File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

11/25/08 MAP FIX REQUESTED

I think the colors of same sex marriage and domestic partnerships should be switched to show a better distinction. Same sex marriage should be the darkest to show it as the furthest progress.

I don't know how to do this but the image needs to be reverted back to the one from a week ago where the yellow stripes were removed from Washington, Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. The reason for the deletion was supposedly "redundancy." This was an incorrect removal of information. The purple/green colors are positive rights that are granted by those states to same-sex couples. Conversely, the yellow represented a negative right - meaning that the state has a statute/law that prohibits same-sex marriage. NOTE - many people incorrectly think on this map that yellow represents an absence of any law in that state.....that is incorrect!!!!

Thus, WA, HI, MD, VT, NH, and ME all need yellow stripes because none of those states can grant full marriage equality without repealing an existing state law. this is very different than saw NY, NM, and RI where NO state law at all exists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.190.88 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2008

You're right. Corrected. Selma (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Iowa

The map indicates that Iowa's constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions, but the accompanying article says same-sex marriage is not banned by the constitution, but only by statute. WilliamBarrett (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The map does not indicate that Iowa's constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions. You may have Iowa confused with another state. See Image:Map of USA with state names.svg. MantisEars (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Iowa's statute banning same-sex marriage has been found unconstitutional in court, but the decision was stayed by the ruling judge pending appeal. California was also in this category for some time. I expect this category to become more common over time. Do we need a distinct color to represent it? (Here in Iowa, one gay couple from Ames managed to get their marriage license, have the three day waiting period waived, and return it to have it registered before the stay was issued, and several gay couples managed to get a marriage license but didn't get it returned and registered before the stay. So Iowa does indeed have one legal same sex marriage that is fully registered with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. See Same-sex marriage in Iowa)--Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Statue or STATE?

Resolvedtalk has went idol, presumed resolved [remove this tag if you feel tag need to continue] --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

it says Statue bans same sex marriage... does it mean state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.53.69 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It means that it's banned by law, not in the state constitution. Kairos (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Be precise... State, Statue, or Statute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.8.5 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

California

Resolved

 – Image now matches current law. --X-Destruction (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

California has now passed prop 8 making same sex marriages illegal, the current picture does not reflect that ruling. It should be reverted back to the previous picture I believe. 8:18 13 Nov 2008 (UTC)

ResolvedCalifornia now offers the ability for people of same-sex to get marriage --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

California does not yet have same-sex marriage. The ruling legalizing same-sex marriage does not take effect for another month. NoIdeaNick (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it is now legal, so time for a map change. And i'll be sure to do it right now. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't legal yet. The ruling doesn't take effect until the middle of June. To quote this [1] LA Times article, "Paul Drugan, a spokesman for the office of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, said the county was not immediately granting same-sex marriage licenses, noting that the court's decision doesn't take effect for 30 days." NoIdeaNick (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the map also needs to be changed so that Hawaii is the same as Oregon, since Hawaii also constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. 96.224.135.66 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Hawaii's constitution permits the legislature to ban same-sex marriage; it does not ban same-sex marriage.

California's color should be changed. Yes, California legalized same sex marriage (yay!) but domestic partnerships are still legal in the state. It should be striped to reflect this (like New York and Oregon are). Hihellowhatsup (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Marriage will not be "opened to same-sex couples" until 6/14/08. But it is still legal. "Legal without access" is still legal, it doesn't mean that it is illegal until that date, it just means it is legal but the ability to commence those legal rights are not offered till that date. And i really do want to understand what the effects of same-sex marriage will have on domestic partnership.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The California Supreme Court decision is not final yet. It is not the law of the land until it is final. The distinction between a decision being published (or something being ordered) and becoming final is an important one in the law. -Rrius (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But, as discussed above, it IS legal. The court's decision was final and binding. The court has the authority to stay, or delay, the enacting of that ruling, but it is nonetheless legal until overturned by a higher court (in this case, only the US Supreme Court), or an amendment to the California constitution (but even that is unclear since the ruling states that the body of the constitution prohibits such discrimination as would be written into the potential proposed amendment).Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, sir, you are wrong. The court's decision is not final and binding until 30 days after it is announced. That is not my opinion, it is the in the court's own rules. The court had the power when it announced the decision to make it effective immediately, but it did not. I can't imagine what bias you think I have, but all I am concerned about is accuracy. If you want, go look at the Cal. Supreme Court's rules. For extra credit, look up what it means for a judgment to be final. In any event, if you had read further, you would have seen that we reached a consensus to have the image (which already shows marriage) show both marriage and domestic partnership. Therefore, your rationale for taking up this argument (especially without informing yourself) eludes me. -Rrius (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that people use "sir" as a poorly disguised insult. If you could provide us with a reference for those rules, I'm sure it would greatly benefit this article as well as many others on WIKI to clear up this kind of disagreement. Anyway, only 2 more days until this argument becomes moot!Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

