Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Proposition 8 defeat date

Prcc27 had modified the legalization date for the Prop 8 defeat in the States that license same-sex marriage (table). I have reverted this edit [1] [2]. Judge Walker's ruling was the only valid ruling on the merits of Proposition 8, and thus the date of his ruling is the only appropriate date. This is consistent with the treatment for the judicial rulings in Massachusetts, California (In re Marriage Cases), Connecticut, Iowa, and New Jersey and the bill-signings in many other states. Please, don't re-revert my edit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You are, of course, correct.

Perhaps the problem here is the heading "legalization date", which I find rather obscure. Walker's ruling clearly didn't "make" anything "legal", since it was stayed. Declaring something legal and making something legal are 2 different things, and I think the normal reading of legalization is the latter: to make legal in real terms, not just to say so. (Wiktionary is of little help, since it thinks legalization refers to the process of making something legal.)

What's meant here by "legalization date" is the date of ruling/vote as distinct from the effective date, no?

Of course we're not very good with headings generally in this WP entry: "States (and D.C.) with same-sex marriage" is the heading of the table. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: Do not come on my talk page accusing me of disruptive editing. If there is a dispute, this is where we work it out. When a ban is struck down, same-sex marriage is not legalized if there is an indefinite stay pending appeal (temporary stay gets murky). The case has to go through the appeals process before it becomes legal.

@Bmclaughlin9: I agree that the heading is a problem because my definition of legalization closely aligns with Wikitionary's. If we could improve the heading that would be nice.

If California's ban being struck down and indefinitely stayed pending appeal legalized same-sex marriage then why don't we have states like Oklahoma who have had their bans struck down and stayed indefinitely colored as light blue for "Same-sex marriage in process of being legalized, but not yet in effect"? The ban being struck down is the first step in the process of same-sex marriage legalization.

In my opinion, same-sex marriage was legalized in California when the appeals process was complete. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Proposition 8 case is murky, I will agree to that, but I think California is the only one where it is murky and that is because there was an illegal appeal that was in play. The fact at hand is the ruling that killed Proposition 8 was the ruling from Judge Walker. The SCOTUS just ruled that the appeal was illegal and vacated it (i.e., the appellate ruling counts for nothing); the SCOTUS did not rule on Proposition 8 (Reliable sources: "Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8" [3]; "Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit." [4]), only Judge Walker did. California is murky, but the Walker ruling is the most accurate legalization date to use as that is the only actual ruling on the proposition. This table is retrospective, and for settled states we can adjudicate when exactly final legalization occurred; since only Walker legally ruled on the case, his date is the only appropriate date.
In all the other cases, we are fairly fine as it is; there was no murkiness to any other temporary stay. Every state where there was a State Supreme Court ruling (MA, CT, IA, and NJ) (okay not really NJ, but the NJ-SC told Christie they were leaning to upholding the earlier ruling, which marked the end of the appeals process and led to the scheduled stay ending), there was a temporary bureaucratic stay, and the law went in to effect when they said it would. Similarly for every state with a non-immediately-enforced law (other than the three cases of being sent to referenda, which we had a procedure for). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you address the heading "legalization"? It's not precisely correct. Since no same-sex couple could marry in Massachusetts in the 6 months following the date we now identify as "legalization" (Nov 18, 2003), the label doesn't seem to describe what happened on that date accurately. That was the "ruled legal" date. The effective date, the "made legal" date, came 6 months later.

Wouldn't "Date of ruling/vote" be more precise? Can you suggest something else? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact that we give both dates solves any issues about the precise meaning of "legalization"; however, if you could get a consensus of editors to support replacing legalization date to something along those lines (e.g., "Date signed/ordered"), I would have no reason to oppose. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I made a bold edit and changed them to Date Enacted and Date Effective [5]. Is this satisfactory, if not then feel free to revert. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I modified that to Date of Ruling/Vote and Effective Date. Why? The word "Enacted" is manifestly wrong. A court decision does not "enact" anything. It decides, holds or rules. Ruling/Enactment would work, except for that damn popular vote in Maine! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I changed Vote to signature, because the dates for all statutes (other than ME/MD/WA) refer to the day a governor signed a bill into law (not the day the legislature voted on it), but now thinking about ME/MD/WA, I don't know how well signature works either... I think Ruling/Enactment will still cover Maine, because there the people (i.e., not the legislators) did the enacting. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Much better than where we started~ Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Legalization Table

