File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 13

SCOTUS

Scotusblog.com is reporting that all same-sex marriage petitions have been denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw843 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The states involved are Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Virginia. It's unclear at the moment when the stays will dissolve. It will take someone getting into court for the rulings to apply in the other states in the 4th and 10th Circuits - all states in the 7th will have same-sex marriage with this refusal to get involved. Mw843 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

While I prefer the immediate-update method, the recent consensus is the transition color. Since it is unclear if SSM is being performed or recognized in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Virginia, they should be light blue. SC, NC, WV, WY, CO, and KS probably need to be light blue too. I would make these edits right now, but I am at work (=school) and I need to get off Wikipedia now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

- at least one county in Wisconsin has started. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Colorado will soon be dark blue too.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

VA should now be issuing licenses - I've updated the map to change the states to transition except WI and VA, as the other states have yet to take action that I know of. Also changed the precedent states to transition per the above. Shereth 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

All five states have taken action; all the stays have been lifted. SC, NC, WV, WY, CO, and KS need actual court decisions before changing color, don't they? Tinmanic (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The link from Dudeman says that Colorado will begin them soon, so I think CO needs to be transition. The other states I am leaving alone for now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

CO is issuing marriage licenses: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_26672658/colorado-ag-says-all-64-clerks-must-issue. I think they should be dark blue. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is unclear but it still says "Once the legal formalities are finalized." Tinmanic (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Article is now updated; couples are now receiving licenses. 165.82.81.73 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

By allowing the appeals court rulings to stand, the Supreme Court has de facto endorsed those rulings by their inaction. All the states in circuits that have a federal appeals court ruling as their binding precedent should now get the transition color, including SC, NC, WV, WY, CO, and KS. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. These states are under binding precedent that requires them to issue marriages to same-sex couples. They may ask for an intermediate court order, but the court that issues it has absolutely no discretion in the matter. Same-sex marriage will be legal in these states within a week, maybe 2 weeks at most. Color them light blue. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. SC, NC, WV, WY, CO, and KS should be in transition. Skbl17 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, someone still needs to update the "Recognition of same-sex relationships" and "Constitutional restrictions on recognition" maps. aharris206 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Colorado is still in Transition ... some counties are issuing licences, but the Colorado stay still stands until someone gets in front of a judge. And why has Florida been changed to Transition? It isn't covered by today's ruling. Mw843 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida's ruling had a line that any stay in the case would expire 90 days after cert for "similar cases" was denied (i.e. 90 days from now). It remains to be seen iirc if the Florida AG will try her luck with the 11th Circuit. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK ... found it ... 91 days. Florida's brief in their appeal is due at the 11th Circuit by October 15. If they file, they'll probably get an indefinite stay, if they don't, the stay will likely be dissolved sooner. Mw843 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Mw843: Where do you get 91..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: 91 days makes sense, because it's divisible by 7, and stops things from happening on weekends. Mw843 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious, but does any other state that has been granted a stay after a ban was struck down have similar language to what is in Florida's? Reason I ask is because as of now, before AG Bondi has decided whether or not to continue her legal defense of the ban in light of the SCOTUS non-decision, that language seems to leave open that the stay might be lifted (I know more than likely it won't, but we're relying on the case itself at the moment). Would that mean that FL should be in the "pending" category, or is the stay beige more appropriate...as an overall category regardless of differences in language? Perhaps a little clarification would be needed. Ghal416 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A binding precedent is binding on courts. You can't get same-sex married in South Carolina, for example, just because there's a ruling in the appellate court. There needs to be an order from a court telling state officials to recognize same-sex marriage. Pretending that SSM is now legal in SC misrepresents the situation. It's probably not going to be as fast as someplace where the govt officials are cooperating like Colorado. But then the category "pending" seems very crystal ball to me. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why we have the transition color. The precedent is binding and with the Supreme Court's action it is now inevitable that same-sex marriage will become legal in those states and nothing reasonably foreseeable can stop that now. Only legal formalities need to take place for it to happen. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliable sources are referring to SC/NC/WV/CO/KS/WY as having legalized SSM (e.g., Jeffrey Toobin at CNN ). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. People had opposed a precedent color because "a precedent doesn't do anything." However, once a circuit court actually ISSUES the mandate, then a district court is actually BOUND to strike down the law. So, as the others have said, you KNOW it will be legalized soon. Swifty819 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Further evidence, from SCOTUSBlog: "But today’s orders will have a broader impact as well. Specifically, because the Court let stand the lower court decisions striking down the five bans, those decisions and their reasoning become the law of the land for other states whose federal appeals are heard by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth (Virginia), Seventh (Indiana and Wisconsin), and Tenth (Utah and Oklahoma) Circuits. This means that, although they were not directly before the Court, bans in North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming are also effectively dead. That would bring the number of states where same-sex marriages are legal to thirty." Swifty819 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

CO is different from the other precedent states, because their ban had already been struck down in Federal Court: it's just a matter of getting the stay lifted, and the State AG expects that within a "matter of days". WV is the next furthest along: the judge had stayed a case pending the VA decision, so he could act fairly quickly. For the others, the bans will stand until someone gets in front of a judge and requests an injunction. Mw843 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Mw843. We denied the precedent color for a reason. Furthermore, Kansas's same-sex marriage isn't being challenged so light blue is extremely inaccurate! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Most news sources say it's as good as having it legalized. Kansas doesn't even NEED a challenge per say. Although they will be challenged if someone denies the licenses. Even SCOTUSBlog says you can consider the amount to be 30. A week ago, I would have agreed with you, but EVERYONE is saying the precedent kills the bans. They don't even mention that "It has to be challenged". That's why this is so complicated now. Swifty819 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the precedent states should be updated to transition per reliable sources. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing that. From Scotusblog ... "and probably adding six more in the coming weeks" ... "such marriages can occur when the court of appeals rulings are implemented in federal district courts in three more states in the Fourth Circuit ... and in three more states in the Tenth Circuit". Colorado needs a stay lifted, but the other 5 precedent states need a judge's order before marriages can occur. Mw843 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The precedent states need to be indicated on the map. The best solution is to just use the transition color we already have. Otherwise, we will have to add another color to the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but unless someone wants to start a proposal, what can we do? I think that by not showing what the mandate affects on the map, we're effectively pretending that there's nothing going on with the state, ie that the law is banning gay marriage, and there is nothing at all that will affect it. And this is simply untrue. I think before the mandate was issued, there was a case for leaving those states red, because the rulings MIGHT affect the states; or they might not if they are overturned. Now we know that the rulings WILL AFFECT the states. We should indicate that.Swifty819 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Mw843, I read a different Scotusblog article at , which reads "...This means that, although they were not directly before the Court, bans in North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming are also effectively dead. That would bring the number of states where same-sex marriages are legal to thirty." Swifty819 (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is what coloring the rest of the 4th and 10th Districts the transition color looks like. I prefer the status quo since Colorado is so much closer to equal marriage than the other transition states. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"They're all dead. They just don't know it yet." We don't have a color for that, so we make do with what we have. Mw843 (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a state that legalized same-sex marriage and a state with a precedent against a same-sex marriage ban. We could add a precedent color but this proposal has already failed. There has to be a distinction between a state with their ban struck down (not yet in effect) and a state with a precedent for same-sex marriage (but the ban is still intact). We can't just lump them together. But honestly, a precedent doesn't matter unless the state's ban is actually being challenged and as of now, this just isn't the case for Kansas. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Dudemanfellabra: No it isn't; not yet! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• I cannot offer an opinion on this because the site requires me to subscribe to read the article. Swifty819 (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that Colorado has legalized same sex marriage we should put precedent colors in the 5 remaining states as it is likely that in the coming days or weeks the ban in those 5 would be struck down. NC ban should be the next one I believe but one could come sooner.--Allan120102 (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A note on the civil union color

With Colorado awaiting the 10th Circuit lifting its stay, and Nevada facing a likely imminent pro-marriage ruling from the 9th and without the state appealing, we'll shortly have the civil union color finally gone from this map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I already brought up a similar issue earlier, but...

...this file should have been named "Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg" to be consistent with all the other files, as well as to match the primary (not only) article within which it is being used. What are conventions for naming in situations such as these? Dustin (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Didn't you already bring this up before..? You're welcome to change the name of the file... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: The previous issue was only about the hyphen. This time, it has to do with actually making more significant adjustments to the file and making it consistent with the primary related article on Wikipedia. Dustin (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then change the file name yourself... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida

Apparently, there is a conversation going on about this map on Same-sex marriage in the United States's talk page pertaining to Florida. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've brought it up in other discussions here that it does seem like Florida's decision for a stay from Judge Hinkle involved a connection to the cases that were before the SCOTUS. None of the other stays across the country, so far as I know, had similar language so that does provide some insight that there is a difference. Just by that concept, with ACLU et al trying to get it lifted, for the time being it is "pending". However, if Hinkle extends his stay and/or if AG Bondi decides to press on with her ban defense, then it would be back to a basic stay. That's just the way how I see it, not trying to step on anyone. I don't know however if there is a source issue, as Dralwik brought that up in a previous discussion. Ghal416 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-gay-marriage-scotus-decision-20141006-story.html From this article: "If Hinkle lifts the stay, Bondi could still ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to issue a stay pending an appeal. If that court refuses, and Hinkle lifts his own stay, then same-sex marriage could theoretically become legal within a month." In the same article about the federal case: "Hinkle stayed his ruling until similar cases in federal appeals courts elsewhere were heard by the Supreme Court. Now, that stay is being called into question."..."The district court said that the stay in our case will exist until the stays in the 4th and 10th circuit cases are denied, plus 91 days," said ACLU lawyer Tilley. "And the stays in those cases will be lifted today. Once Tilley asks the court to lift the stay, he expects the state to take all 17 days to respond." Don't know if this helps, but just passing along. Ghal416 (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Colorado