California still has domestic partnerships. There's nothing in the court brief that indicates that domestic partnerships were unconstitutional. So that would mean that both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships are legal in California. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be an * by California and put something like "Effective 6/14/08." Although same-sex marriage is not legal there yet, it's almost certain to happen, and it's a major enough change in the topic of "Same-sex Marriage in the United States" do at least deserve a footnote on the map. Benrw 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

accuracy disputed

Resolvedmap updated --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

File:800px-Samesex marriage in USA-temp.png

What California should look like.

  Same-sex domestic partnerships

  Same-sex marriages

California has same sex marriage and domestic partnership, In needs to be stripped with both colors.

  Same-sex domestic partnerships

  Same-sex marriages

--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The decision is not truly final until 17 June 2008. The Supreme Court can rule on a petition to rehear the case up until the 30th day after the original decision. That would be the 14th, but it is a Saturday, so the last day is the 16th. Therefore there won't really be same-sex marriage in California until the 17th. This has been widely reported in the media with varying levels of specificity as to why 17 June is the day. -Rrius (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage will be OFFERED at that date. It is, at status-quo, legal. But regardless, the colors are wrong, it needs to be stripped. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

" California still has domestic partnerships. There's nothing in the court brief that indicates that domestic partnerships were unconstitutional. So that would mean that both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships are legal in California. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC) " --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other jurisdictions in the world with both SSM and domestic partnerships? I always thought stripes were supposed to be for varying legality in subdivisions of states. Also, the colors should be for the highest level of rights. If we had a similar abortion map, we would not stripe states with different colors for different restrictions on abortion. MantisEars (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the logic has been, but if California is to be striped instead of solid purple, New Jersey needs to be striped as well. New Jersey has civil unions and domestic partnerships. -Rrius (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the section above, the decision has no legal effect until it is final. You are trying to make a distinction without understanding the significance of the terms used. In re Marriage Cases will not be the law of the land until the decision is final. Period. -Rrius (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you need to stop complaining about "it not being legal yet" or whatever. If you bought a ticket for a concert that is a month from now, are you going to that concert? That is the same logic hear so stop saying it is not in effect yet. It will be happening soon and the state already has "plans to go to the concert" so try being productive and stop going in a direction that is leading you nowhere...--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The concert analogy is inapposite. Also, I am not complaining at all: I am pointing out facts. A court opinion has no meaning until it becomes final. Right now there is a petition for rehearing before the court. If granted, the court could change its mind. This is similar to any statute passed by a legislature that takes effect on some date after it becomes law: it has no force until the effective date. I am "being productive" here. On 17 June, assuming as is most likely that the court will deny the petition for rehearing, all these changes should be made. This sort of waiting is normal across wikipedia. When the next president is elected in November, the infobox at United States will continue to say "George W. Bush". It will only change around noon EST on 20 January 2009. You may be excited about the change in the law, but that is POV. Wikipedia should continue to reflect same-sex marriage in California as a future event until it becomes a present event. -Rrius (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a new color for "Domestic partnerships; Same-sex marriage pending"? MantisEars (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To what end? The issue will be cleared up for all on 17 June. -Rrius (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To distinguish "marriage pending" from "marriage in consideration" or "marriage not on the table". MantisEars (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)The new color would only be in use for a few weeks. I think Cooljuno's idea, which I obviously disagree with, is better than the compromise. -Rrius (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have done it already if I knew how. Is there an organization or Wikiproject with SVG-savvy Wikipedians that can complete this task? MantisEars (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If so, New Jersey should be striped green and dark blue because it has civil unions and domestic partnerships. Also, New York's statute does not ban same-sex marriage, it just doesn't provide for it. There is a difference. If the statute banned same-sex marriage, it would say such marriages are void (or even prohibited). It doesn't, which is why foreign same-sex marriage are (in some instances) recognized. The situation is the same as New Mexico and Rhode Island. Neither of their statutes provides for same-sex marriage, but neither says they are void, either. Therefore New York should be solid light blue like New Mexico and Little Rhody.

To recap, California should be striped purple and dark blue, New Jersey should be striped green and dark blue, and New York should be solid light blue. Does anyone disagree?

