruling goes immediately into effect (at least those states where SSM in general is being challenged. Ohio would be dark grey striped as you say). If they put in an indefinitely stay to allow the states an attempt at appeal, then they'd all go gold. Otherwise, it would really depend on each individual state case. It depends on how the 6C sets it all up in their ruling. We're probably going to have to debate this when the time comes :/ NOTE: This is assuming that the case is a win for SSM. It would work opposite if the other way. Ghal416 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but only the Michigan case involved the full ban being overturned ... Ohio and Kentucky involved recognizing out-of-state marriages, and Tennessee was for a preliminary injunction to immediately recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs while the case moved forward. There was a Kentucky case that overturned the full ban - it was stayed - but it happened too late to be taken up by the 6th. Mw843 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The 6th Circuit consolidated two Kentucky cases, Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear. Bourke was the recognition case, Love was the full legality case. Since these cases were consolidated and heard together, Kentucky should go dark blue if the 6th upholds the lower circuit's decision, and dark red if the 6th reverses it. Kumorifox (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I missed that: kept hearing references to "5 cases covering all 4 states", with Ohio having 2. Mw843 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So, this would be the case if the ruling goes into effect immediately (if SSM upheld): Michigan - dark blue, Ohio - precedent red/dark grey striped, Kentucky - dark blue, Tennessee - precedent red. If all stayed pending indefinitely (if SSM upheld): Michigan - gold, Ohio - dark red/gold striped (or completely gold? precedent red instead of dark? Not sure on this one.), Kentucky - gold, Tennessee - precedent red (or would it be gold? A little hard since I believe this case only concerns a few couples, not the whole ban). It would probably be opposite if the 6C upheld the bans, but then if they were stayed, wouldn't that mean either a new category/color or re-wording the description for stay color as if the bans are upheld and stayed, it won't fit the gold color description anymore technically? Ghal416 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There were 6, not 5, cases from the 4 states. Obergefell (Death certificate recognition for a specific couple) and Henry (Out of state marriage recognition, particularly for birth certificates) from Ohio, Bourke (Out of state recognition) and Love (in-state solemnization) from Kentucky, Tanco (Out of state recognition for 6 specific couples - they did not challenge the anti-recognition act as a whole, and the judge in the case did not enjoin the state from enforcing it against other couples) from Tennessee, and DeBoer (in-state solemnization and out of state recognition) from Michigan. If the 6CA upholds all bans, all states will resume dark red. If the 6CA overturns all bans, Ghal416's position is correct. If, for some reason, the 6CA is more selective, we will have to read the Order very carefully. Davidmac2003 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee is a special case indeed, as the case only affects the couples who filed the suit. We'll have to wait for the verdict to see what Tennessee's colour should be. If the verdict states "recognition of filing couples only" or something to that extent, I have two suggestions: we either need a new colour (I hope not), or stripe it recognition/precedent red, with a footnote that the recognition in Tennessee is for the filing couples only. But if the verdict states something else, colouring is clear, I'd say. Ohio should be precedent red/grey striped, I believe, because the Michigan and Kentucky cases will have set precedent for full equality. But it depends on the wording of the 6th, and the order should be checked carefully in any case, like Davidmac2003 stated. Kumorifox (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think Tennessee would be fully precedent red regardless of how far reaching it's particular case is (Tanco), since if Michigan/Kentucky's bans remain struck down, that will be precedent across the full Circuit. Technically, the Tennessee ban would remain, but it would be weakened. Of course as you say, it will depend on how the 6C makes sense of it all. Ghal416 (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Tennessee outcome of recognizing filing couples only (i.e. a narrow upholding of the current ruling), I'd presume it'd be full precedent red with a footnote pointing out recognition of select couples. The map coloring is limited to state-wide rulings. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds right to me, but I would want to read the opinion first and read what other reliable sources are saying about it too before making a final decision. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Full agreement. Ghal416 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There would not be a footnote because this map doesn't deal with individual cases like the "rings map" does. Prcc27 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Stay dissolved in Idaho