It's a done deal in Colorado: https://twitter.com/EQCF/status/519516094860492800 Tinmanic (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina

Yesterday's decision by SCOTUS to refuse all same-sex marriage appeals meant that the Fourth Circuit's decision was allowed to stand. While there was some talk that North Carolina would immediately recognize same-sex marriage, that isn't the case. However, a federal judge has given both sides ten days to submit "status reports" before lifting the stay. I think that based on that information, in addition to the fact that AG Roy Cooper has dropped the state's defense of the ban (not to mention his belief that the Fourth Circuit ruling is "legally binding"), North Carolina should be placed "in transition" until the ten days have elapsed. Skbl17 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think North Carolina should still be red. Transition should reflect something that will happen without further action: we can't presume results. Mw843 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dralwik updated the map with "North Carolina judge could release decision in 10 days" ...how is "could" not WP:CRYSTAL????? NC should clearly remain the same color as SC and WV. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All precedent states should be light blue. And it is not WP:CRYSTAL if it is "almost certain to take place". And it is almost certain that any judge in a circuit with an appeals court ruling will follow the precedent set by the appeals court. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I should have worded that better, more like "Judge to strike down North Carolina's ban, possibly within 10 days." The Fourth Circuit precedent is strong enough that we're not violating CRYSTAL; now if we changed say Wyoming, which lacks an impending ruling, to transition blue without an impending dwe'd be failing it. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"All precedent states should be light blue." Well then let's do it. As things stand now, the map, the template, and the table alternate between being inconsistent and being wrong. On the other hand, if you're actually not prepared to change the color of SC and WV to light blue, then NC should be changed back. The judge's decision to wait 10 days is not legally binding, and involves inappropriate legal speculation on our part to conclude that it is "almost certain." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The key difference between North Carolina and a state like West Virginia is that the NC judge has given us a specific time table, much like the Florida situation if not as formal. The combination of a pro-marriage ruling precedent and an announced date is what turns North Carolina transition blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, judges in South Carolina and West Virginia have done that too. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, then let's turn those transition blue too. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What is "almost certain" is that the NC (and SC and WV) ban on same-sex marriage will be overturned by a judge as soon as a judge hears the case. And a judge is now scheduled to hear the case in 10 days. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Legislative officials trying to block same-sex nuptials from taking place in NC. Keeping watch on this. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/10/09/gop-leaders-signal-move-block-nc-gay-marriages/16981891/ Ghal416 (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

9th Circuit

Nevada and Idaho should now be "in transition." Heads up on Alaska, Arizona, Montana, American Smoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands whose courts are bound by this precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.66 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you any proof? Swifty819 (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This will do. Opinion: Swifty819 (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada and Idaho ruling was stay or not?--Allan120102 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The opinion mentions no stay. Or rather, it makes no mention of a stay. Swifty819 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean "was stayed or not?" Looks like they were not stayed. The Idaho district court decision is affirmed and seems to take effect immediately. The Nevada district court decision is reversed and remanded (since the Nevada district court decision upheld the ban before SmithKline required strict scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination). See last page of main opinion here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/idaho-and-nevado-marriage-bans-are-unconstitutional-federal Tinmanic (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A decision by a Circuit Court of Appeals does not go into effect until a mandate issues. This hasn't happened yet. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely relevant, but what do you make of the majority and concurring opinion being written by the same judge? Swifty819 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly odd! Never seen that before. Tinmanic (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In the majority opinion, the judge speaks as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, personified. He issued a separate concurring opinion because he could not get at least one other judge on the panel to sign onto that language, which means he had to speak as himself.216.165.95.66 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"The mandate will issue 7 days after rehearing petition deadline or denial of such petition, unless the court says otherwise." https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/519586027879424001 Tinmanic (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

FRAP-40 (page 150 of FRAP) : Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. So judgement effective by mandate in 21 days from when opinion released if there is no petition for an en-banc rehearing of the case = 28th October 2014. — Mimich (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow the map is really changing and fast, depending on the decision of the 6th circuit we might end the year with 39 states for marriage equality, only remaining 11.--Allan120102 (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Idaho/Nevada need a footnote explaining the mandate. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina and West Virginia

The legalization process seems to be rolling in South Carolina and West Virginia Those states should be changed to light blue on the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We need a footnote for those states explaining that judges are likely to overturn the bans (NC needs one too). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) vvv21:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't just "likely". They are bound by legal precedent to do so. But I would be fine with a footnote. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely what I was going to say. There's nothing likely about it. The judge will strike down the bans because the precedent forces him to. This is why the last 2 days I've been pushing for some kind of acknowledgment that precedent exists, since we can't just say "despite the precedent these bans might be upheld." Swifty819 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Light blue w/ footnote..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was bold and went ahead and made WV, SC, KS, and WY light blue (not touching the 9th yet). Someone should formulate a new footnote, as I need to get off Wikipedia now. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Precedent Color?

We have now reached the point where there are as many states subject to Circuit precedent (AK, AZ, KS, MT, NC, SC, WV, WY) as states where the ban stands (AL, GA, LA, MS, ND, NE, SD, TN). The Supremes non-decision yesterday has presented us with a new reality that I think should be addressed. Mw843 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The light blue color we already have should be used on all of those states. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll support that. Note that outside sources, like Nate Silver, are already doing this. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will support that. I think the transition color should become a transition/precedent color. Swifty819 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So the label becomes "Subject to Circuit Court precedent, or legalization pending, but not yet in effect"? Mw843 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In which case, Florida, Idaho and Nevada would be mentioned in the footnote, but not other states, because they don't yet have a legal decision. Mw843 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why would the other states not get a footnote?

How about we change the wording for the transition color to "Government/court legalized or announced intention to legalize." That way, we can leave Kansas as is and only add states when courts say they will follow the precedent. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Idk, the precedent still doesn't do anything (especially for a state like Kansas). I definitely do not want to see Kansas go light blue. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that there's no chance the Kansas judge won't legalize it. It doesn't matter if s/he's the most rabidly anti gay person ever, because the 10th circuit said it is legal, so will s/he. The judge won't say "I will follow precedent." They will get the case, and then be forced to follow it. Whether the KS case was filed right now or in a week, the judge will strike that ban. Prior to the precedent, we could say that "We don't know what will happen if Kansas gets a case"Swifty819 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If/until Kansas gets a case, Kansas needs to be left alone. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also no "if" to Kansas getting a case challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. It will happen, most likely very soon, and when it comes before a judge that judge will overturn it based on the appeals court precedent. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kansas IS getting a case, the ACLU is filing it. And I'm sorry, but at the moment, no one else is backing up your point of view, so I'll just ask, WHY are you so sure that Kansas should be left red? You keep saying "Kansas doesn't have a case", but I want to know what else you're thinking. Swifty819 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proof Swifty819 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27 often is the only one (or one of few) to hold their viewpoint in these discussions. It would be interesting to know why, but regardless the 4th/9th/10th precedent states should be light blue. Since the 9th stuff is new, I am not touching it, but I am being WP:BOLD and uploading a map with the 4th and 10th precedent states fixed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the key should be fixed for that color, but I'm not sure how to change that. Can someone either tell me or do it themselves? Swifty819 (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Until then, the precedent means nothing to Kansas, period. Also, what happens to the territories with no ban..? Will they be required to legalize same-sex marriage or not..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Certain territories are under the jurisdiction of certain circuits (Guam and Samoa under the 9th for example). So, I'm pretty sure they would be required to permit if their circuit rules. Swifty819 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Ninth Circuit ruling did effect some territories, but I know little to nothing about that ruling and its appeal-ability (and thus I neglected it). Someone else can handle that. I need to go get some food now. Logging off. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer we have a separate precedent color than having these states mixed in with legalization states. There's a difference between same-sex marriage legalized and same-sex marriage ban subject to being overturned sometime in the future.. It's a little WP:Crystal to make it seem like same-sex marriage is going to be legal in these jurisdictions (mainly Kansas: ban unchallenged; and the territories: there is no ban to be struck down). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27, you are committing WP:Crystal by assuming that the bans, which are bound by precedent, will somehow not fall. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And you are committing WP:Crystal by assuming that Kansas's ban will be challenged. Wait until the ban is challenged. Also, if the territories don't ban same-sex marriage, how can anything be struck down..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk)

Wrong. The bans are dead, it is just their (metaphorically speaking) "carcasses" that need to be dealt with. Reliable sources linked throughout this page treat the bans as dead. Everything left is just administrative. You really should give up. No one is defending your position but you, and you are not making any headway convincing anyone else. The territories had a de facto bans, in that SSCs couldn't go and get an SSM even though there was no law on the matter. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Mw843 found a quote from SCOTUSblog: "such marriages can occur when the court of appeals rulings are implemented in federal district courts in three more states in the Fourth Circuit ... and in three more states in the Tenth Circuit". How can a ruling be implemented in a federal district if Kansas's ban and the territories "de facto bans" aren't being challenged..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here's the quote in context just in case you still think nobody is on my side...