-Rrius (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well someone needs to take action and make these changes... --Cooljuno411 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page of the editor who created the file. I don't know who else to ask, and I don't know how to do it myself. -Rrius (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted the image to the Wikipedia graphics lab/images to improve here. MantisEars (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Supreme Court of California has denied petitions for rehearing and for a stay pending the November election. Thus there can now be no question that the decision in In re Marriage Cases, S147999 will become final on 16 June 2008 at 5:00 p.m. PDT and same-sex marriages can take place in California at any time thereafter. See the court's Web site for further information. Charlie GALVIN (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Map has now been upgraded and updated. Is the info still disputed? /Lokal_Profil 17:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I will remove the disputed tag. MantisEars (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Civil Unions - Domestic Partnerships - Legal Equivalents

I would argue that civil unions in the Northeast and domestic partnerships in California and Oregon should be highlighted the same (in the case of CA, if same-sex marriage is shown to be legal there, it should also be striped over with the same thing): they all are functional equivalents of marriage at the state level, with VERY few exceptions. Moreover, I think a domestic partnership in Oregon is more like a Vermont civil union than a Maine or Washington state domestic partnership.

Perhaps a more reflective, combined title for equivalent unions could just be "Functionally Equivilant Legal Unions" while domestic partnerships with SOME of the rights of marriage could be labeled "Legal Unions with Some Rights" (like Washington and Maine). If someone would suggest more concise descriptions, that would be great.

Also, what about Maryland? A recent bill signed there grants limited domestic partnership rights to both gay and straight couples. I think that nomenclature aside, this law is more similar to the reciprocal benefits laws in Vermont and Hawai'i than it is to the more broad domestic partnerships in Washington State and Maine. Benrw 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I raised this issue at (I think) Template:Same-sex unions and gained no traction. I generally agree with the concept, but we would have to be very careful of the terminology. "Unions granting rights similar to marriage" versus "unions granting limited rights" or "enumerated rights" may be better. -Rrius (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We can make this change after we decide whether to overwrite this image with the newer map or to change all the links to the older map. The civil unions color can be used for "similar rights" and the domestic partnerships for "limited rights". MantisEars (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what do you reckon? Overwrite or change links? As you said at the improvement page, the current image is wrong, so is of little historical value. -Rrius (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm for overwriting. MantisEars (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I managed to change the California coding to striped purple and green per the instructions at graphics page, but I have no experience uploading images. If you, Mantis, have experience with such things and can also get the stripes to work, I would suggest you do it. Otherwise, I will give the uploading a try. -Rrius (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• California is now a striped purple/green.
• Oregon is marked as orange/green instead of orange/dark blue.
• Old image is overwritten with a new legend. MantisEars (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch with Oregon. -Rrius (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a warning. Changing what the colours mean is not always a great idea. Although people here can update the english legends there are now several language versions where the legends are no longer correct. For this particular map it was ok since it's only used on a few other wikis so I left a note on the talk pages that the legends needed updating. More a warning for next time or similar maps =). /Lokal_Profil 23:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. MantisEars (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut

Resolved --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The image shows CT as allowing same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court in CT has yet to issue a ruling on the subject; same-sex marriage is not legal in CT at this time. -Jameth (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It shows statute bans same-sex marriage and has civil unions: marriage is purple, not green. -Rrius (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm an idiot and confused MA with CT. Thanks :) -Jameth (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Connecticut Supreme court just ruled that Same-Sex Marriage was legal. Hooray for equality! 129.130.205.8 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone change its colour please, then. I'm not sure how to. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As with California, the ruling does not take effect immediately. When it does, the colour will be changed. Selma (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Again on stripes and colours

The map is about two things: Marriage/unions and constitutional/statutary bans. Therefore, stripes should be allowed only to depict those states who give some rights to same-sex couples BUT enact some form of ban on marriage or union.

California and New Jersey should not be striped. It seems to me that on all Wikipedia maps only the HIGHEST level of protection is shown. Take Spain, where civil unions still exist along with marriage. Or the Netherlands, where you can choose between marriage, unions and unregistered cohabitation.

Too many stripes make a map possibly more accurate, but illegible. Finedelledanze (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems legible to me, and I am not sure how other Wikipedia maps are relevant. Also, I don't see it as a question of protection. The differences between California domestic partnerships and marriages are slight and have to do, mostly, with getting in and out of them. In terms of protections, they are essentially equal statuses that exist side-by-side. It is therefore really a matter of what status the state offers to same-sex couples. Since DPs in New Jersey and California continue to exist after the introduction of another status, It is not clear why they should not be included in the map. -Rrius (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is too a relevant issue. And of course, the map is still quite legible. But if California were all purple, like it was some days ago, any reader would immediately notice two purple states, CA and MA. They would immediately understand where marriage is legal and where it is not. Same thing with civil unions and NJ.