Could we keep states where same-sex marriage is legal separate from states that have legalized same-sex marriage? This distinction has already been made on the U.S. map and I think it should be made here. We could have a table for both situations. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not just sort on the column "Legalization method"? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: Because then the legalization states are included in the percentage when they don't offer marriage to same-sex couples yet.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I really don't understand. I thoughtdrawing a distinction between

(1) states where same-sex marriage is legal: states where SSM is legal because of a court ruling

(2) states that have legalized same-sex marriage: states that legalized SSM by action of legislature+governor

What table are you talking about? I assume you mean the one headed: "States (and D.C.) with same-sex marriage". What "legalization state" doesn't offer marriage yet? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: I'm sorry, I meant for future references we should distinguish between states that currently have same-sex marriage and states that legalized ssm, but has yet to go into effect. I apologize if I was unclear.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - We don't need one, this is a table not a map, if someone sees that the date of enforcement is in the future, they should not have any problem understanding what is going on. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Thegreyanomaly: I don't mind having them in the same table, but could we at least keep the percentages separate..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't we just not enter the population for such states until we hit the effective date? (Also, I'm having trouble coming up with likely cases.)Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• • We can have two population totals if necessary. As for examples, any states like Oregon or Pennsylvania where the Gov. and AG both opt-out (and there aren't any anti-SSM clerks appealing like in VA) could easily turn into the next state to get SSM. Nevada is in this boat. Depending on what happens in November, Colorado and some other states may also be in this boat. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wisconsin and Indiana, Seventh Circuit

Stay or no stay?

"The [Wisconsin] Attorney General has always believed that this case will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court. The stay remains in effect until all appeals have been concluded," Dana Brueck, a spokesperson for the AG, said in an email. (emphasis added)

Source: TPM

The district court's order in Walker v. Wolf said: "The injunction and the declaration shall take effect after the conclusion of any appeals or after the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal, whichever is later." I imagine "any appeals" means just that. Otherwise we'd be hearing a lot from Wisconsin. Source: here

So our statement that the Seventh Circuit did not issue a stay is misleading, no?, in that it did not need to do so. The lower courts' stays remain in effect, according to the Washington Post here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Or there's this tweet from Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade:

From @ACLU: #7thCircuit marriage decision stayed for 21 days, unless defendants seek a stay.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What about a timeline?

So, I was thinking, the "History" subsection is basically a huge blob of text full of mostly inconnex sentences. Why don't we add a visual timeline to make things easier to understand while, at the same time, work on improving the text description? I was thinking of something along the lines of this:

↓DC: SSM act in force

↓CA: Perry v. Schwarzenegger
  SSM legal, stayed until 2013

↓NY: SSM enacted

↓WA: SSM passed, suspended

↓MD: SSM passed, suspended

↓WA, MA, MD:
  SSM ratified in referenda

↓RD, DE, MN:
  SSM enacted

↓USA: Windsor v. United States
  Fed. govt. recognizes SSM

│

2010

│

2011

│

2012

│

2013

│

2014

Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States, 2010s

But clearly it does get crowded in 2013, and things can only get so much worse after Windsor. Any suggestions? Is this a woeful idea that I should abandon, or should I work on it? Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 23:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say abandon it. Flags are not good representations of states if you have to label them. The scale is completely unmanageable if you go back to MA at least. I'll stop there. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the two issues you mention are certainly addressable, don't think that the example I posted above was the end-it-all. If flags don't work they can be removed, and obviously the timeline would be split in several rows with possibly different scales, like 1970-2000, 2000-2010 and 2010-now (the last one could even be split near its midpoint). I was asking more about whether the idea itself of a timeline was good or bad for some reason, rather than about the execution of the example above (which was centered in the 2010-now timeframe). Thanks for chiming in, though. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 06:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the problem of conveying too much detail in the text as is is a problem of putting too much detail in this article; we don't need every motion in every state covered here. Building a timeline off of that level of detail will just give us a big messy timeline, rather than effectively summarizing things. What might work as a summary of the march of time is a graph charting, for each year (say, snapshotted Jan 1, so we don't get into too many arguments over whether something counts on August 3 or August 6th) how many states over SSM, how many don't offer SSM but offer civil unions or similar marriage-like statuses for same-sex couples, and how many offer nothing at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States

There, that was more like what I wanted to build. Does it look half useful or do I just stop bothering? :/ Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 21:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a timeline for this would have to be vertical, with varying scale for important years. I have no idea how to do any of it, i just think that would convey info better. I would recommend you not put too much work into it until there is more consensus for it. it might make a nice side article, lets see if it exists: Timeline of same sex marriage in the United States.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The subsection is not updated