“

Exactly, the precedent states should be updated to transition per reliable sources. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC) Sorry, but I'm not seeing that. From Scotusblog ... "and probably adding six more in the coming weeks" ... "such marriages can occur when the court of appeals rulings are implemented in federal district courts in three more states in the Fourth Circuit ... and in three more states in the Tenth Circuit". Colorado needs a stay lifted, but the other 5 precedent states need a judge's order before marriages can occur. Mw843 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

”

Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Please stop edit-warring or I will have to report you to an admin. You continually do this. When you don't get your way, you get disruptive. Please stop. Jeffrey Toobin at CNN, also linked above, . SCOTUSBlog "This means that, although they were not directly before the Court, bans in North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming are also effectively dead." . Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: Are you at all familiar with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO..? There are now four people against the map being changed without clear consensus. I am not the only one reverting your light blue fiasco map! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: are you at all familiar with Three Revert Rule. You violated that rule by reverting the map four times in one hour. Regardless whether or not your individual edit was supported by policy, you took a piss on policy by violating another policy. I've reported you to a Wikimedia admin . Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I only reverted three times because one of those reverts didn't actually change the map. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Welp, it looks like Wikipedia policy doesn't apply to Commons.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands

These territories should be in light blue. Federal law applies the 14th Amendment to these territories and they fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. Therefore, the 9th Circuit's determination that the 14th Amendment grants same-sex couples a right to marry is binding precedent in these territories. Note that while American Samoa does not have a federal District Court, federal lawsuits that originate in that territory are heard in the District Court for the District of Hawaii, which is also bound by the precedent of the 9th Circuit. 98.113.109.43 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not yet, the mandate affecting the other states hasn't issued. Swifty819 (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There won't be another mandate affecting the other states/territories. Just like all the other Circuit Courts, it will require a District Court to issue an injunction in these states/territories to erase the marriage ban. These District Courts are bound by the 9th's ruling and have no discretion in issuing this injunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.109.43 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

But that's the thing. The mandate hasn't issued at all, so the courts aren't bound yet. Swifty819 (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The mandate was issued a couple hours ago. 98.113.109.43 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The opinion and the mandate are not the same thing, are they? Swifty819 (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It issued. Swifty819 (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How can these territories be colored "legalized" or "precedent" for that matter when they don't even have a ssm ban..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The exact same way New Mexico was. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Be very careful making broad generalizations about the Pacific territories. The only thing I think is safe to say is that they will be required to recognize marriages performed elsewhere such as those of members of the armed forces stationed there since they have no legal prohibition. The territories under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution are administered by Congress. In a long string of Supreme Court decisions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries known as the Insular Cases, the Constitution does not apply to the territories except in those specific matters in which Congress has expressly extended certain protections of the Constitution to apply in each and for those rights that the courts have uplifted as "fundamental". The Northern Mariana Islands has its own immigration and labor law policy outside of that of the rest of the nation that could be argued to be implemented corruptly. Island-born Samoans do not enjoy citizenship but are merely declared as U.S. "nationals" on their international travel documents. Often territorial governance borrows generously from traditional societal practices and clan allegiances that would not generally be accepted in the states.

We will need to keep an eye to the local media as they consult legal experts with an understanding of each territory's organic law and other Congressional directives regarding their relationship to the Constitution as they have built up and changed over the years. Part of the reason the judge writing for the majority wrote a concurring opinion was to argue that marriage was a fundamental right. His colleagues refused to join him in going that far, and the Supreme Court itself has certainly not gone that far. Fortguy (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Federal law applies the 14th Amendment to each of our Pacific territories. It is true that the full Constitution does not apply in these territories, but Congress has opted via law to apply the 14th to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.66 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Alaska and Idaho

Alaska should be light blue, and since the stay remains in effect for 7 days, so should Idaho. Mw843 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

An Alaska District Judge struck down the Alaska constitutional amendment on Sunday, 12 October 2014 http://www.adn.com/article/20141012/federal-judge-rules-alaskas-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional Baltimatt (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. 9th Circuit has struck down the Idaho stay. Mw843 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Idaho for now should be blue as there are no counties issuing same sex marriage licenses and I believe until a mandate is given we should stay with the light blue. --Allan120102 (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the stay is gone, same-sex marriage is legal in Idaho. The state could appeal, but given the last couple of days, they'll be hard pressed to find someone to appeal to. Mw843 (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Arizona and Montana are also under the 9th circuit, and needs to be light blue as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF82:CCE0:87B:8E4F:9926:705B (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This map is totally inconsistent. This precedent applies to Alaska, Arizona, Montana, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. If Wyoming, West Virginia, etc. are in light blue, so should these states and territories. 98.113.109.43 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all 9th circuit jurisdictions should also be colored light blue. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's inconsistent because the blue circuits have already issued their mandate, but the ninth circuit has not. Swifty819 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay well I suppose we can wait another day or two for that. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The 9th issued the mandate (Scroll down to image). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF82:CCE0:87B:8E4F:9926:705B (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an opinion. The mandate is what issues provided no one appeals that gives the opinion legal authority. By federal rule, it could come as many as 21 days after the mandate. Swifty819 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

However, I found the mandate. It's . This means 9C should be light blue. If I knew how to upload new maps, I'd do it myself. Swifty819 (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada

Nevada will start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on October 8. Skbl17 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, we can finally get rid of civil unions on the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Soon, but not likely tomorrow. One county will start accepting applications, not issuing licences. The state says it could take up to two weeks for the District Court to act. Mw843 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It won't take two weeks to act. This statement came from the Governor of Nevada and the Nevada Attorney General:

After 5 p.m. today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate affirming same sex marriage is now law in Nevada. Our offices have received several inquiries regarding whether the State will seek reconsideration, rehearing, or a stay of the Court of Appeal’s Order. Upon review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the State will take no further action in this matter. County Clerks should continue to work with their respective district attorneys on the appropriate course of action.

Plus, that very same article I linked to says that Clark County will begin issuing marriage licenses at 2pm local time on Wednesday, October 8. There is no more action to take; it's over. Any other rulings that have to be issued (namely the 2012 court decision) are just formalities. Skbl17 (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The map is totally inconsistent. Montana, Arizona, and Alaska are precedent states just as much as West Virginia and South Carolina, as are the Pacific territories. Someone fix it already! 98.113.109.43 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada should be change tomorrow as counties are going to start tomorrow and now the AG and Governor say its up to the lawyers of the county clerks.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that Idaho is dark blue. I'm presuming it's because the mandate in Idaho's case has been issued. But said mandate seems to apply to Nevada's case too. (Click!) Does that mean the two states should both be dark blue? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 03:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No. the 9th reversed Nevada's ruling, and remanded the case for the orders detailing what exactly is struck down. One estimate was that it could be two weeks before the District Court issues the ruling. Mw843 (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Law of the land in Nevada should be the 27th of the union. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/wedding-capital-las-vegas-to-begin-issuing-marriage-licenses-to-gay-couples/2/ . --Allan120102 (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

1 county to start issuing Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Clark County...the one with Las Vegas correct? If so, most of the population of the state resides there. Ghal416 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is temporarily blocked in Nevada. Skbl17 (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the SCOTUS passed on weighing in on Monday with other appeals court decisions that basically go in step with the 9th's, it would be strange for them to stay this for an indefinite or longer stay beyond the request of Thursday. Therefore, shouldn't Nevada (and Idaho) be transition blue? This sounds more of a clarification issue of how to proceed rather than a stay for an appeal. Ghal416 (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this is a duplicate comment I'll respond to your comment under Idaho below. Tinmanic (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Light grey not needed.

Per the discussions above, I "completed" my edit from above and turns the 9th circuit precedent states and territories light blue. This means that the light grey color is no longer in use. Soon the medium blue will no longer be in use as well. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to try to edit the key so that light blue also ties to precedent. Swifty819 (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The light gray territories don't ban anything, so how can anything be struck down..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Grey is still needed regardless for American Samoa (middle of bottom row of island inserts), which does not fall under the 9th circuit. — kwami (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. American Samoa cases go to the District of Hawaii, which falls under the Ninth. Swifty819 (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, someone who is refused a marriage license in American Samoa would be able to file a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii, so the 9th circuit precedent is what matters for American Samoa. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring

This edit war is ridiculous. Discuss things, folks. We need consensus as to what light blue means, and sources that state that all light-blue territories fit that definition. WY and KS have vowed to fight on, and there's no reason to believe SSM will start there any time soon. They'll presumably require specific court decisions, which are probably inevitable, but who knows how long they'll take. And for where there is no ban to be struck down, not much has changed. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Light blue: "Same-sex marriage pending legalization". There's been speculation in the press that this is the case. Could be, but I wouldn't take them as RS's. Or we could maybe use striped light blue. And the territories -- who the hell knows? — kwami (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The light blue was expanded with the edit summary "Bold edit per majority on talk". I don't see any majority on talk, and in any case, when bold edits are reverted, things move to discussion -- per BOLD. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I try to revert the map per WP:BRD & WP:STATUSQUO and I get threatened with being reported to an admin! SMH. I honestly don't see how any of the precedent jurisdictions "legalized" same-sex marriage. I don't know of any sources that say same-sex marriage was legalized in any of these jurisdictions either. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but you defiled those policies by reverting the same edit four times in one hour. I didn't threaten, I did, see your Wikimedia Commons talk page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: Okay, well I reported @Rreagan007: too! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Counter-reporting is not going to help your case, especially since Rreagan007 did not violate the 3RR (reaching a third revert is "allowed", crossing it is not). Going to sleep, so don't bother responding. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

One of those reverts shouldn't count but.. okay! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please act like adults, folks. Tinmanic (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Idaho issuing licenses?