Secondly, the Europe and World lgbt right maps follow other criteria: highest protection. Some countries, as already mentioned, offer 3 layers of protection, and if this had to be reflected on a map, what should it look like? a checkerboard? Thirdly, also adoption maps, abortion maps, death penalty maps follow the criterion of highest protection. And it is not clear why only the US map should be excessively detailed and stripe-obsessed. :)

Also, if somebody explained me how to encode/edit stripes on inkscape, I would be thankful. Cant figure it out. (Finedelledanze (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)).

Changeing the colours of stipes is easily done but adding stripes to a state or removing them from it is less straight forward since it involves manual copy pasting in the code to avoid breaking the css. Anyhow if you all opt to remove the stripes in the end I'd definitly recommend putting that new image under a new filename. But firstly, obviously, people should agree on what to do. /Lokal_Profil 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus. My position is that stripes should be kept only when some rights are available AND a statute or constitution ban on marriage is enforced.Finedelledanze (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; showing that multiple statuses are available says something interesting and useful about family relationships recognized in the US. It is not overly complicated. If the colors used need to change to provide more contrast, then so be it. As to the above point about this map versus Europe's, the fact is that American law on this topic is messy. Because the US is federal, with the states making law on the topic, and there is so much diversity of opinion from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it is bound to be this way. Law and opinion on this are not only varied, but nuanced. You have states in the east willing to give same-sex couples the same rights as marriage, so long as they call it a civil union, and Oregon, which is willing to create civil unions, so long as they are called domestic partnerships. Simplifying the map might be aesthetically more pleasing, but would do a disservice to readers, who would miss out on a fairly simple depiction of the complexity of American family law on this topic. I started following this image in the first place because I found it to be a valuable resource. -Rrius (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Washington DC

Resolved --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can it be maginified? It's hard to see what color(s) it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.8.5 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. is      MantisEars (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I could put a small circle above D.C. if enough people want it. /Lokal_Profil 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It would probably help, and it couldn't hurt. -Rrius (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. /Lokal_Profil 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

These maps are getting quite complicated, and will probably be getting even more complicated in the future. I suggest that the map be split in two and only one color be used for each state. One map would show the "highest" level of same-sex partnerships. The states that offer both same-sex marriage and domestic partnership and other anomalies could be indicated by text in the legend. Another map would show which states recognize same-sex marriages from out-of-state. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion two above this one. -Rrius (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I read through that discussion before making this suggestion, and I have read your recent comment. I still think there should be two maps. There are two issues going on. One is the level of recognition offered, and the other is recognition of out-of-state partnerships. There is variation in what each state offers and also variation in what each state recognizes. The combination of both could lead to an extremely complicated map. The map is already very complicated. Two maps would be an improvement no matter what may develop in the future. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal wording

Have you noiticed that were DPs, SSMs, CUs, RBs [just in Hawaii], etc (domestic partnerships, same-sex marriages, civil unions, etc) are legally provided, they are all together on the west coast and all together up in the New England region? Come on the rest of the USA, just legaly provide DPs, SSMs, CUs, RBs, etc. Does having different laws in different states create inconsistany and a lack of transparancy - Even with the federal DOMA Defence Of Marriage Act 1996? The USA seems all mixed-up with funny laws that are different, all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Vermont

Resolved

Vermont should be stripped yellow as well, because there is actually a same-sex marriage ban in the statutes - Not in the Consitution of Vermont (which is good). Vermont has provided same-sex couples "civil unions" since 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you source that, or what is the name of the statute? MantisEars (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[2] says that Vermont has a marriage statute. Maine and Hawaii should also have yellow stripes, because they both have marriage statutes too. Perhaps Hawaii should be in a color by itself because of its special amendment? 96.224.136.57 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The amendment that says "The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."? One solution would be to have three stripes if possible, one for its "Reciprocal beneficiary relationships", one for its constitutional deferral of the issue to legislature, and one for the statute ban. MantisEars (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Hawaii should be both indigo, because it provides some same-sex benefits, and perhaps another color representing its amendment, with a key that says something like "Constitution permits ban on same-sex marriage." But Vermont and Maine should definitely have yellow stripes. 71.190.13.50 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry on holidays right now so my internet access is lower then usual. If you specify exactly which changes you want made then I'll try and get them done as soon as possible. /Lokal_Profil 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yellow stripes on Maine, Vermont, and Hawaii. MantisEars (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So striped in yellow and the current colour(s). Will get on it. /Lokal_Profil 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Maryland, which is yellow, should be striped yellow and dark blue (for "Unions granting limited/enumerated rights") per a thread below. -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated. Please doublecheck to make sure nothing got messed up =). /Lokal_Profil 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me.--96.224.48.98 (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Colorado