The stay dissolves at 9 AM Wednesday morning, Boise time [1]. Mw843 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Great news! Do we change the state to dark blue at that time, or right away? Ghal416 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is not legal in Idaho (Ruling was stayed) until that time. Hold off until tomorrow. S51438 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction: 10AM MDT (Noon Eastern) Wednesday. I don't think the color should change until then. Mw843 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We can update the footnote though. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the color should change when the stay is dissolved: tomorrow at 9:00 (or is it 10:00?) MDT (concur with the above). (It annoys me when news articles don't specify a timezone.) Changing the color now would be too early. As of now, Idaho is in the same situation as Florida - just waiting for the stays to be officially lifted. However just like Florida, we can add when Idaho's stay is scheduled to be dissolved/no longer in effect. AstareGod (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay good. Just making sure. Seems like the Governor is still attempting something, but since the SCOTUS and 9C have passed on it, seems like a waiting game till the eventuality on Wednesday. And I agree with the footnote change. That'll suffice for now. Ghal416 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In case there's any confusion regarding the effective time, according to the order [2] "Plaintiff-Appellees’ motion to dissolve the stay is GRANTED, effective at 9 a.m. PDT Wednesday, October 15, 2014. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009)." which is 10:00 MDT. AstareGod (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Butch Otter :) has given up fighting marriage for now. He might appeal down the line, but marriages appear set to begin in Idaho tomorrow. http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/idaho-readies-for-same-sex-couples-marriages-to-begin-wednes Tinmanic (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Transitioning this talk page to its proper place on Wikimedia Commons

Due to the recent edit protection issues due to edit warriors I thought this is worth bringing up. This is a Commons map, and even though this map pertains to an English-speaking country, the talk page still should be on Commons map.. Dustin_V._S. has brought this up on the Commons talk page (i.e., the proper talk page for this map). I agree with his sentiment. Can we agree to a date after which all posts can be directed to the proper talk page. I would propose that effective November 1st, all messages at this talk page cease and all new message move to the proper talk page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem there. Support. Kumorifox (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see two options, one to have the current talk page become a redirect or simply to archive all of the discussion and put the fact that discussions should occur on the common page be the only thing on this page.Naraht (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Moving this talk-page (Clarified) to commons so editors can get around page protection sounds like a bad idea. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Thegreyanomaly is talking about the Talk Page, not the map itself. The map is already on Commons. Tinmanic (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I know he is, the fact is though that edit warring can and is present at both venues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: What do you mean by "get around page protection"? What page is protected? The actual Commons file is semi-protected, but both the English Wikipedia and the Commons talk pages are open to editing by all. Dustin (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: "Due to the recent edit protection issues due to edit warriors I thought this is worth bringing up". That is what I took it as meaning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems like an overly dramatic step. Instead of shifting the page from its established location (and away from six years of archives), why not just put a link at the top pointing out Commons' revert policy? We could also add it to the editing guidelines already here. Is there a policy that Commons maps must have the talk pages in the same Wiki? Oppose. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Dralwik nearly word for word, so rather than repeat what he said, I will simply say Oppose. Swifty819 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Although the map is on Commons, the template is on Wikipedia. When we add a footnote or edit the wording in the legend, we have to do so on both Commons and Wikipedia. Changing the talk page to Commons would be too drastic. Oppose. Prcc27 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This would seem too overly drastic of a step. Just fine with how it is now. Oppose. Ghal416 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how any of this is drastic. This page would be archived, File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg would redirect to commons:File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg, and commons:File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg would note that there are x pages of archives here. The only difference would be that we would actually be discussing a Wikimedia Commons map on Wikimedia Commons as opposed to on the English Wikipedia. As for policies requiring commons talk pages being on the commons that I am unclear on. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to do it this way though, is there a pressing reason why we should start now? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any logical reason that we shouldn't? There is nothing that drastic. It is kind of inappropriate for Wikimedia Commons file to be extensively discussed here instead of there. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Your original reasoning was recent edit protection issues which is why I feel you got the "too drastic" replies. In my view I think we should have a centralized discussion, all of the archives are here so it wouldn't make sense to keep pointing to them here. Anyways this is boiling down to a WP:LIKEIT and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Due to its very nature, this map is discussed very often, and whenever some new issue comes up, it shows up on editors' Wikipedia watchlists. If the discussions took place on the Commons talk page, that wouldn't happen. Just as a practical matter, the talk page should remain where it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think editors here should even have a choice regarding where everyone else has to discuss a file. If a user wants to discuss the file on Commons, he/she should be allowed to do so. Dustin (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion to think about. Nobody can force a person to talk anywhere but it greatly helps things if the talk is kept all in one place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Except Wikimedia Commons policies take precedence over this map. The map is under the "jurisdiction" of Wikimedia Commons and so is its talk page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The map is in two places File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg remains on Wikipedia, there is nothing stopping someone from uploading a new map through this venue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87: but you can't directly upload the map to Wikipedia; only Commons. Although I do agree with @Thegreyanomaly: when they say that the map falls under Commons' jurisdiction, to be fair- the template falls under Wikipedia's jurisdiction. Most of the edits we make to the template deal with legend wording and adding/deleting footnotes (btw, the map didn't have footnotes on Commons until I came along). What we could do is have one talk page for editing the legend/footnotes (Wikipedia) and one talk page for the map (Commons) (In fact, the world homosexual relationships and expression map does the same thing. For some odd reason they have three talk pages instead of two..) Whatever we decide, I think it would be best to just stick with one talk page. Prcc27 (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Developments