On September 4 Seventh Circuit provided an opinion for all 4 cases in 7th Circuit. But the subsection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Seventh_Circuit) is NOT updated, there is no information about it in the subsection. Why? M.Karelin (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also no information regarding the 4th Circuit appeal from Virginia. Should be added. Teammm ^talk
_email 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Texas

I don't think Texas's same-sex marriage ban was technically struck down by a state court... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It was a federal judge who struck it down and the state court followed. But where in the article does it say it was struck down by state court as opposed to federal? Teammm ^talk
_email 03:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It says it was found unconstitutional by a state court so I guess the wording is fine. It might be a little bit confusing though. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I see what you mean. Teammm ^talk
_email 17:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Individual Cases

Is it really worth noting all these individual cases..? If so, I guess I'll add Florida's (unless it's already added) and Arizona's... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just added Florida's cases (Arizona was already added). Seriously, I say we should just leave out the individual cases of recognition... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd add that we even mention some of the individual cases in the summary. They really don't rate that much attention. A specific divorce or a death certificate can be covered in the WP entry for the state. That's more than enough. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried separating the individual cases into their own paragraph in the summary. More info in a note. I suppose I'm of two minds. Some of these cases get a lot of coverage and readers may come here wondering about them. The other problem in that some cases are hybrids, like a group of plaintiffs where one couple's marriage is recognized on an emergency basis while the suit continues, or Tanco where the district court wanted to grant relief to 3 couples while the suit was appealed and the circuit court wouldn't let him do that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cases with rulings

Should some of the cases that were already ruled on and concluded be moved to a separate section? The 3rd Circuit case in Pennsylvania is concluded, as far as I am aware, so should it still be listed in the "currently in litigation" section? Or if it is not concluded, can it be clarified in the text by someone who knows more about it?

Also (since I got no response on the map talk page), would it be beneficial to include striping in the litigation map for the "stay" states, to show where the current litigation is at? Utah, Oklahoma etc. are at the Supreme Court stage, whereas Texas is still at the Court of Appeals stage, for example. Would striping clarify how far each state has gone? I'd be willing to recolour the map if people think it is beneficial. Kumorifox (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My main question here concerns the cases in Oregon and Pennsylvania. Are these two cases still active? If not, should they be moved to a new section, or referenced in the "state laws" section while having their details removed from this page and placed in the cases' respective pages instead?

Sorry for being picky, but their presence in the litigation section is confusing to me. Kumorifox (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll check them out. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It is much less confusing now. And now I know where to place future cases as well. Kumorifox (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Trimming

I've found lots of out-dated and repetitive material in the coverage of lawsuits, along with some questionable display/indenting practices that create a lot of white space. I've started doing some trimming, which will show up as rather large removals of material, but my intent is to avoid repetition and get things up to date. There's also rather a lot of info of interest only to lawyers, and even then only to some of them. For example, under "Federal district courts", we have 3 separate headings for the 3 district courts in Alabama, each with one case. But that's not a helpful way of organizing this info: it's allowing the detail to drive the presentation. One heading for Alabama would make more sense, simnce this isn't an entry for "Same-sex marriage in the federal courts of the United States". Finally, we devote hundreds of words to some cases and not others. This WP entry covers a broad subject and we have plenty of detail in other places: entries devoted to a single cases, entries like "Same-sex marriage in [state]", and sometimes "LGBT rights in [state]". I think what we need here is something short and sweet for each case, so I'll be trimming some of that too, but I'll try to make sure first that the detail appears in one of those other WP entries. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking good already. It is much more overseeable after your edits. Thank you! Kumorifox (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort that you've been doing, and I concur that it is largely within the reasonable goal of keeping the material on the proper level for this article, with plenty of individual state and individual case articles out there to go into the deeper details.

Having said that, I do have concern about the removal of any mention of DOMA section 2 from the article. Yes, you were right that we should not have that in the introductory summary if it is not below. However, that would be best addressed by including it below; the exception to the Full Faith And Credit clause is one that states are definitely exercising, and failure to recognize out-of-state marriages is the basis for some of the lawsuits. It also may clarify thing for readers from outside the US who do not understand the recognition problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. I'll find a way, though I think that the states generally do not cite DOMA section 2 in their arguments. They justify denying recognition to SSMs from other jurisdictions on the basis of state sovereignty and federalism, especially the federalism they find in Windsor, without reference to DOMA 2. We can still state what Section 2 says and that it is cited (must be somewhere), but I'd also like to find a source that explains why we see it mentioned so infrequently.