Checking the latest reliable sources, the Idaho Statesman is reporting that county clerks in Idaho are announcing no same-sex marriages will proceed without the express guidance of either the state AG or the Federal District Court. The state AG on his part is saying that he will not issue any such guidance: "It’s still too early to know fully what the decision and orders mean for Idaho and how the state will proceed." Since Idaho has not begun issuing licenses yet, why is it dark blue? Note that the full marriage blue is for states currently issuing recognized licenses, criteria that Idaho does not yet meet, and thus the dark blue coloring of Idaho, and including it in the 26 state count on the article page, is improper at this point. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This map deals with laws, as long as same-sex marriage is de jure legal it's fine.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember, this very situation (where de jure is yes, de facto is no), is why we created the transition color. Here is that discussion. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: No, the transition color is for when same-sex marriage is legalized but the law isn't in effect yet. I remember there was an Illinois scenario and I specifically stated that Illinois would be dark blue when the law went into effect (even if it was on a Sunday when offices were closed) not on Monday when licenses start being issued. I would revert your edit but I was already reported to an admin. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, isn't that scenario precisely what Idaho is in? Same-sex marriage is legalized via the mandate, but not in effect as the coounties are not issuing licenses yet? I thought the agreement was that dark blue was held back until couples could hold the licenses in their hands. Otherwise, we risk giving the misleading picture that a same-sex couple could go to their county courthouse in Idaho and get a license just as easily as every other dark blue state. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Then the counties are breaking the law... It's not the law keeping Idahoans from marrying the same sex, it's the county clerks. Once the mandate is issued, same-sex marriage is the law of the land! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure -- but until the clerks issue licenses, Idahoans cannot marry the same sex, and the dark blue is inaccurate. Hopefully Idaho comes to its senses like Utah already has and starts issuing licenses, but we may very well have a hold out on our hands. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 05:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik Agreed. A wait and see it seems. - Ghal416 (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I added an update and the Idaho Statesman ref to the Idaho entry in the state table. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 05:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember it being agreed that we would compromise de jure for de facto with the new transition color. Could you link to when we decided this..? The law is the law. Before it goes into effect = transition. Once it goes into effect = marriage. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope everyone realizes that, for the most part, this debate has gone on after the close of business on Tuesday, and prior to the opening of business on Wednesday. Mw843 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Kennedy has stayed the 9th Circuit decision with respect to Idaho. https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/519847518335926272 Tinmanic (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The stay only lasts until the end of the day Thursday. Since it's a temporary stay with a set date of expiry, doesn't that mean Idaho should be light blue instead of gold? Gold is reserved for indefinite stays like those in Texas and Arkansas which are waiting on higher court rulings.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The stay is indefinite, Kennedy wants to hear from plaintiffs by the end of the day Thursday. Mw843 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the SCOTUS passed on weighing in on Monday with other appeals court decisions that basically go in step with the 9th's, it would be strange for them to stay this for an indefinite or longer stay beyond the request of Thursday. Therefore, shouldn't Idaho be transition blue? This sounds more of a clarification issue of how to proceed rather than a stay for an appeal. Ghal416 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be speculation. The stay is a fact. Mw843 (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Mw843 is correct. A stay is a stay. There is no indication of when it expires. And the stay affects Nevada too. Tinmanic (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For the gold color it reads: "Judicial ruling(s) overturning the same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal". As has been demonstrated so far through reports, this stay was done as an "emergency request" on the part of Idaho which was about to give out licenses as per the decision by the 9th Circuit. As Dralwik posted, the AG of the state and other officials were still working out how the state should proceed with the order. That is a far cry from the intention to attempt at appealing the case, which the map color description implies. To equalize this case with the stays that are a part of Texas et al, which are done for the intent of appeal, I feel is a misrepresentation. Perhaps the description should be changed, or the color should. Just my opinion. Ghal416 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter on what basis the stay was issued, it matters that the stay has been issued. Mw843 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the description for the gold color includes the point "pending appeal". As of now, the indication of this particular case doesn't match. It could change, but that's not the aspect now. All I say is that the description should read: "Judicial ruling(s) overturning the same-sex marriage ban stayed". Then it would fit fine. But hey, just trying to go for consistency. Not trying to step on toes here. Ghal416 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's implied that the stay is pending an appeal. Idaho wouldn't have asked for a stay if it didn't intend to appeal, or to ask for a rehearing en banc (which is more or less an appeal). Tinmanic (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess we can agree to disagree on that (it just looked like an emergency as how to proceed with the 9th's order), but that doesn't apply to Nevada. The state officials there have made it clear that they don't intend to carry the argument forward, which basically removes the prospect of appeal in their case. I think this aspect of speculation would be completely removed if the description simply stated that decisions were stayed, removing any aspect of implying when not clearly determined. Ghal416 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida is also stayed for the additional 91 days after the supreme court declined on the Virginia, Utah, etc. cases, but because that stay expires on a specific date, Florida is light blue. When we were discussing the transition color initially, it was decided (I'm too lazy to find the link) that the transition color would apply not only to states where a mandate had been issued but not yet gone into effect but also to stays with a set expiration date, e.g. Florida and Idaho. A temporary stay was deemed equivalent to a mandate that had not yet gone into effect. Only indefinite stays waiting on higher courts to rule were colored gold. There is no higher court to rule on Idaho unless they appeal to the 9th en banc or to the supreme court again. The stay issued said nothing about an appeal. It was an emergency stay so they could figured everything out. It will last two days. It is temporary. Idaho should be light blue, not gold.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Dudemanfellabra Agreed. Ghal416 (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Idaho definitely fits within the current definition for the color of gold on the map. http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/10/07/3415288_gay-marriage-bans-in-idaho-nevada.html?sp=/99/1687/&rh=1 From article: "Early this morning, Otter filed a motion with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a stay pending appeal of the court's ruling Tuesday that Idaho's law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional be stayed pending an appeal." Looks like Kennedy is giving them a chance. Don't how successful it will end up being, but that is the intent right there. Ghal416 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Order from SCOTUS re: stay for Idaho: "The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied. The orders heretofore entered by Justice Kennedy are vacated." http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101014zr.pdf Should Idaho change to light blue or dark blue? AstareGod (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What's going on with the map..

I keep seeing it changed every flippin' hour or so. One second, half the west coast is light-blue, then it reverts back to red. First Idaho was dark blue, now it's light-blue. Sorry if this seems a bit off to be in the talk page, but what tensions are keeping this "Edit War" on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.111 (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it boils down to the limits of the pale blue color we have labelled transition. I reverted Idaho since dark blue is reserved for states issuing licenses, but right now pale blue is being used for stays with definite expiry times (Florida), pro-marriage binding rulings imminent (North Carolina), de jure but not de facto marriage (Idaho), and a pro-marriage ruling yet to go into effect but facing no opposition (Nevada), along with proposals for it to cover states without at least imminent rulings but bound by Appellate precedent (South Carolina, Kansas, and company). Yikes. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

From what some of the conversations on here state, it seems that it has been expanded to include states that are included in circuits where it has been struck down (even though there is no case as of yet to strike them down) and also in places where there was technically no SSM ban (which doesn't make sense since how can a ban be about to lift when there wasn't one?). The light blue should, in my opinion, only be reserved for those states that have a case that's being worked out right now (Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and Idaho technically fit that). The other states might follow in time, but that still has yet to be determined. - Ghal416 (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok that I understand, and just one more question. I saw Kansas, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, West Virginia, and South Carolina pale blue earlier today. Why were they gone to pale blue the first place and what was the reason they were reverted back to dark red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.111 (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

See below Swifty819 (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

States that have precedent against them

Currently, all of the states that have circuit rulings striking down gay marriage also have a lawsuit in the district court, except in KS, which will have one in a few days. It seems that a lot of us think that the precedent ought to somehow be mentioned on the map, but there is very clearly some debate over how they should be mentioned. For a few hours we had agreed to cover the states and territories bound by circuit precedent by coloring them light blue and changing the key on the map to specify that light blue also applied to a state or territory that had a precedent. Within a few hours, people had attempted to reverse this. With these being the facts, I ask two questions. First, how should we label states that have precedent against them on the map? Secondly, what do we do about the territories in the Ninth Circuit which have no bans themselves? Swifty819 (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The territory issue seems to me to be a non-issue. New Mexico had no law on the books specifically banning same-sex marriage, but most county clerks refused same-sex marriage licenses out of convention/tradition. The courts still "struck down" that ban, even though there was no legal ban actually on the books. The same will happen in the territories when someone who is denied a same-sex marriage license by some state official. The court in the territory will be required to "strike down" that state action under the 9th circuit precedent. Legally, it has the exact same effect. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as the precedent state coloring, it's pretty obvious to me that the coloring of those states needs to be changed to signify the precedent. Multiple reliable sources are highlighting this precedent issue and stating that the appeals court decisions will soon apply to all the states in the circuits. I still believe that the best solution is to just use the transition color we already have to use, and I have not really heard any good arguments against doing it. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A state with a ruling temporarily stayed and/or mandate issued not yet in effect is totally different from a state with a precedent against a ban (especially for Kansas and the territories). I could compromise with creating a precedent color, but there needs to be a significant distinction between states that legalized ssm and jurisdictions that are likely (KS and territories)/very likely (other states) to legalize some time in the future. Also, if the 5th circuit legalizes same-sex marriage- we will have Mississippi to worry about (Mississippi's ban is only being challenged in state court). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the civil union color will probably be available soon, once the Nevada ruling goes into effect. We could just repurpose that color as a precedent color. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Swifty819 (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/wyoming-gay-marriages-still-on-hold-as-new-challenge-is-filed-in-federal-court/ http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2014/10/08/news/01top_10-08-14.txt#.VDU3NRaf-QI Looks like a case is in the works to sue the Governor of Wyoming and other state officials about the SSM ban. I don't know if the fact that there is no set time table keeps the state from being changed colorwise on the map, but considering that the state is bound by the 10th Circuit decision, and there is now an actual request/lawsuit on the part of couples in Wyoming to be granted the right to marry, perhaps Wyoming should be transition blue now? Ghal416 (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No ... the filing of a suit isn't enough ... virtually every state has an ongoing suit. The consensus seems to be that a state goes transitional once it concedes (Nevada, North Carolina), has what is effectively a final decision against it (Idaho), or a stay with an expiry date (Florida). Mw843 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah okay, that's what I thought...needs at least a time table for transition. Thanks for the clarification Ghal416 (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Appeals not to be filed, marriages to start 2014-10-21: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/gay-marriage-wyoming_n_6016644.html 130.126.255.8 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina

Apparently, two counties are accepting marriage applications, and one county (Charleston) has granted a marriage license. This just keeps getting more and more confusing: http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/2014/10/08/gay-marriages-start-sc/16911323/. Skbl17 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The state government is not recognizing the licenses so I would leave SC red for now (we could have a footnote though). This is akin to when Boulder was issuing licenses and we decided to not change the map for rogue counties issuing. If the SC AG gives up the fight and moves to recognize the licenses (not likely) then I vote we can change South Carolina. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as of now, the state officials in SC are standing against providing licenses in their state. More than likely, when a federal district court gets to hear a case (is there a date set for that?), they'll be forced to do so as per precedent of the 4th Circuit that they reside in. For now though, it isn't legal there. Ghal416 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: change the map color key to be more helpful/informative

In my opinion, the current map color key is both unhelpful, uninformative, and overly complicated. Here is a new proposal for changing the current scheme. I divide my proposal into several parts each of which can be independently debated, accepted, or rejected: Part 1 Remove Dark Grey and Light Yellow. There is already a separate map for recognition of SSM. Including information about out-of-state recognition on this map provides unnecessary overcomplication. Best to separate recognition of SSM from performance. Part 2 Remove Blue (the standard blue in Nevada, not dark blue). By the same token as before, including information about both SSM and domestic partnerships/civil unions, over-complicates the map in my opinion. Much simpler to keep this map just about SSM. (Given that Nevada is the only state this affects, this issue may be moot pretty soon anyway.) Part 3 Change the current label descriptions for light blue and tan/yellow. The current light blue label description is extremely vague, making it subject to frequent edit warring controversies about when it applies. Keeping the label as-is will only lead to more edit warring and unnecessary confusion. Instead, replace those two labels with the following: Tan/yellow: *District* level judicial ruling(s) overturning the SSM ban stayed pending appeal. Included under this label will be AR, KY, MI, TX. In my opinion, FL should be added as well, with a footnote about the stay's expiry date. Light blue: States that have a precedent against them. I would appreciate help about the appropriate description for this label, but *SOME* kind of distinction needs to be made between states whose bans are not yet overturned and states whose bans are required to be overturned by district judges given the legal precedent set at appellate level. As it stands, the current color scheme is not informative or helpful in marking this distinction, but it is an important one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkhall (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The light-blue color could be designated "Same-sex marriage ban subject to being overturned via judicial precedent." 216.165.95.66 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that something must be done regarding the descriptions in the map key. As I stated further up in a previous conversation on this issue, the gold color description on the key holds: "Judicial ruling(s) overturning the same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal"...when Idaho and Nevada's stays have no intent of appeal involved with them for the moment (especially Nevada, where the officials made it clear that they don't want to legally press the issue anymore). If we are going to include cases together just because they are stays, then the description should reflect that. Otherwise, it should be reverted to the transition light blue...but as you say it seems there isn't quite a perfect delineation as to what fits with that category. Ghal416 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose part 1, am neutral on part 2, and support part 3. Nevada has no intent of appeal, so I don't think it should be gold, regardless of what Kennedy said. Speaking of, the key said the gold is for indefinite stays, but Kennedy himself said the stay is temporary. Swifty819 (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Kennedy said that he'd want to see briefs by Thursday, but that doesn't "technically" mean the stay couldn't extend longer so it could be indefinite. What my issue is with is that the description in the map key of the gold color states those stays that involve an appeal. This order from Kennedy doesn't involve that. Therefore, either the description will have to be changed or Idaho and Nevada should be moved back to transition light blue as they were before or to another category to reflect their particular situation. Ghal416 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, seems as if Idaho might now fit within the category for the color of gold. Stand corrected. Still doesn't apply to Nevada though. http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/10/07/3415288_gay-marriage-bans-in-idaho-nevada.html?sp=/99/1687/&rh=1 Ghal416 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Kennedy explicitly included the Nevada case with the Idaho case in his order, the two states should have the same status. Whether that is beige or light blue, I'll leave up to this discussion. I left a note pointing out the two states sharing the same legal status on the Commons talk page of the user who reverted Nevada. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but is that basically meaning that Idaho officials will be arguing for Nevada as well? Nevada officials have made it clear that they don't want to appeal/carry the argument forward any longer. I haven't seen any sources that show them to have changed their minds as of yet, so as of now the only state that has the intent of appealing their ruling is Idaho. This gets back to my issue regarding the description for the gold color (beige if you will) in the map key. It now is being grouped as simply if a state has a stay on it's judicial ruling, when the description on the map includes "pending appeal". Both these states don't exactly match up well on that. Ghal416 (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am neutral on part 1: I prefer that this map has recognition but I'm not sure if our readers feel the same way. I oppose part 2: medium blue has been proposed to be deleted many times. If Nevada legalized same-sex marriage already and same-sex marriage is going to be in effect, why does it matter? We will be getting rid of that color one way or another anyways! I strongly oppose part 3: If anything, the precedent color should be red since that state still bans same-sex marriage (and Kansas and the territories are without a challenge). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that there is a new color indicating the ban made vulnerable by appellate court rulings in the same circuit, I am trying to also update that in the description box for the Mandarin version, only to find that I cannot find the "edit" bottom. Anyone knows what's going on? Or, if you CAN edit and want to help me out, please paste these in the tradition Chinese description as translation "同一上訴庭轄區有前例判決，若適用則同性婚姻禁令將廢止" and "同一上诉庭辖区有前例判决，若适用则同性婚姻禁令将废止" for the simplified Chinese. Many thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.253.153 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe you need a commons account to update. I updated per your wording provided. Let us know if anything needs further update. --Siradia (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out and updating that. Looking good. And it's nice to finally beat the Dutch and the German for once. Man, they are so quick, they usually update their translations within hours of change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.253.153 (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The file has been protected for a week

... as an effect of multiple controversial changes and their reverts. Such behaviour is not accepted in Commons. If there is a consensus for any further change in this file, ask for unprotecting / administrator assistance on the Commons' file talk page or in Administrators' noticeboard providing the link to that consensus. Ankry (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how many other images on commons change anywhere near as often as this one...Naraht (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion there is zero basis for restricting edits to this file. The state of marriage law in the U.S. is in constant flux, especially this week, and that is why so many changes are being made. There is no edit-warring going on. It's not as if people are vandalizing the map; they are making good-faith edits. I urge you to reconsider this protection. Tinmanic (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering that we are at a point where SSM in America will be in much flux, this really can put a wrench in keeping up with such information in my opinion for this page/map. Urge a reconsidering of this please. Ghal416 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I protested this decision at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Same-sex_marriage_map_unnecessarily_protected. Feel free to chime in as well. Tinmanic (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Error that needs to be corrected on Nevada

Shortly before the map was protected, User:Habbit reverted Nevada to the transition blue color noting that Nevada was not appealing its ban being overturned. However, in Justice Kennedy's grant of a temporary stay here, note that he explicitly includes docket 12-17668, which is Sevcik v. Sandoval, the Nevada case. So even though Nevada is not appealing, Kennedy has stayed Nevada right alongside Idaho, and Habbit's edit restoring Nevada to light blue should be undone. Regardless of what color suits Idaho and Nevada, the two are stayed by the exact same order, and thus are in the exact same situation. Due to the map's protection, any change requires consensus, so what are your thoughts? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The same situation, but definitely doesn't involve the same circumstance. The stay for Idaho might be indefinite depending on how the briefs go, and that they intend to appeal to either the 9th Circuit or the SCOTUS, which currently fits the description of the beige/gold color on the map key. Nevada might be stayed in the same ruling by Kennedy, but the state officials have already stated that they don't intend to appeal, which makes them unequal to Idaho in this regard. They shouldn't be gold on the map as their stay at the moment appears temporary as per what I've stated here and in previous discussions on this. I call for the map to stay as is unless the circumstances change. Ghal416 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I give up with this map. Time for a Wiki break. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just saw your mention on my Commons talk page (I really don't look at it that much, I'm basically an en:Wikicen). I'd like to restate that, even if Justice Kennedy's order mentions the mandate of the 9th Circuit with all case numbers, it is only so because that is its full title. The stay is imposed on the Latta v. Otter case, and so (even though IANAL) I'd say that it does not apply to Nevada; the fact that the circuit court resolved both cases in the same document does not mean that Idaho somehow gains the ability to intervene in the Nevada case. It would certainly make no sense at all from an Article III standing/controversy point of view to stop Nevada, which accepts the 9th Circuit resolution, from doing so because Idaho wants to appeal its own case. In the case of Sevcik v. Sandoval, the 9th Circuit order is unappealed and so it becomes the final judgement. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 19:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Habbit, Oh. I was overlooking that. Either way, word is breaking that Kennedy has explicitly lifted any hold on Nevada. I am looking for the confirmation of that. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Here you go, Dralwik. First word. http://www.waff.com/story/26734923/justice-kennedy-allows-gay-marriage-in-nevada From article: "Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has allowed same-sex marriage to begin in Nevada, clarifying that an earlier order blocking gay unions applies only to Idaho." Ghal416 (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the order revision on SCOTUSBlog. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a go on marriage in Nevada