In North Carolina, a federal judge has allowed lawmakers to intervene in cases regarding the SSM ban: http://abc11.com/politics/gop-can-intervene-in-same-sex-marriage-cases/350486/. In Florida, AG Bondi has asked the FL Supreme Court to rule on the matter: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/pam-bondi-asks-florida-supreme-court-rule-gay-marriage. Ghal416 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

They'll keep trying on every front. But in NC, I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. 4th has ruled and SCOTUS declined to review, so all they can really do is stretch for time. I may be oversimplifying things here, but it seems like they are just being vindictive at this point. Kumorifox (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't seem particularly earth-shattering I agree, but just passing these along in case the map has to change if they by some chance get a stay for an appeal attempt. Don't think it has much chance but there it is. I'm sure we all knew FL was a matter of time. For now, it should remain transition blue as the situation hasn't technically changed yet, but all indications as of now are that Bondi is going to attempt to carry on her case/appeal. Ghal416 (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Arizona basically has until Thursday afternoon to convince a judge why the 9th Circuit ruling doesn't apply to the state. Wyoming also has a case in court on Thursday. The ACLU electronically filed for a preliminary injunction in Kansas yesterday ... nothing back on that yet. It looks like South Carolina could drag out into November. And am I the only one who thinks the 6th is furiously rewriting their decision after the Supremes declined to hear any appeal last Monday? Mw843 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I partially agree that the Sixth might be re writing that decision, if my calculus is correct we should get a decision this Friday or the next one at the latest. At the same time they might not be re writing it but we will see, The only problem will be that if they strike the bans, then 11 states will still have bans and knowing that the 5, 8 and 11 they will probably uphold the bans knowing how conservatives they are.--Allan120102 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It could be a while before a case from the 8th gets to the Circuit level ... the only states where anything has happened, Arkansas and Missouri, the action has been in state court. Mw843 (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Allan, I write to say that the 11th is full of Obama appointments. We may have better luck there than you realize. Swifty819 (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

True, sorry is that I read 11th was pretty conservative, I just saw it change with all the judges Obama has appointed. The 8th circuit have the most republicans and are typical conservatives, If a case is from the 8 it will probably come from South or North Dakota, I hope the ban in North Dakota can be struck soon, so it can go to an appeals court.--Allan120102 (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is now a second case in South Carolina. In Montana, there's been a filing for summary judgement; if that fails, the next date on the District Court calendar for the case is in June, 2015. What it does mean is that as of Thursday afternoon, a ruling in any of precedent state cases could come at any time. Mw843 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet celebrated marriages

I propose that one could add a sign like "oo" or something upon states where weddings already legally happened, despite the issue is not fully settled. Usually when a decision has not yet been stayed and weddings happened before the stay is finally granted. Those states are "legal sources of same-sex marriages". This is the case of Arkansas and Michigan earlier or Kansas recently ("Angela & Kelli" wedding). What do you think? — Mimich (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The map is aimed at state-wide status, if we tried to track every exception and oddity, we'd end up with a confusing mess. Mw843 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe a complementary note — Mimich (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. We already have the "rings" map for individual cases. I say we keep individual information to that particular map, and leave this one as state-wide status only. Kumorifox (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. As stated above, this is a statewide map, and there is already a "rings" map that I think tends to confuse people more than help them. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template: Request denied to remove asterisk from Idaho (really)