E.g., in Utah to SCOTUS, there's a footnote: "The Court [in Windsor] did not consider a challenge to Section 2, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738C." And 1738C doesn't appear in the Table of Authorities. When the cert. question posed is something along the lines of this:

"Does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state from defining and recognizing marriage as only the legal union between one man and one woman?"

DOMA 2 doesn't count for much. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on Section 2. Felt like OR cause it's explaining why Section 2 doesn't get mentioned much. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Stay table jurisdiction

For the stay table, why is the 'jurisdiction' listed the original jurisdiction to have ruled, rather than the most recent one? It's substantially more significant that Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Wisconsin's stays are of appeals court rulings than that the original ruling came from a district court.

I'd just change it, but I want to make sure there isn't some policy decision here I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.89.120 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Wisconsin and Indiana should be removed from the stay table since their rulings aren't stayed.

Both Indiana and Wisconsin's decisions are now stayed. Teammm ^talk
_email 00:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The stay table needs to be updated as a result of the denial of review by the SCOTUS. Also, does the binding of the Appeals Courts make same-sex marriage legal in the other states under them? The Utah case was filed in Federal court, making it a Federal case. Therefore it is binding precedent on Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming as well, but does that make it legal or does a case have to come before each and be summarily ruled upon? The Virginia cases as well would be binding precedent on N. and S. Carolina and West Virginia. That would bring the number of states that are required now to recognize same-sex marriage to 30, not 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic hackr (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

According to, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_5938854.html, it does. Not quite sure if it goes into effect right away in N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia - but for now, assume that it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Percival5 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Supreme Court Appeal Denied October 6th

The 4th, 7th, and 10th circuit court cases were denied their appeal to the Supreme Court, allowing the circuit court rulings to stand. Several of the news article I have been reading state that this would effectively legalize gay marriage across the entire circuit; this is irrelevant for the 7th, but the 4th and 10th each have several states which have not presently legalized gay marriage and are not marked as such. Should a note be made of these states as far as the fact that they are in jurisdictions which fall under the jurisdiction of these courts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They are named in the second paragraph: Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. If you want something "marked as such", perhaps you can explain or comment on the Talk page for the graphic you're interested in.Like HERE. I find them hard to decipher myself. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Two another citations: First (http://www.vox.com/2014/10/6/6870087/supreme-court-gay-marriage-equality-decision): "Same-sex couples in six other states — Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming — should be able to marry as well, since those states are also bound by the circuit court rulings the Supreme Court rejected on Monday.The Supreme Court's rejection will eventually leave same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia, although some states may take a while to recognize the full effects of the decision." And second: (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-06/u-s-supreme-court-refuses-to-rule-on-gay-marriage.html) "Gay-marriage supporters said six other states -- Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina -- will automatically follow because they fall under the jurisdiction of those appellate courts.". So, the question is: what about Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina?? Is SSM legal in those states or no?? M.Karelin (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they will follow in due course, but each will occur at its own speed. They haven't happened yet. Some will go smoothly and others (like South Carolina) will try to make it take as much time as possible. Look at the language in your quotations: "should" "eventually" "will automatically follow". Just have to be careful about that word "automatically". It's not instantly or ASAP, but more like dominoes falling, one at a time. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage has been fully legalized in Colorado, along with the other 5 states. Marriages are happening now, and this change of status has been affirmed by the AG and Governor. Why haven't the tables been updated to reflect this yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downthewikiwormhole (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The AG and the Gov have both said it will happen shortly but they need to work with courts to get stays lifted. A few marriages doesn't mean anything is legal just yet. Cite your sources here if you believe you have more up-to-date news. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Other states under the jurisdiction of appeals courts that struck down the bans will also be affected, meaning the number of states with gay marriage is likely to quickly jump from 19 to 30." sourse - http://www.cnbc.com/id/102058024#. 46.71.50.93 (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. "will" and "likely to jump". Just not yet. Don't you recognize the use of the future tense and the conditional prediction? Hasn't happened yet. Even in Colorado where govt officials want to make it happen it's taking a little time. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a simple statement: "In the five states with bans that had already been struck down, marriages are likely to begin immediately. Virginia, for instance, began issuing licenses on Monday. Utah, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Indiana will not be far behind. Indeed, in Utah, some same-sex couples actually got married during the brief period before the lower court decision was put on hold pending Supreme Court action. In six other states — Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia — it may take a little more time for same-sex couples to start marrying, but it won't be long, since those states are governed by the decisions the Supreme Court left in place on Monday." From NPR. Emphasis added. Just seems mighty clear to me. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming is also going to make it difficult, even though everyone (I think) agrees their fight is lost. See this report from WYOMING. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"Colorado Attorney General John Suthers on Monday said all 64 county clerks must begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear all appeals on gay marriage bans." Seems pretty definitive to me. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26672658/colorado-ag-says-all-64-clerks-must-issue Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should put this to a vote. And no one here is talking about Wyoming. The discussion is strictly concerning Colorado's status. Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't vote. We seek consensus.And we have been having 2 conversations about CO and a set of 6 others. If you read past the partial quote above you'll get this: "Suthers said it is important that county clerks wait until all the legal formalities are taken care of before they begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Jumping the gun could create more confusion and uncertainty for couples who receive licenses before same-sex marriage becomes legal, he said." Empasis added.