Justice Kennedy revised his order here to explicitly exclude Nevada, thus clearing the way for same-sex marriages in that state. (Deep breath of relief) I say as soon as licenses are being issued, it earns marriage blue. Thoughts? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, and now nobody can change it because user @Ankry: blocked anyone from making changes. Tinmanic (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

More confirmation http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/same-sex-marriages-in-nevada-maybe-yes-maybe-no/ And I agree wholeheartedly. Licenses...on to the dark blue. Ghal416 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and posted it on the Commons' talk page as directed to by @Ankry:. Skbl17 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks so much. Ghal416 (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Kennedy just allows it Nevada becomes number 26 to allow ssm.--Allan120102 (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Have they stated what time they will issue the licenses now? Ghal416 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not yet; here is the Las Vegas Sun's placeholder article for now. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the District Court has yet to issue the injunction specified in the 9th's judgement: "The judgment of the district court in Sevcik v. Sandoval is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for the prompt issuance of an injunction permanently enjoining the state, its political subdivisions, and its officers, employees, and agents, from enforcing any constitutional provision, statute, regulation or policy preventing otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marrying, or denying recognition to marriages celebrated in other jurisdictions which, if the spouses were not of the same sex, would be valid under the laws of the state." Mw843 (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that goes in line with waiting until the state begins issuing licenses before we change Nevada to marriage blue. The judicial workings would have to finish beforehand anyways, so goes without saying I guess. Ghal416 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Clark County was set to start at 2 PM today (5 PM Eastern) before Kennedy's (dis)order came down, so they would have been granting licenses ahead of the actual injunction. What would have happened was Nevada started issuing, and the state treat them as valid so the injunction is de facto in force before being actually released. That's happened somewhere else, but I forget which case. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah okay, stand corrected. Then once we get word of the time that licenses will be distributed then all's good. Ghal416 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's my take; once licenses are in hand Nevada gets the deep blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dralwik. The protection has been removed by Ankry, and I need to get off Wikipedia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A group is trying to get the stay reinstated from Kennedy. Will probably have as much success as the attempts from similar groups in Oregon and Pennsylvania, but just putting it here as I await any word on when those licenses are issued as it is latest news out of the state. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/land-wedding-chapels-ready-gay-marriages-26041271 Ghal416 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The 9th has put everything on hold, again. Mw843 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/same-sex-marriages-in-nevada-maybe-yes-maybe-no/ From a few minutes ago, a statement on briefs concerning Nevada for the 9th...but from the statement: "However, it did not order a stop to same-sex marriages in Nevada in the meantime." So not on hold...yet. Ghal416 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

While on the ground, the Las Vegas Sun is reporting that Clark County will not issue licenses while the legal situation remains uncertain. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

So, no changes to the map for the time being? Mw843 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hard to tell (maybe what I'm seeing is from an earlier edit by the Las Vegas Sun with the link you share), but much of that was from before Kennedy gave his ruling. In any case, we await for the legal conflagration to work itself out. Can't change the map until those licenses get distributed anyways. Ghal416 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Could be a cache of the Las Vegas Sun article. Mine is reading "In day of whiplash rulings, gay marriage on hold again in Las Vegas" and has the no-go quote from the Clark County spokesman. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably it. But I agree with you and Mw843. Definitely continue the wait, at least till the 5PM deadline tomorrow to see what the 9th Circuit states. Ghal416 (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that's best. The Ninth Circuit has set a 5 PM Pacific Time tomorrow deadline for briefs on Nevada's mandate, so that may be when we get a clearer picture. Here is the order recalling the Idaho mandate and asking for Nevada briefs. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: the Coalition for Protection of Marriage (the group that supported the ban and was the only defendant left) has dropped its appeal to both the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court. So once Nevada finally starts issuing which should be today, we should be able to change Nevada for good. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Update 2: The state is going to wait for the injunction this time, and licenses will begin "about an hour" after the injunction. Las Vegas Sun. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The judge needs to strike the ban so ss couples can get married hope he can do it today. It has been an emotional roller coaster for them and the couples in Idaho.--Allan120102 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Expected to be issued sometime this afternoon. Simply a waiting game at this point. http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/10/09/nevada-group-withdraws-request-for-stay-of-gay-marriage-ban/16975791/ Ghal416 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A modest proposal

The map has been (politely put) thrashing. How about, after an event that could change the map, the proposed change be posted here, and the map not changed for at least 30 minutes, to give a chance for some consensus, and, more details to emerge on the event in question? Mw843 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't know if 30 minutes will be what everyone agrees to, but I do think there should be time to work out all changes in a careful manner considering how the week will most likely go. Ghal416 (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed or supportive, but you've got to keep in mind, everyone lives in different time zones and has different time periods when they check Wikipedia. If the time is too short, no one will get in, if the time is too long, some non-talk page using editor will update the map anyways. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

But after what just happened, we clearly need a better system than "I want to do this" (4 people agree, then an hour later, 1 or 2 people protest), because that's how this edit warring mess started in the first place. This is why I asked above how precedent should be dealt with. Swifty819 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, now that map editing has been unblocked, we must take the time involved seriously now. With the changes about to come, we need to be focused on not being too gung-ho with edits to this. Should have some manner of time for consensus. Ghal416 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that people were updating the map because they thought they had consensus that they didn't have. Updating a state is one thing, but changing the format of the map should be discussed for at least 24 hours and users failed to do this. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Kansas

A county judge in north-east Kansas has ordered that the county start issuing same-sex marriage licences. Given that it's only one county, I don't think that the map should change until the state has responded. Mw843 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Until we get word from what state officials would do with this, it doesn't carry weight in my view by itself. Ghal416 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just writing when you wrote anyways I am not sure if we should stripe like we did with NM last years when same sex marriage was legal in some counties. Anyways the ban just had some days before its completely struck down so I believe light blue with dark blue would be a good color.--Allan120102 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

New Mexico was a special case because there was no legal or constitutional provision restricting marriage, it was done by custom. Kansas has legal and constitutional provisions that stand until struck down. Mw843 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I posted this in the wrong place, but couldn't there be a footnote or a new shade for KS and SC, or WY and WV since marriages are being performed there and they are bound to Circuit rulings? Thanks! Sorry for the repetivite questions.Moonraker0022 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, marriage licenses are being issued in Johnson County. I don't think the state should go dark blue, though. Skbl17 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of two separate maps?

They say pretty much the same thing. The one with the rings gives more info. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We actually have five maps. This one, "Recognition of same-sex unions in the United States, "Recognition of same-sex relationships," "Constitutional restrictions on recognition," and "State laws regarding same-sex unions similar to marriage in the United States." This map is a essentially the other maps combined, the purpose of the other maps is to go more into detail on specific issues. The "Recognition of same-sex unions in the United States" is the map I believe you are referring to as the "second map." This difference is that map is used to go more in depth on marriage lawsuits and litigation. It does not mention bans or ban types. The map "Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States" is essentially the same thing, however, it does not reference to the states with stayed rulings, only focusing on where marriage is legal/semi-legal/about to be legalized. The map "Same-sex unions in the United States" focuses only on Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships and makes no reference to marriage or bans on marriage. Many states still allow Civil unions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and that is what the map shoes. The last map "Constitutional bans on same-sex unions types US" focuses on the depth of constitutional bans on same-sex unions. This map (the main one) used to show the difference between a statutory ban, a constitutional ban on only marriage, and a constitutional ban on marriage and civil unions. The map was cluttered, and at the time, more colors were being added to the map with the stayed rulings. Because of this, we switched to one color for bans, and the "Constitutional bans on same-sex unions types US" map became useful.

To paraphrase what I just said in a nutshell, the reason we have so many maps, is because if we did not, this map would be cluttered beyond control, or not have as much information on it. That fact alone would cause much more fighting amusing the balance of information and clutter, I have spoken with people who think striping alone is confusing on the map. I hope I answered your question thoroughly. aharris206 (aharris206) 16:52, 09 October 2014 (UTC)

West Virginia

FYI, West Virginia just announced it's no longer defending its ban, so it could be a dark blue soon once same-sex marriages begin. Source: http://www.herald-dispatch.com/breaking/x1827256289/W-Va-AG-stops-defense-of-same-sex-marriage-ban 71.212.38.221 (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose the West Virginia be changed to light blue at 19:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC). Mw843 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

JoeMyGod says "Gov. Earl Ray has ordered the issuing of marriage licenses." To me, this would be dark blue. Swifty819 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If licenses are being issued with state approval, that's dark blue. Soon as I find confirmation, I'll update West Virginia. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So the ACLU is reporting via Twitter that West Virginia will issue licenses starting on October 14. I'm going to change West Virginia to transition blue. Any objections? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Why does the ACLU twitter account trump http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141009/GZ01/141009221 which states same-sex couples can get marriage licenses as of today? Though I agree WV should at least by light blue. But it will probably ought to be dark blue by tonight. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, once that's verified and couples have licenses in hand, then we can make it dark blue. Light blue is mostly being cautious for now. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Checking Twitter, it looks like at least Kanawha County is issuing gender-neutral licenses to couples: Twitter pic. I'm refreshing the Charleston Gazette webpage and once we have the news article confirming it, let's turn West Virginia marriage blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