As some of you know, a few days ago, an administrator blocked editing of the Same-sex Unions Template. Today several users have pointed out to the administrator that Idaho's asterisk needs to be removed, as marriage is legal there now. But the administrator has refused to do so, stating, "How can we be sure that it won't change again? The way things have been recently, it could cease again any time now." This administrator seems to have a poor understanding of this topic, as well as the way the template is supposed to work. Is there anyone we can appeal to? (I apologize for a topic that is not directly about the map, but many of the people who edit the map also edit the template, both of which appear on the U.S. Same-sex Marriage page.) Tinmanic (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Form a consensus and then point that out to the admin. If they again refuse, they should be overridden by another. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have filed an RfC.[3] It requires an endorsement from another user, so it would be appreciated if one of you would endorse it at that link. Tinmanic (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Endorsement added. Thanks for taking the initiative. Kumorifox (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested change in protection status here. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also an Request for Comment here about the matter for anyone who would like to sign onto it. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue of the asterisk on Idaho, as there was very clearly a consensus there to make the change. I will let an administrator who is a little more distanced from the topic make the call on removing or altering the protection. That said, I'd ask everyone to reconsider the need for an RfC over this dispute; it feels a little heavyhanded to me. Shereth 05:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Shereth, I appreciate that, but it's unclear how else to handle an issue where an administrator denies numerous requests to make a legitimate change merely because "it doesn't sit well with me" that many people are requesting the change; refuses to reconsider protecting a page for an entire week; and nevertheless goes ahead and makes his own change to the template (fixing alphabetical order of states). Tinmanic (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made a motion to close the RfC on this matter since the issues appear resolved. Would one or more readers mind seconding at this link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Redrose64 @Difbobatl, Kumorifox, Dralwik, Rreagan007, and Rrius Tinmanic (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Alaska stayed

Alaska needs to go to transition [4] Prcc27 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and the footnote for transition blue states should reflect what was made of the deadline in the motion by the 9C. Ghal416 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I added the following to the footnote: A ruling striking down Alaska's same-sex marriage ban has been stayed until 11:00 AM, PDT, on October 17, 2014. Mw843 (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Now just to get someone to change Alaska to light blue... Ghal416 (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I would but I am on my phone which doesn't edit SVGs. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No rush. As long as someone knows. I would try, but I have no idea how to edit SVGs. Don't want to mess up anything. Ghal416 (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@BlitzGreg: Please revert you change to the map: Gold is for stays without expiry dates, Alaska's stay will expire without further action. Mw843 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Unless a permanent stay is ordered on or before Friday, light blue is the correct colour for Alaska. Kumorifox (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Arizona

Get ready for a ruling in Arizona, I get emails from "Why marriage matters Arizona" because I donated to them last year. Today is both sides' last chance to submit briefs. It seems that thousands of people called the Attorney General to drop his defense of Arizona’s marriage ban, and Tom Horne was quoted saying that his office was “weighing their options.” If things work out that way, we may be adding Arizona any day now without an appeal. aharris206 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

From news reports, it appears that all Arizona has is the fact that the 9th hasn't reissued the Mandate in Latta v. Otter. Mw843 (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Horne definitely seems to be hinting that he's not going to fight this one. Arizona could go blue by the weekend by the looks of it. Shereth 02:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Arizona ban have been struck down waiting to see if there was a stay or not.http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/federal-judge-strikes-down-arizona-same-sex-marriage-ban/ . --Allan120102 (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a ruling in Arizona. There is no stay. Same-sex marriage is legal in Arizona. Dark blue!

https://www.scribd.com/doc/243343079/2-14-cv-00024-88

216.165.95.66 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And just to give a ref http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/10/17/arizona-gay-marriage-ruling/17431229/ Naraht (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And the AG has announced (same link as Naraht) that he will not appeal. Close the books on this one. Davidmac2003 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming imminent

According to the Casper Star Tribune, the judge hearing the Wyoming (federal court) case has announced he will rule by 5 PM (Mountain Time) Monday. Note that Wyoming is bound by the Tenth Circuit precedent. Is this enough to turn Wyoming transition blue? This is the scenario where North Carolina was light blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with blue for now as it is almost likely that the judge is going to throw the ban.--Allan120102 (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. We cannot presume any judicial ruling. Mw843 (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We colored North Carolina transition blue once the judge there announced his intention to rule. Like North Carolina, Wyoming is bound by appellate court precedent, meaning the judge in Casper has no leeway to make a negative ruling. So coloring Wyoming transition blue would not be a mere presumption. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference is the stance of the state government. North Carolina had given in to reality, Wyoming has not ... this could go on for months. Mw843 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