And: "Suthers said his office will file motions to expedite the lifting of the stays in both the state and federal courts. The attorney general said he will to continue to advise the clerks on when to begin issuing the licenses." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If it becomes clear that licenses are being issued, we can say that in response to Supreme Court action, clerks did X and Y. That's different. So far what I've seen is pretty isolated. Just Pueblo? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing with semantics to win points. You know what I meant. Fine, we should seek consensus. And so far, it seems you're out of step with what most others believe concerning Colorado's SSM status. The article I linked is about 10 hours old. The AG's office has given the go-ahead and multiple counties are now issuing licenses. I don't get how much more you need here. Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't playing with words. You said vote and that was wrong. Sorry for pointing that out. Win points? Just making my point. I don't need to score points cause I've done more work on this entry in the past weeks than just about anybody. Doesn't mean I own anything -- I don't -- but I have enough credibility with the people who've thanked me over those weeks that I don't have to score points. I've yet to see a reputable source that says SSM is "legal in Colorado" without qualifying that just a bit. Listened to Lambda's phone call about this earlier too. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, you Wiki-Warriors always think it's about you. Editing articles is something you do because you want to provide the most accurate and objective information you can for people. It's not so people can pat you on the back and "thank" you. It's good you've put in time and understand the issue, but it doesn't make your judgement infallible, and here I believe you're being too cautious and holding the article behind the information curve at its own detriment. However, it's not worth getting in a mutually destructive edit-war with you, so I'm not going to push it further. But I hope others can chime in soon. Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And the Denver Post headline right now is: "Pueblo starts issuing gay marriage licenses, others wait for go-ahead." And Suthers is on Chris Hayes/MCNBC in a few minutes. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Idaho and Nevada

What's the legal status?

(1) The Ninth Circuit ordered the district court in Nevada to issue an order against the state. It seems that order will make SSM legal there. Lambda Legal on Nevada: "Based on the Ninth Circuit's clear instructions to the trial court, we expect that couples will be able to marry soon." But Freedom to Marry thinks "Nevada couples are now immediately able to marry." But they also think Nevada is the 20th state with SSM.

(2) The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision in Idaho, but had issued its own stay of that court's pro-SSM ruling. I saw nothing in today's decision about that stay.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(3) I'm hearing from a reliable source (at Freedom to Marry) that the 9th circuit decision is binding for the entire 9th, so in the map, Alaska, Arizona, and Montana should all be light blue (as Idaho and Nevada are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.47.19 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Binding isn't the point. Making it happen is different. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that same-sex marriage is now legal in Nevada; that Nevada does not plan to appeal the ruling; that Nevada has already printed the forms for gender-neutral license applications; but that the county clerks aren't issuing marriage licenses today; they're waiting for direction from the courts or the AG. So I don't know if that means it's appropriate to change the color now - or when the first licenses are issued. 75.140.51.246 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I would wait until licenses are being issued. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Idaho is listed as performing them in the table. I don't think this is true yet. Swifty819 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe someone moved Idaho rather too quickly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This report: "The decision is stayed in both Idaho and Nevada, so same-sex couples still won’t be able to wed in those states for the time being. For Nevada, the case is remanded to the district court for the issuance of an injunction to prohibit the state from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage.Metro Weekly, also says Idaho can seek en banc review and the unhappy Governor says: "The stay on same-sex marriage in Idaho remains in effect until we are directed otherwise by the 9th Circuit." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The ruling can be appealed, but hasn't been appealed yet. From what it sounds like, though, there is disagreement re: any stay; the Governor claims there is one, while others are claiming there isn't because the court ruled on it, and that the State would have to apply for a new stay for en banc review or from the Supreme Court. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