State Department of Health says that gay couples can get married today. Statewide. Dark blue! http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141009/GZ01/141009221 216.165.95.66 (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevada

All the roadblocks have gone down in Nevada, and everyone is just waiting for the District Court injunction, which is expected in the next few hours. Mw843 (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reports of marriage licenses in Nevada: http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x1827256310/VIDEO-First-same-sex-marriage-in-Cabell-County 0nlyth3truth EDIT: Oops, Cabell county is in WV. Pardon my mix-up (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reports of marriage licenses in Nevada: https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/520357720801554432 0nlyth3truth (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Word is PACER is listing the injunction now. Looking for conformation. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reno Gazette Journal is reporting the injunction is signed . Mw843 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the injunction. So who's hosting the party to celebrate removal of the DP/CU color? Dralwik? :-) http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-issues-injunction-bringing-marriage-equality-t Tinmanic (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What, you don't want to re-purpose it? :-) Mw843 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The civil union color? Joker voice: "Ta-da, it's...gone!" Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/10/09/nevada-group-withdraws-request-for-stay-of-gay-marriage-ban/16975791/ Here too75.179.42.181 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the opposition has already dropped their case, I think Nevada can go dark blue now. Mw843 (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, injunction has officially been signed. Another state has joined the crowd. Ghal416 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Uses for CU color

OK, someone has to seriously ask. What do people think about repurposing the CU color as a precedent color? Swifty819 (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. The coding is still in the page history, so not difficult to retrieve it. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be in favor. If nothing else, it highlights the states where the situation could change quicker than anyone can update an article or the map. Mw843 (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You echo what I was thinking. I mean, WV just threw that whole "Even with precedent, we have to wait for a court to rule" thing out the window, didn't they? Swifty819 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem with that in my opinion. Ghal416 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Some politicians will accept the Supreme Court as a court of competent jurisdiction, and some won't ... Mw843 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

WOuldn't it be correct to change WV to be first and NV to be second because ss licences were issue first in WV I know the federal threw the ban yesterday but the judge put the injunction until now. --Allan120102 (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't because that table numbers based on the enactment/ruling date, not the enforcement date. If you look, you will notice NM enforced SSM way before IL, but IL comes first because it legalized it first. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're discussing about the list on the main Wikipedia article. You should probably put your concern on the talk page for that, as this is the talk page for the map only. Just letting you know is all. No hard feelings. Ghal416 (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Light grey (No prohibition ...) could also be used for precedent. If we get consensus to add a precedent color, could we see both samples? Mw843 (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The light gray would be a horrible color for the precedent color. I would like to see the current "in process" color be used as the precedent color and the old "civil unions" color be used as the new "in process" color. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think switching colors around is asking for confusion. Mw843 (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We've done it many times before. It's never really been a problem. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought we should switch them because in progress is closer to dark blue, but we've had the transition for a while. I don't think people would take switching them well. Swifty819 (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, we've done it before without any problems, and you just explained why it makes sense to do it. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The color that used to represent civil unions, in my opinion, should be the one for precedent. The light blue is now done for pending changes to legalization, and it would probably be best to remain consistent with that for viewers as it has been that way for several days now. Now that the CU color is useless, it is perfectly open to being re-assigned, and therefore should be the only one that changes. Ghal416 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I could see the mblue color be used for either precedent or transition. Either case has draw backs. Having mblue as precedent is problematic because it is counter intuitive (transition is objectively closer to SSM than precedent). Having mblue as transition makes a lot more sense, but people get pissed and/or confused when we swap colors. One of the two is necessary, I don't know which is the lesser evil, so I will support both options. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's why I think we should focus on consistency for viewers and just change the CU color. It's previous use was invalidated thanks to today's events, and now can be changed to a new role. Therefore, it should be the only one to change. It has the easiest and best chance of acceptance. Ghal416 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What about using the old medium red color for precedent? That way we can mark that a state still has the ban in place, but delineate the different status from an unaffected ban state? I can make a test map of this. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that works as well. You talking about the color once used for statue bans? Ghal416 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And that was my other thought. I just thought on that one people would say something like "A precedent is good, not bad". Except, I was thinking of using the pink (the one for statute ban back when we distinguished between constitutions that did and did not ban CUs) Swifty819 (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Give me a bit to make up a trial map, and I'll start a new section with it. I'd rather have a lighter red for the precedent states, not light blue since the bans haven't been directly ruled against yet. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

To me, the pink says the ban has been weakened, perhaps even to the point where the state will throw it out without a court (a la WV.) I supposed this is what a precedent is. Swifty819 (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Ghal416 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The only question is, what of the territories? Because gray to pink looks like a downgrade, in a way..... Swifty819 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but I'd just have them be pink and not dwell on the issue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

They have no ban though, so I don't see why they just couldn't stay the way they are. The change would (or in my opinion should) apply to those states where the ban they have is now in jeopardy because of precedent (but of course they have a ban in the first place). Ghal416 (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using medium blue as a precedent color. However, we could use medium blue as the transition color and light blue as the recognition color (or vice versa). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Native American tribes (suggestion)

I offer this merely as a suggestion. I know that the idea of including tribes on the map has been discussed multiple times. The consensus was always not to include them, though many users have supported the idea of including only "red on blue/blue on red" tribes. This is my attempt to show what that option might look like. Most likely the tribes will not be added to the map, but perhaps this can be of use somewhere. Fishal (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

One problem is that a tribal ban doesn't override the state ban in that area. it implies that same-sex couples on the Navajo Nation in northwest New Mexico cannot be wed. They can, they just have to go to the county courthouse instead of the tribal courts. We could do a tribal map of the reservations permitting or denying same-sex marriage, but I think tribal nations are a layer too many for this map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Dralwik on this. Tribal stances on same-sex marriage should be covered in a different map if anything. It would clutter this particular map if it were included, and it already has a lot going on as it is. Ghal416 (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In one of the original discussions, I pointed this out, but there are way too many reservations, and many of them are non-contiguous and/or tiny. Also, it is important to point out, that while they may often been in SSM states, if the reservation doesn't recognize the SSM, tribe-specific marriage rights could be denied anyways. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that any Indian tribe in a state under *federal* court order requiring same-sex marriage, would also be subject to that precedent because the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 applies the Equal Protection Clause to the Indian nations. A couple may have to seek a separate court order because technically all of these court orders only strike down state laws banning same-sex marriage, and not tribal laws. 98.113.109.43 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The map with precedent pink

With the civil union color freed up, there have been proposals to use it to mark states bound by Circuit Court precedent but with their bans still intact for now. However, this also means precedent states would be a darker color than transition states, which is counter-intuitive. So instead, let's mark precedent states with the pink color we once used for states with statute but not constitutional bans. Such a map would look like this. This coloring is an effective way to show that the bans still stand in this states, but are in a weakened position and could easily be cast aside as West Virginia has already done today. This shade also mirrors the transition shade, emphasizing the transient nature of these remaining bans. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That middle island territory appears to be missing. Swifty819 (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the map, and colored them pink to go with the other states in which case pink would mean "Jurisdiction not issuing licenses yet bound by Circuit Court precedent striking down marriage bans." Note the middle territory (American Samoa) is not covered by the Ninth Circuit, but rather by its own high court. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, the pink seems a little...out of place. Would rather have the previous color that was for statue bans to be honest. But I defer to what others agree to. Ghal416 (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I heard that a federal suit in the American Samoa goes to Hawaii, which is bound by the circuit. Can we check this? Also, the red might be less harsh on the eyes. And I meant the Samoan territory was MISSING, as in, it's just a box.Swifty819 (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The High Court of American Samoa reports directly to the Supreme Court. It is not part of the US Appellate Court system. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I believe as well. The light red that was used for statues beforehand I think would fit better. Ghal416 (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I also have no objection to just leave the territories gray as "no law." That would be the simplest way to deal with them. I'll whip up a medium red version (with gray territories, fixing Samoa). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Will wait to see. Ghal416 (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, from , "Because American Samoa does not have a federal court like the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, or the United States Virgin Islands, matters of federal law arising in American Samoa have generally been adjudicated in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii or the District Court for the District of Columbia."

Medium red

How does this map look? Only states with bans are colored in precedent red, while the territories are left alone. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Like it. Ghal416 (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful. Wholeheartedly support its use. Swifty819 (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My attempt at a description, if works: "Same-sex marriage banned, but in question due to Circuit Court precedent" Ghal416 (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What about "Same-sex marriage ban subject to Circuit Court precedent"? Swifty819 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That leaves open the question of whether the ban is itself a product of the Circuit Court precedent. Should be a little more clear than that. How about: "Same-sex marriage banned, but vulnerable due to Circuit Court precedent"? Ghal416 (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Or this: "Same-sex marriage ban vulnerable due to Circuit Court precedent". Ghal416 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure vulnerable was the right word, but the more I read this, the less awkward it feels. Swifty819 (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm going for ;) If you have a better word, please replace. Ghal416 (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