NC shouldn't have been blue in this circumstance. It's one thing for us to say that there is no logical outcome other than overturning the ban; however, without prescient abilities there's no way to know for certain that a judge won't act in an illogical, irrational manner and decide to make a ruling in spite of knowing it will be overturned by a higher court. Yes, it would be insane and career-ending, but just because we know how something is supposed to work doesn't mean we can say it is going to. Wyoming should remain red until the judge actually rules against it. Shereth 21:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also, the judge could stay their ruling. Prcc27 (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Light blue conceded. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Governor announced during a debate tonight the state should not appeal. Casper Star Tribune Of course, we'll have to see if he actually follows through. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Freedom to Marry says that the Wyoming decision has now been made. Though I'd wait for confirmation from the press. — Yksin (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS on Alaska

Nothing yet from Justice Kennedy on Alaska's request. I suggest we hold off making any change for the moment. Mw843 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless marriage licenses are given I agree.--Allan120102 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And we have a denial [5]. Alaska goes dark blue. Mw843 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming updates

Preliminary Injunction granted in Wyoming, but stayed until 5pm (presumably MDT) on 23 October to give the state opportunity to appeal. Based on the stay having an expiry date, Wyoming should go light blue. Order here [6] Mw843 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Governor's office has announced that the AG will be notifying the court that the state will not appeal the ruling. Timing to be determined. Mw843 (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Governor's announcement. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee's color on map

According to [7], a federal court has struck down Tennessee's lack of recognition for same-sex marriages. It should be striped yellow and red, the same as Michigan. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 23:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I realize Tennessee's status will change once the 6th circuit ruling comes down. But until then it should be striped yellow and red. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 23:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That ruling applied only to the plaintiff couples, and not statewide; that's why TN is not colored to reflect the court opinion. Tinmanic (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

TN was an odd case: the judge granted a preliminary injunction to recognize the marriages of the plaintiffs pending a trial ... most states in a similar position have accepted those orders, and gone to trial ... TN took the PI to the 6th Circuit, and I don't think the original case has moved at all. Mw843 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Other Map

Also the map File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (North America).svg has not been updated to reflect AZ. I say this here because this page has more eyeballs lately. Fortguy (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done. Btw, do you mind collapsing the map..? Prcc27 (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done. Fortguy (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

[moved to own section] 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

More drama over the Same-sex unions template

An editor is trying to get the template locked down again. I thought we had this cleared up after the RfC resulted in the page protection status being lowered. Any editors interested in making a comment concerning the issue can do so here. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The admin who knocked it down to semi declined the request. Swifty819 (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming capitulates

The AG will file notice at 10:00 AM Tuesday morning (noon, Eastern) that the state will not appeal. Same-sex marriage should become legal almost immediately. Mw843 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Info is being added to the page right now, and the map is updated. Great to see such fast movement. Kumorifox (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

The ban in Puerto Rico is upheld. Appeal to 1st Circuit. info — Mimich (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I am 100% in favor of marriage equality, looking at the map, a "neutral point of view" would suggest that Puerto Rico and Louisiana should be a darker shade of red than the rest of the "ban" states, as their bans have actually been upheld by U.S. district courts. I'm not going to make any changes, and (as a while back I said) I would like to stay out the extended and heated debates that go on this page, but I cannot help but to comment on this situation. MarkGT (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree to some extent but I believe if we are talking about that we should make a map base on ruling and the LA ban was struck by a state judge but was upheld by a federal one.--Allan120102 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

An enforced ban is an enforced ban. There is no practical difference. I see no need for any color change. Besides, all laws duly passed by legislatures are presumed constitutional until a court says otherwise. It is like being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Allan120102: The reason I added Louisiana was because the U.S. district court ruling in Robicheaux applies statewide, while the conflicting In re Costanza and Brewer case finding the SSM ban unconstitutional in La.'s 15th Judicial Circuit (i.e. the equivalent of a county court) is: 1) stayed pending appeal, 2) if the stay is lifted w/o further action, it will only apply to three counties only, and 3) will not be statewide in application unless a higher state court orders so. Otherwise, on the "main map," La. would currently be shaded yellow/beige instead of red because of Constanza and Brewer.

Rreagan007: Your reasoning is entirely valid. The reason I would mark it differently is to note that 1) the legality of the ban was challenged, 2) that the ban was upheld, and 3) future attempts at challenging the ban are better handled through the appellate courts. I know that while a decision of one U.S. district court judge is not precedential on another, I believe (not a lawyer) if another couple decides to challenge the ban in La. or P.R. in U.S. district court, these rulings are persuasive (though not binding) authority.