USA Today says that Nevada isn't going to appeal. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we knew that, since Nevada stopped defending its ban when it found it was going to have to withstand heightened scrutiny. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So the ball's in Idaho's court? Sweet! http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban-in-Idaho-278425231.htmlkencf0618 (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't find Idaho's coloring to be an issue. For example, when Illinois legalized gay marriage, we turned the state dark blue, even though the law hadn't taken effect yet. The Ninth Circuit has issued a mandate against the Idaho law, though this will not take effect until around 21 days have passed (Rehearing window is 14 days, mandate takes effect 7 days after the rehearing petition is considered). In essence, Idaho same-sex marriage is in the process of being implemented; the map should reflect this. In contrast, the District Court in Nevada has to issue an injunction against the law. This has not happened yet, so the state should remain light blue. S51438 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

S51438, keep in mind that Illinois was colored under a different rule for coloring the map. Today, it would be colored transition light blue after the bill was signed, only turning dark blue when the first licenses were actually issued. On the current map, dark blue is only for states currently issuing licenses. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Stay has been lifted! http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marriage-bans-idaho-nevada-struck-26027055 Stay has been lifted. Marriages can begin in Idaho immediately. Coloring on the map should be changed to dark blue to reflect this. A previous talkbacker pointed out: "For example, when Illinois legalized gay marriage, we turned the state dark blue, even though the law hadn't taken effect yet." Exactly. Some of these contributors make up the rules as they go along it seems. And then we have to wait hours for the Wikipedia page to catch up to reality while we convince them of the changed status Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I fully believe the notion that same-sex marriages will be performed in Idaho by tomorrow as the article claims. In Nevada, an injunction is needed from the District Court. Hopefully this will be done tomorrow. In Idaho however, there is still 14 days to ask for rehearing, which very well may be taken with the Republican AG in that state opposing gay marriage. No mandate on same-sex marriage has officially taken effect, though one is pending. S51438 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada is Nevada and Idaho is Idaho. The article couldn't be clearer about the fact that while Nevada is filing for injunction, Idaho is not and the stay has been lifted. Don't really know what more you want. It's as plain as day light. --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you help us with a source? something that says "pending"? According to Boise Weekly this evening 7 pm I assume Boise time: "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a five-word order: 'The mandate shall issue forthwith.' That means that U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale's ruling that Idaho's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional is effective immediately." source Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to find the order on the Ninth Circuit's website, but am having difficulty. The phrase is not present in the original opinion either. S51438 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My notion of "pending" arises from the following sentence within the opinion. "The mandate will issue 7 days after the expiration of the time for filing a petition for rehearing or 7 days from the denial of a petition for rehearing, unless the Court directs otherwise." Now that you mention a direct order from the Court, this could be the "otherwise", though as I said above, I can't find the order anywhere. S51438 (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Here we are! The mandate is lifted! source S51438 (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

With there being a circuit court ruling for NV, it seems odd that it isn't listed in the table in some fashion. Perhaps an asterisk or a notation could explain its quirky current status? That seems preferable to not being listed at all. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course your right. The Sandoval case was a rare exception where the district court ruled against SSM, so there was no table. It's in the non-table section "case law" now, of course. Louisiana is a similar problem. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And now the Idaho AG says hold on we're still reading this stuff from the court. From BuzzFeed:

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said in a statement provided to BuzzFeed News, “We are still reviewing the decisions and orders issued today by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s still too early to know fully what the decision and orders mean for Idaho and how the state will proceed.” Wasden’s spokesman, Todd Dvorak, added, “Unless something changes later tonight, this will be our final comment on today’s developments.” An attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Chris Stoll, has stated that the group will go to court if the state does not allow same-sex couples to begin marrying in the state.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact Nevada and Idaho are still light blue on the map is ludicrous. There's a difference between a pending enactment date and a judicial edict being contested or appealed in court. In Nevada, the Governor's office has already declared it won't appeal. I don't remember this hair-splitting when New Jersey or Illinois or other states last year were waiting for enactment dates. When we make our maps so convoluted, who are we really serving? At the very least in Nevada (you can argue Idaho after the AG's hail-mary comments that won't come to anything) it is definitively and unchallenged as the law of the land. 71.184.246.203 (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place to complain about the map; you should go to the talk page for the map and talk about it there. That being said, the map is about transitioning vs actually performing them. Once they actually are performing them, it should be dark blue; until then, it should be light blue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Precedent states (and territories)

Should we add a table for or somehow otherwise include the states that are bound by precedent in the current table? It just occurred to me that since there are now 10 such states, this is no longer a trivial thing. There are more precedent states than stayed states, and as many as states that still have intact bans with nothing against them. Swifty819 (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Aren't they listed in the second paragraph? (I count 8.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the fifth and last paragraph in the lede does list the 8 states that are bound by circuit court rulings. I think that the map should be updated to include a new color for states bound by circuit court rulings, but where same-sex marriage licenses are not yet issued. --DavidK93 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A separate map might be preferable. We're asking this map to do an awful lot. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Where are Ninth circuit cases??