Is gay marriage really prohibited by Colorado's constitution? I mean, Colorado made a law saying that bathrooms are now co-ed, which seems like a step past legalizing same-sex marriage to even forgetting there are different sexes.--69.234.193.4 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It really is: Colorado Amendment 43 (2006). MantisEars (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. part deux

Resolved

I think that D.C. should be green, not purple. Beside the fact that they're called "domestic partnerships" recent legislation has granted same-sex couples all the legal recognition the city can materially provide short of marriage, which is banned thanks to Congress. I don't think that there are any benefits that civil unions and domestic partnerships in other states provide that D.C. does not. -epicAdam (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. MantisEars (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think . . ." Hmm, are you a legal expert in family law, epicAdam? If not, what you or I think about DC partnerships is worthless. Can you provide a reputable source to verify your claim here? Textorus (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a tad bit late, but just for the record I did provide a link to the Washington Blade article article on the subject, which confirms the the fact that D.C. provides de facto civil unions. The newspaper meets all the requirements of WP:V. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maryland

Resolved

Maryland has enacted domestic partnerships early this July. It should be changed on the map to dark blue and yellow, like Washington State.--96.224.52.42 (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage recognized, but not performed

Per Rrius's excellent suggestion, I'm copying here this exchange of comments originally posted at Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States:

As the months go by and more and more states recognize same-sex unions, the idea of an accurate color-coded map is becoming trickier and trickier--perhaps impossible.

New York, New Hampshire and New Jersey are great examples, since, legally, they all "recognize" same-sex marriages, in one way or another, from other states. But, while New York recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages as full-fledged marriages, NH and NJ recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as civil unions.

I think the later should clearly be delineated, while the former may NOT need any illustration on the map. It is likely that most states with civil union statues, if there were legal issues or legislative changes, would recognize same-sex marriages as civil unions. Connecticut is an interesting example of what could happen, because their civil union law does not specifically recognize same-sex marriages, but they also have a statute (passed at the same time as the civil union law) that bans same-sex marriage.

Like I said, this is a VERY tricky thing to illustrate. At this point, it almost seems necessary to have a separate Wikipedia article for Same-Sex Unions in the Northeast, although it would still seem difficult to visually illustrate the complexity involved with recognition of same-sex unions. Things will be come more complex if the Illinois legislature passes their proposed civil union law (which seems likely either later this or next year), which would not only also be open to opposite-sex couples, but would also recognize gay marriages as civil unions.

As California shows, much of the progression of this involves layering over layering of new rights. Can it all really be added to the map?-Benrw 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite a job to effectively display all the piecemeal legislation for and against same-sex unions across 50 states, in a way that a reader can easily comprehend. Maybe the solution is to do what HRC has done on their website here and create separate maps, that could possibly display side by side on articles where they are needed.Textorus (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the initial comment about New York's recognition of foreign same-sex marriages not needing to be included, but the New Hampshire and New Jersey recognition of foreign same-sex marriages needing inclusion. New York's recognition is weird and worthy of mention. NJ and NH are what you would expect.

In any event, this discussion does not belong here; it belongs at Image talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. -Rrius (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Textorus (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There could be a new color, a light green, that represents unions granting similar rights to marriage + foreign same-sex marriages recognized as local union. Or the colors could be switched, light green for local-only unions, and dark green for local unions and union rights for foreign same-sex marriages.

But eventually, we should have a seperate map that deals with state recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages and unions. Oxygen (believe) 14:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How would that work for somewhere like New Jersey, where some relationships are recognized as DPs, and others as CUs? How do we deal with Connecticut, where we cannot be sure whether foreign (i.e., non-Connecticut) civil unions are recognized? I think that this gets into more detail than is necessary for a map. Trying to present (or, as the reader, interpret) this information on a map is more complicated than leaving it to the specific articles. -Rrius (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the link I posted did not carry over when I copied my comments from the other talk page, so here are the HRC maps I was referring to:

Relationship Recognition Laws

Same-sex Marriage Prohibition Laws

Again, it may be that the best solution is to create two maps that would display side-by-side or top-and-bottom, to make it easy for readers to take in the visual info. A complicated map that's too hard too read is worse than no map at all, imho. Textorus (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, here is another example of the two-map idea, from stateline.org: State Policies on Same-sex Marriage. Textorus (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think two maps is the way to go, and have suggested as much in the past. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut update