Although, now that I think about it, we may have considered this issue in the past and it was voted down (i.e. changing the map when bans are upheld.) It's been a while and a lot has changed so I was just interested in peoples' views.MarkGT (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that adding a new shade of red for "ban upheld" does anything serve NPOV. The reason that "ban overturned" gets its own color is because it is a very real change in the status of SSM in a given jurisdiction; a judicial decision upholding a ban simply preserves the status quo. While it may have some bearing on future lawsuits within the same jurisdiction, it has no bearing on the legality of SSM itself. This map is supposed to be a summary of the legal status of SSM and not a comprehensive judicial history, and while the idea of making the map more informative is noble it's something that doesn't really add to the value of the map in its stated purpose. Shereth 16:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider the flip. For a state like Illinois which legislatively passed Marriage Equality, a couple sues in court because the gays took marriage away from them which is an unreasonable theft. The Judge throws the lawsuit out, should the state be colored a deeper blue?Naraht (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I had to laugh at the image you provided, but I agree. A ban is a ban, and the current dark red colour is sufficient on the map. Precedent red is useful to show the current state of marriage law in that circuit, which is why it is there. I oppose a darker red for upheld bans.
Just think, once all this is behind us, we won't need this map any longer; it will just be dark blue all over. Kumorifox (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Kumorifox (talk · contribs) Other than the fact that that it was in Kansas, not Illinois, it actually happened yesterday. http://www.towleroad.com/2014/10/kansas.html Naraht (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Damn... I thought you were being hypothetical. Kumorifox (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually read that court "filing" by Mr. and Mrs. Uhruh in Marie v. Moser, No. 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.) on Scribd yesterday. I cannot believe that level of insanity exists in the 21st century: the first legal citation in the brief reads "See Bible, Genesis 2:24" and the couple files because "The Uhruhs do not want to share the marriage name" with same-sex couples. Isn't that like the "separate but equal" civil unions? They think that allowing SSM will cause their "...marriage [to] be so fundamentally and profoundly changed that the Uhruhs will experience a taking of their property rights in marriage without due process of law." But they, obviously, do not mention what would actually change (experience in 32 states has shown very little besides granting LGBT people their rights). MarkGT (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither could the judge ... their request to be a party to the case was denied, but they were invited to file an amicus brief.Mw843 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose extra shade per Rreagan007. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I also oppose special shading for Louisiana and Puerto Rico, because then you'd also need to include at least Nebraska, whose ban was challenged in 2006 in federal court and upheld, and Kansas's, whose statutory ban was upheld in 2002 by the state Supreme Court. There have likely been other court cases in some states where a ban was upheld, which never got much press attention because the plaintiffs were represented by a private lawyer rather than a major advocacy organization. --ΨΦorg (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida news coming

A little old, but this Friday, AG Bondi has to respond to the request by the ACLU for U.S. Judge Hinkle to lift the stay on his August ruling that the state of Florida's ban on SSM is unconstitutional. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-gay-marriage-bondi-wants-certification-20141017-story.html Ghal416 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully we won't actually have to wait until January to get Florida to dark blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Crist is leading Scott in the polls and predictions per Fivethirtyeight (not sure about Bondi). If the incumbents both lose, Crist and Sheldon could just tell the court they will be dropping the appeals upon inauguration. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't make a difference. Inauguration day in Florida will be January 6, and as I recall the appeals window will expire on January 5 if it isn't taken up by that point. I can't imagine a judge taking action based upon the choices of a governor-elect over the instructions of a governor still in power. Shereth 19:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bondi is doing well in most polls, but Scott and Crist are still in a nail biter. It could go either way at this point. We'll have to wait and see, but still...they have to respond on Hinkle's stay by tomorrow. Ghal416 (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bondi responded: Brief. Looks like we're stuck with transition blue for a while longer. In the brief, she asks that the judge grant an indefinite stay until the Eleventh Circuit rules, which would roll Florida back to beige. Now we wait on the judge's actions. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am guessing she does not want to spend any political capital on the appeal, which makes sense because she probably does not want to turn off pro-SSM independent voters. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it will end up beige either way: Bondi gets what she wants, or she goes to the 11th Circuit, and gets it there ... I can't see her getting turned down twice (however justified it would be). Mw843 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but hopefully the judge drops the stay, making Bondi have to rush over to the 11th to get a new one. Yeah, in the end it will happen anyway, but always like to see those fighting for keeping the ban to work a little elbow grease doing so ;) Now we wait... Ghal416 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The judge has decided that he will not lift the stay, but nor is he making it indefinite [8], so no change for the time being. Mw843 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)