Excuse me , where are 2 Ninth circuit cases (Idaho and Nevada)?? Who removed them from this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Ninth_Circuit) section (?) and where? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

They are the last 2 entries under "case law". I moved them there so they would not be deleted, as happened earlier with other cases. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is wrong. At least Idaho's case is still in litigation since it will be appealed to the SU. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the SU? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The mandate has issued which dissolves all stays. Idaho must comply with the court order from the District Court which had previously issued an injunction barring enforcement of the marriage bans. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Idaho and the state should be dark blue.

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in Nevada and should be dark blue, even though the state could, if it wanted to, wait for an injunction to issue from the District Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.66 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess litigation in Idaho will be continued, AG of the state says they will appeal to Supreme Court or even fro en banc review. So better back the Idaho case to the Litigatios section. M.Karelin (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's already there under Ninth Circuit. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Idaho needs to be moved to states with stayed rulings

Justice Kennedy has issued a temporary stay to Idaho's same sex marriage ruling. Swifty819 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone took care of this. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Kansas, WY, SC, WV

General question, so since marriages are taking place in Kansas why isn't it turned navy/light blue or added to the table? And wouldn't WY, SC and WV need to be shaded a new colour too since they are bound by the Circuit rulings? Thanks Moonraker0022 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer the Kansas question, right now it is one county and the marriages are not being recognized by the state government. To keep the table somewhat simple we don't include such cases, or else we'd have had Colorado months ago (Boulder), Missouri (St. Louis), and others. For the Circuit precedent states, there's still a lot of debate over what precisely to do with those on the map talk page. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And legal now in West Virginia.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/wv_20141009_victory-marriage-west-virginia

http://www.governor.wv.gov/media/pressreleases/2014/Pages/GOVERNOR-TOMBLIN-ISSUES-STATEMENT-REGARDING-SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE-IN-WEST-VIRGINIA.aspx

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of states after New Mexico

There seems to be inconsistency in the order of the states before NM and after in the table. For the legal decisions before NM, the enacted/ordered date used for state numbering was the last date of the last ruling on the merits of the case. This was generally the state supreme court ruling (but for CA-2 and NJ it was not). This same standard should be applied to all states after NM, don't you think? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree. That's why I tried to fix the order. Like no idea why Virginia was last! I think the states should be in the order that the initial ruling, even if at district court, took place. Also, the dates are a bit messy as people just copy and pasted the states from the "stayed" chart. I will continue to try to clean it up. This chart needs to be informative but minimal. Brainboy109

Then we actually disagree. I think the district court date is irrelevant. By that logic, we have to move up MA, CA-1, CT, IA, and NJ's dates. The date of the final ruling on the merits should be used as this is what we have been using and is most logical. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

October 6th and 7th are also complete nonsense dates. They are dates of a non-ruling and have nothing to do with the merits of those cases. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For consistancy, I think it makes the most sense to list the states by the date of the court decision that was ultimately put in place to make SSM legal. For most part that would be the first date a decision a circuit court made a decision that had an effect on that specific state. So for California it would be 2008. If, for example, the circuit court decides that the Virginia decision applies to North Carolina, the chart would list the day they make that ruling applying the law to NC, and not the original date of the Virginia ruling. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done This fix has been implemented. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Indiana are dated completely wrong, states out of order in table

"Date of Enactment/Ruling" refers to the date that the last ruling and definitive ruling on the merit date was made. October 6th did not mark a ruling. October 6th only marked the denial of cert. Using this date is absurd. Those dates need to be fixed to the dates that the respective appellate courts issued their opinions. These five states need to be ordered based on those accurate dates. Oregon should be 19, and Pennsylvania should be 20. Unless someone fixes this first, I will be reordering the table tonight. UPDATE: Actually I am doing it right now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)  Done Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada?