This map needs to be updated, in light of today's Connecticut Supreme Court decision. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it should be striped like California or all purple like Massachusetts. I'm in favor of making both Cali and Conn all purple. Anyone else? Aashalom (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Both should be (and are now) striped because the rulings did not make civil unions/domestic partnerships illegal; the systems exist in parallel. FromSelts (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The ruling has not taken effect yet, we should hold off, as we did with California, until an opinion overturning the statutory ban becomes effective. It appears that that could be as late as the end of November. The Conn. Sup. Ct. opinion directs the trial court to enter summary judgment for the plaintiffs, but that mandate does not take effect until Oct. 28. After that, the summary judgment order will probably not be final until about 30 days later. If Conn. is like Cal., then the summary judgment order will not take effect until then. -Rrius (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Added the comment to the commonspage instead. Could an admin delete the local version of the page? /Lokal_Profil 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting rid of the stripes

There's been a lot of discussion as to whether or not the map should be striped. I just wanted to post an example of what it could look like if the stripes were removed. I also changed the color for weak civil-union states from blue-gray to dark green, as a visual aid, analogous to:

dark-green : strong-civil-unions :: light green : weak-civil-unions.

I think it's a lot easier to read. What do you think? --Mike Schiraldi (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about this at Image talk:800px-Samesex marriage in USA.png. -Rrius (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the stripes make the map hard to read. 1.) It's hard to interpret striped states; I have to keep referring back and forth to the key. 2.) It makes the colors hard to distinguish; it looks to me like Washington is partly purple, but it's actually partly indigo. 3.) It makes it hard to tell the smaller states apart; for example, it's very difficult to tell D.C. apart from surrounding states. 4.) It's way too busy and feels a bit like a vision test or safety warning. I agree with the previous requests to split into two maps and simplify the coloration:

• Have a separate map for "recognition of out-of-state marriages", showing "recognize as marriages", "recognize as domestic partnerships", "do not recognize", etc.
• Keep one map for "highest recognition afforded". CA and CT should not be striped; they should just be showing "same-sex marriages". NJ should simply show "Unions granting rights similar to marriage". It's fine to add in the caption "California, Connecticut, and New Jersey also offer other types of same-sex unions", or just leave this to the article text. It's not a good idea to cram all this information into the map alone.
• To eliminate stripes completely, I would also move "contradictory" bans to the image caption or article text. "Despite recognizing same-sex unions, same-sex marriage is banned by statute in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington State, and Hawaii, and by constitution in Oregon." I would lean toward putting this in article text, since the difference between banning same-sex marriage by law and simply only allowing for same-sex unions is not all that important.

-- Beland (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Each map should show one spectrum of information, using one spectrum of color. I would also put the legend in spectral order - if purple is "highest recognition", then green should be lower recognition than indigo. -- Beland (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your point that solids are easier to read in general, the problem is with all the possibilities and combinations, too many colors will be required and this makes it not only harder to read, but prone to mistakes. So while I agree with your desire to get rid of the stripes, I nevertheless recommend they stay.

13Gregor (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always been in favour of getting rid of the stripes. I think Mike should go ahead with his proposal! Finedelledanze (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I had User:Mark do it early this morning! Note, only the yellow stripes, other stripes are needed. CTJF83Talk 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The yellow stripes are needed. The first four colors indicate states with laws explicitly granting rights, while the last three colors indicate states with laws explicitly restricting rights. For states with both kinds of laws on the books simultaneously, the stripes are needed. This clearly includes the yellow stripes. If I am interested in seeing which states have laws on the books that place restrictions on marriage, without the yellow stripes, I will mistakenly conclude that fewer states have such laws than actually do. Gilly3 (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll be the wet blanket here... the map's become too confusing, particularly because it doesn't show the marriage laws in certain states where there are same-sex unions, like the old map did. How about just making two separate maps, one for the same-sex unions, and one for marriage amendments, like the ones here? Intervals (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is just easier to see it all at one glance. CTJF83Talk 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Licensing wrong?