Here's something inconclusive: "The Nevada County Clerk's office told The New Civil Rights Movement exclusively that the issues surrounding issuance of licenses "might be resolved today," allowing them to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples." Dated a few minutes ago. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Las Vegas Sun is reporting that the Clark County Clerk is waiting on the Federal District Court to issue its injunction against the ban. There has been no sign of the injunction yet, and the HRC tweet referenced in the page history appears for now to be mistaken. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the Reno Gazette-Journal's reporter on Twitter (so it's unconfirmed for RS purposes), the injunction has been issued. Expect news stories soon. [6] -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And here is the injunction, which is a primary source: [7] -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada has legal gay marriage now

For some reason unbeknownst to me, Nevada didn't get a stay while Idaho did. Or maybe its stay was unstayed. Whatever the case, it's legal there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.94.198 (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Supreme Court didn't get involved today. But Clark County backed off on its plan to issue licenses, too.

At this point, a federal judge needs to issue an order telling Nevada to stop enforcing its ban. The judge responsible has been named. SSM advocates have submitted a draft of what they want him to put in that order. As we wait for him to act, the Coalition to Protect Marriage (or something like that) has asked the Supreme Court to put that judge's work on hold because they want to appeal for all the same reasons Idaho wants to. Justice Kennedy has to respond.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The SSM opponents withdrew their petition earlier today. The injunction has been issued, and marriage licensed are being issued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.124.202 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Templating

Sorry about that. Noticed it hadn't covered some of the most recent events (partially because things are moving so quickly all of a sudden) and confused {{current events}} for {{current event}} when I tagged it, planning to come back in a day or two if it hadn't updated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

SSM legalization table formatting is all messed up

Someone messed up the table with the list of states of legal ssm. It's a huge mess now. Could someone with some technical knowhow clean it up please? --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Looks like it's fixed now. --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my bad. WhoIsWillo (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Idaho?

Now that Justice Kennedy has pulled his stay, the Natl Center for Lesbian Rights says: "BREAKING @USSupremeCourt denies stay in our Idaho marriage case, clearing way for #9thCircuit to enter an order allowing marriages to begin". Sounds like we wait for the Ninth. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ditto SCOTUSblog: "In the Idaho case, the Ninth Circuit Court is expected to act shortly to put its decision back into full effect, clearing the way for gay and lesbian couples in Idaho to seek marriage licenses." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, Idaho can still ask for a hearing en banc or file for the Supreme Ct to hear the case. The question is whether the Ninth will put anything on hold while they do that and the answers is probably not. But there are still legal challenges. And sadly Monday is a legal holiday in Idaho. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, Idaho's order date was the same as Nevada's, so it should be listed right after Nevada in the list of states once enforcement begin as the table is numbered based on enactment/orders. Even if it takes a month for the 9th to reject en banc it needs to be right after Nevada (though if they make an en banc ruling, then it would logically move in the list as it would then have a new final order date). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Idaho is all kinds of a mess right now. It's not (technically) a stay, but it's also not really accurate to say that there's been no ruling, either. That said, the state is definitely not issuing SSM certificates at this time. In short, it's a mess thanks to the Ninth Circuits bizarre actions. WhoIsWillo (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And a few licenses got issued, but clerks have closed until Tuesday. Takes the urgency out of action by the Ninth. here Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Ninth Circuit page on the case; the mandate being reissued should appear there. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And now Latta et al have asked the Ninth to undo its stay of the Idaho district court's judgment and injunction. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And Idaho has til noon Pacific Monday to respond. Then plaintiffs til 5pm. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/us/politics/supreme-court-lifts-stay-on-same-sex-marriages-in-idaho.html?_r=0 This site says that the pictured couple has a license. I am inclined to say we call it legal as it is going to be without a doubt and some licenses have been issued. --krimin_killr21(talk) 18:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Going to be isn't much of a standard, nor is one couple with a license. It's looking like late Monday, but we learned this week with CO and NV and NC that there are chutes and ladders on the way. Best to wait until the stay is lifted. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"In litigation" section

Is there any reason why the cases listed under "Federal district courts" for North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia shouldn't be moved to "Case law" or deleted, as the case may be? -Rrius (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alaska

http://www.adn.com/article/20141012/federal-judge-rules-alaskas-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.139.54 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Decision here. Injunction issued immediately. No stay. https://www.scribd.com/doc/242750104/3-14-cv-00089-38 S51438 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone still needs to add 'AK' to the side-bar detailing legalization at the top. I tried to edit that and add it, but I couldn't find the section. --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's on the bottom of the template; there are three letters; V, T and E. Only Administrators and template editors can edit that template though. [8] Someone will have to put in an edit request.David O. Johnson (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)