I think the licensing on this image is incorrect. Since this map is a derivative of GFDL, doesn't this image also have to be licensed under GFDL? Queerudite (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Arizona Passes Prop. 102

This means that AZ's Constitution now outlaws gay/same-sex marriage. Hawk505 (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Florida as well, maybe California

NPR is reporting that constitutional bans ni both Florida and Arizona have passed, and the one in California is still too close to call. -- Beland (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Arizona and California should have orange (CA with green stripes), and Florida should be solid red.96.224.60.67 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposition 8 has passed in California and many counties have already halted issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The proposition is being challenged in court, but as of now, it has passed in the same way as the marriage amendments of Arizona and Florida. Gambit2392 (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, Prop 8 has not yet passed in California. There are still three million uncounted absentee ballots and it will be weeks before the vote is certified. The "100% precincts reporting" does not equate to "100% votes cast" since the more than three million absentee ballots are not included in that. For now, the image is correct, in other words. --75.82.173.229 (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So then the votes of Arizona and Florida do include the absentee ballots? Because they also passed their respective marriage amendments (based on Election results and the media). Also, the media mentions the uncounted ballots saying that the campaigns privately doubt the chances that Prop. 8 will not pass. Also, the media also says that based on the location and voting pattern of the regions of the uncounted ballots, Prop. 8 appears to remain victorious. Gambit2392 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Prop 8 groups already conceded defeat. Might as well change California to orange and green.96.246.211.185 (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Civil unions in Hawaii

Civil Unions might be provided in Hawaii by August 2009.

and? Wait till it happens. CTJF83Talk 04:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New Mexico - fix needed, please

On this map, New Mexico is shown in the same color as New York and Rhode Island; however, the situation in New Mexico is very different from the other two states. NY by court rulings and executive orders is actively recognizing same-sex marriages, whereas New Mexico has, as far as I've been able to determine, never yet given any official recognition to any same-sex union.

I revised the Same-sex marriage in New Mexico article last August to reflect this reality; also, please see my comments at [[3]].

This map as it stands, then, is quite misleading; I'm not sure how to fix the color problem, but a casual reader would assume that NM and NY are in the same boat on this issue, but the situation is not at all the same for same-sex couples in those states. Can someone please think about a good way to fix this? Textorus (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Domestic partnerships

Last time I looked dosn't Washington state already have a domestic partnership, why are they passing another one? The domestic partnership bill in new mexico will pass one house and fail the other house - as it always does every year from 1999 to 2009. Does new jersey have a plan for same sex marriage, instead of the current "seperate but equal" civil union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I live in Washington State. The domestic partnership registry has been expanded from a limited form to include more rights. This 3rd passage would make the DP equivalent to SSM but in name.DaveIseminger (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oregon, vermont, california and Maine

When will oregon, vermont, california and maine provide same-sex marriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

SSM in Washington

Instead of a domestic partnership, why don't Washington just provide SSM already? The sky has not fallen with SSM being legal in MA and CT. civil unions and domestic partnerships or whatever else they are called - SBE ("separate but equal") is not ever the way to go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I live in Washington State. The domestic partnership registry has been expanded from a limited form to include more rights. This 3rd passage would make the DP equivalent to SSM except for in name. I was skeptical for the rolling out process but it has helped get the State further along than others. WE have 50 stated with 50 ways of doing things and I'm sure eventually we'll get there. DaveIseminger (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii and Washington

Has Hawaii passed its civil union bill yet?

Has Washington state passed its domestic partnership registory bill yet (the 2009 one)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.178.34 (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I live in Washington State. The domestic partnership registry has been expanded from a limited form to include more rights. This 3rd passage would make the DP equivalent to SSM except for in name.24.143.89.53 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove stripes from states with SSM marriage

It is only confusing, and very few would care about civil unions being available as well if SSM is already legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Washington State

I have been hearing rumors that Washington State passed its 3rd domestic partnerships Bill - the "everything but marriage bill", so should the map be green with yellow just like Vermont, new hampshire, etc. Washington has a 1998 DOMA (defense of marriage act) statute, although a constitutional ban on same gender marriage is planned for Washington State in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It passed in the WA House, but it's being stalled in the WA Senate right now, but Gregoire indicated she probably will sign it. Liberal92 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I live in Washington State. It actually passed the WA Senate and is working its way though the WA House. It isn't stalled though.....it is just making its way through the process. Can the original poster cite the source for a 2010 ban? The is no constitutional amendment initiative process in Washington and no bill is actively being vetted in the legislature to amend teh WA constitution. DaveIseminger (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Stripes are good and work well

Stripes are good and work well because it shows on the map that status. For example Oregon and California have full domestic partnerships, but a "dreadful" constitutional ban on SSM. Another example are DOMAs (defence of marriage acts) and civil unions for Vermont and New Hampshire. 4 states of New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and New Mexico have no ban or interperate the marriage laws, under their statutes - However just because their is no ban does not still mean SSM is legal. SSM means same sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he's talking about why are there stripes indicating both Marriage and CU'c in a state like Connecticut or stripes for both Civil Unions and Partnerships in New Jersey? Shouldn't we stick to the highest thing provided by the state and just make that one solid color? He wasn't talking about states with partnerships and bans at the same time, which obviously then, stripes would be warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• True accrucay requires that CT stay stripped as under current law same-sex couples coudl still get a civil union. There is a bill working its way through CT that would turn all civil unions into SSMs and eliminate civil unions as an option. But for now SS couples could still get a civil union --- some might still want that for a variety of reasons.DaveIseminger (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii

What is the status in Hawaii to date? Has the civil union bill passed or stalled (i heared it was a tie vote) - can this all be verified or confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• It stalled in the Senate Judiciary committee and then failed to get pulled to a full floor vote so the issue is dead in HI for this year.DaveIseminger (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevada

I have been told from various sources that Nevada is planning a domestic partnership which is a very similar model to the US state of Oregon. SSM is illegal under the consitution of California, Nevada and Oregon (various other states as well - I think 30 is it?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.75.133 (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Maryland

Since when did Maryland had a domestic partnership, I can not find information into that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.75.133 (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• MD didn't pass a domestic partner registry in its family law code. Instead it passed two separate bills that define a domestic partnership and grant very very very limited rights. There is no real registry though.DaveIseminger (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Maine

Why is Maine a purple color, not green? I can understand why Hawaii and Maryland are purple since only very few meazly rights are granted to same gender partners! Washingtons 3rd domestic partnership (2009) will soon allow the map to be green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is purple because green reflects a recognition status that is "almost equivalent/equivalent" to SSM. Maine recognizes more rights than HI/MD but not to the same extent as NH, etc.DaveIseminger (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Vermont

Do not get too excited - a dumb republican Govonor has said he will "veto" the same sex marriage bill!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as of 11 am today gay marriage is legal, as the statehouse overturned the veto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.191.50 (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The new law doesn't go into effect until September 1[4]. - Jredmond (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

SSM in a few states maybe coming soon

Bills are being introduced in several states to legalise SSM:

• Iowa (non-stop and ongoing court challenges);
• California (non-stop and ongoing court challenges);
• Rhode Island (likely to pass);
• Vermont (I am sure it will pass, but be vetoed by Govonor);
• New Jersey (likely to pass);
• New Hampshire (likely to pass);
• Maine (not likely to pass, but maybe wrong), and;
• New York (I am sure it will pass).

• • • Why do you think that in the current legislative session NY and RI are places that SSM bills will pass? There have been repeated reports of numbers in their legislatures that indicate there aren't enough votes. And in RI the Governor has indicated a veto and is there until 2010 and the votes don't exist to override it. Just curious your thoughts on why it is so likely. NJ hasn't introduced a SSM yet and the Governor's approval rating is sunk in an election year so that might derail things for a bill this year there too. New Hampshire was such a close vote in the House and while Governor Lynch hasn't said he will veto it he doesn't support so while it might pass the legislature it might not become law anyway. If anything holds true in the SSM debate is NOTHING is a sure thing. I guess if by "soon" you mean the next 4 years then I'll agree with you that all of these states will most likely have SSM but if you mean this year we are lucky to have gotten Iowa, probably will snag Vermont as it will come down to a single vote or two, and will be lucky if we get one more.71.217.118.224 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional amendments proposed in the 2010 election to BAN gay marriage in:

• Washington; (See Below)
• North Carolina;
• West Virginia, and; (See Below)
• Wyoming

These places already have DOMAs (defence of marriage acts) in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The one in Wyoming FAILED MONTHS ago. Wikitiki666 (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Where did you heard about the one in Washington? I can find nothing on such a proposal. Wikitiki666 (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The ban in West Virginia failed as well. Wikitiki666 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I live in Washington State.....there isn't a constitutional amendment ready for 2010. There is a bill in the legislature but it is dead and no initiatives have been filed yet. Washington State doesn't allow for constitutional amendments my initiative (like Prop 8) anyway. The initiative here would be to repeal the domestic partnership registry.DaveIseminger (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Iowa

Why is Iowa purple on the map - when did the court make SSM legal there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Today at 11AM local time. The Supreme Court agreed that the state statute/DOMA was unconsitutional and on 4/24/09 SSM should begn to occur under the rulingDaveIseminger (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Vermont

SSM is not legal in Vermont yet - the "dopy Rep. Govonor" has to sign the bill yet and have an eff. date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The governor vetoed the bill, but the legislature just overrode his veto. Same-sex marriage will be legal in Vermont effective 01 September 2009[5]. - Jredmond (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clickable map?

Wouldn't it be great to have a clickable map that links to all of the individual articles about Same-sex marriage in Iowa, Same-sex marriage in Connecticut etc, like the one on the United States article? Of course, the map may not need change for this, just the code on the articles. Fortuynist (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5