See, to me, if I'm vulnerable to something, it MIGHT affect me. But if I'm subject to something, it will affect me. But I could also see how it would look like the opposite of what I mean. Swifty819 (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Well we have to wait 24 hours till change anyways, so if a better word (or phrase) comes up, I'll share. Ghal416 (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Support the color. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this. I support the pink color as well and equally. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict): If I were to support a precedent color (I'm not sure whether we need a precedent color or not) I would prefer medium red over all the other colors. If Kansas is going to be colored anything other than dark red there should at least be a footnote explaining that their ban is unchallenged. Otherwise, I oppose having states with precedents colored as anything that isn't dark red. As for the territories.. I think they should be left alone! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If WV has proven anything to me today, its that it doesn't matter that the ban is unchallenged. The state could just decide they have no chance. That said, I support medium red. Swifty819 (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether the ban in a state is being challenged or not. It's about those states that are affected by Circuit Court rulings. Support Ghal416 (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Prcc27, none of the proposed wordings insinuate any challenge making your footnote suggestion pointless. Also, Kansas already has some court matter initiating, and the ACLU is in the process of starting a lawsuit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This is approaching snowball, but I just wanted to put it out there: let's make sure to wait at least 24 hours before any action is taken. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is snowball? Swifty819 (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Basically if we get near-unanimous consent, a proposal can be pushed through more quickly than normal. Given the edit-war the other day, we should give it more time than a normal snowball. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Should hold off as per clause. Ghal416 (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I slightly oppose having West Virginia as dark blue (I'd prefer it if this map stuck to de jure instead of de facto). If there isn't a challenge to Kansas's ban then the ban is going to remain "intact" with a precedent against it until it is challenged and struck down. "In the process of starting a lawsuit" doesn't mean there is currently a lawsuit does it thegrayanomaly? Once it has, then Kansas would be just fine having a precedent color without a footnote. The same-sex marriage ban isn't "in question" yet; the "in question" wording could imply that the ban is most likely being challenged and thus a footnote would be necessary to clarify Kansas's situation. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why oppose dark blue for WV, when the governor and AG explicitly told clerks to issue licenses? I'm not sure this was ever meant as a de jure map. Swifty819 (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• This map was meant as a de jure map! "Legal status of same-sex partnerships in the United States." This map deals with laws not common practice. Otherwise, the territories would be labeled as banning same-sex marriage (in practice) even though there is no law for or against same-sex marriage or other unions. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

They are issuing licenses in WV. Look at the section for that state here for proof. And again, whether a state ban is being individually challenged or not is irrelevant to this change. Ghal416 (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't care if the state is issuing licenses, the ban hasn't been struck down yet... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically, we have conflicting de jure statuses in many states. A lot of states where courts have ruled against the bans still have statutory or constitutional provisions that say same-sex marriage is illegal. That legal language doesn't magically disappear because a court says it is no longer enforceable. Legislatures have to amend statutes and constitutions before it will disappear, so same-sex marriage is both de jure legal and de jure illegal in many places at the same time. So having a true de jure only map would require us to stipe most states with same-sex marriage being both banned and legal at the same time. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Those laws have been struck down and are invalidated, the court rulings are valid laws. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Both statutes/constitutional provisions and judicial rulings are laws. You are making a value judgment as to which of 2 conflicting laws to follow. It is the same as state officials making a value judgment to follow the legal precedent of a judicial ruling over statutory/constitutional language. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• But they are still on the books, which is precisely your complaint about WV. Swifty819 (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why it is important not to split hairs like this. Licenses are being distributed as we speak in WV, and that is pretty much what we've been using of late. Should be fine. Ghal416 (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct. A court ruling doesn't repeal a law. It simply blocks its enforcement. If this were a de jure map, we would be noting that VA has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, because it does, they just can't enforce it. This is what happened in WV. The law is still there, but the governor has said it can't be enforced. What you are doing, Prcc, is claiming Virginia should be red. Swifty819 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• What you are doing Swifty819 is putting words in my mouth! Virginia's same-sex marriage ban has been invalidated. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. Not invalidated. Enjoined from enforcement. Big difference. WV's governor has similarly enjoined the WV marriage ban from enforcement. The ban in VA is still law. In fact, a clerk could try to use it. But then you could easily go to court, where they would be told they are also enjoined from using the law. Also, I apologize for the remark above. I misinterpreted your post. Swifty819 (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I support medium red solution. I think it's a fantastic way to show the situation. Good job everyone lately, BTW. I've been following along quietly but joyously. --Siradia (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using red for the precedent states. West Virginia shows that a precedent state can flip at any time to same-sex marriage being legal and performed. It should therefore be on the blue side of the spectrum. That's why we should be using the old civil unions color as part of the solution. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would support blue just as much as red. Swifty819 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What makes lighter red work for me is that the states still have their bans effectively on the books. All this states is that they are vulnerable, not that they are about to go. Therefore, I think the color fits. Ghal416 (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In precedent states, any county clerk can now start issuing marriage licenses and no court is going to stop them. That is closer to legalization than to ban. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that hasn't taken place yet. The ban is still officially on the books, and the high state officials haven't made it clear that they will acquiesce to clerks if they do make the move. No court order or such has also happened, or a time table for expiry, so still a ban. Ghal416 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Bans will continue to be officially on the books for decades, they just won't be enforced by anyone. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hence my other points. And what Dralwik said. Ghal416 (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That has already happened in South Carolina, where the state Supreme Court stopped Charleston County. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the status quo to a blue precedent color, as these states still have bans in force until they pull a West Virginia or receive court orders. With the transition color being pale blue, making a darker blue for states farther from marriage seems backwards. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in the medium blue section, I strongly oppose having the precedent color as any shade of blue. The only color a precedent color should be is red or yellow (since the state is bound by the precedent set by a judicial ruling). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there is a consensus towards medium red here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on consensus. Swifty819 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks very good, and I agree on holding off until some point on Friday (18 to 24 hours from now). Of course, the over/under on states that change by then is 2.5. Mw843 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting close to 24 hours... Ghal416 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll come back to this in an hour or two. Do we have a suggested wording on the legend yet? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Swifty yesterday, and we sort of agreed with this wording for the description: "Same-sex marriage ban vulnerable due to Circuit Court precedent". Ghal416 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

New map is in. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Ghal416 (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming again

Change Wyoming to light blue as a Federal judge might decide as soon as the hearing if to strike down the ban so clerks could issue ss licences.I believe its fair to change it because its almost in the same position as NC that a judge might strike the ban. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/federal-court-sets-hearing-to-consider-wyoming-same-sex-marriage-challenge/ .--Allan120102 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

But the governor is enforcing the ban.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Prcc. Neither the executive nor the courts have enjoined anything yet. Swifty819 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Prcc, we shouldn't be doing WP:CRYSTAL here. At the bottom of the reference it states: "Even so, county clerks have yet to grant same-sex marriage licenses in Wyoming because of a pending state-court lawsuit. Gov. Matt Mead says Wyoming will continue defending a state law prohibiting gay marriage in that case". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with @Prcc27 ... NC has capitulated, and the judge is giving short shrift to the people applying to defend the ban ... WY is in the same boat as SC and KS, though unlikely, the state government could drag it out for a while. Mw843 (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In NC, the AG has given up on defending the ban I believe (there are legislatures trying to get in, but right now nothing). Wyoming doesn't match though, as the Gov and the AG are committed to standing against it. Ghal416 (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida

The governor and attorney general of Florida are defending the ban so Florida shouldn't be light blue either. The ban is still in effect even if it was strike down and I doubt ssm will be legal in January knowing bondi and the governor that might appeal the stay. --Allan120102 (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they simply are standing against the lifting of the ban that is set to expire. They really haven't said what their next step is after that. In fact, FL AG Bondi's office said they are still going over how to proceed. Ghal416 (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That's WP:CRYSTAL, because the judge explicitly said the stay expires in 90 days. Swifty819 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida will still fight. http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/10/08/florida-governor-wont-back-down-opposing-marriage-equality . --Allan120102 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, because there hasn't been an indefinite stay yet. If we were going by what we thought will happen based on news, 9C would be all blue. Swifty819 (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as the 91 day stay is in effect in Florida, it should be light blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

All that is in that article is that Gov Scott was defending Bondi's prior work on the case, not an indication that they carry on past the ban lifting attempt here, which is what other articles have stated. Ghal416 (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks then for clarification guys. Arizona is sure trap with marriage equality in all directions. I hope it changes to blue soon. --Allan120102 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anything is clear in FL. Both Scott and Bondi are up for re-election, and at least for Scott, it is tight. Who knows what will happens if one or both lose; they will still be in office, but the likelihood they would appeal something their successors would drop is highly unclear. Nothing is known for Florida, other than there is a temporary stay still in effect (hence light blue). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the stay in Florida expires on January 5, 2015, well after the elections. Skbl17 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Kansas

There are report that a same-sex marriage licence has been issued in Kansas. I think we should hold off changing the map for the moment, to see what the state's response is: Gets a stay - Kansas goes gold; Stay refused, or no action - Kansas goes blue. Mw843 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A county circuit judge has ordered Johnson County (suburban Kansas City) to issue licenses which they are doing. However his order only covers that county and I haven't seen where the state would recognize the licenses. Since only one county is affected, and with the state not recognizing the licenses, no change on Kansas yet. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And Kansas has gone to court. We should know more this afternoon. Mw843 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads up. Alaska has a hearing on its ban at 1 PM Alaska time (5 PM Eastern), and the judge has referenced the Ninth's mandate which sets precedent for Alaska. So we could have an immediate ruling in the queue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought with Arizona, but the judge has given the state until Thursday to explain why the 9th's ruling doesn't apply. Mw843 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the deal with the "rings" map?

I don't understand the point of the "rings" map, and I find it confusing to read.
(1) Isn't it redundant to the main U.S. same-sex-marriage map?
(2) The rings are very confusing.
(3) Why does the map appear under the "Federal Law" section of the U.S. same-sex marriage Wikipedia page?
(4) Why does the map appear higher on the page than the more popular, main same-sex-marriage map?
- Tinmanic (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree it seems quite unnecessary, and as a first step we could move it down to the 2014 section under History to correct points 3 and 4, since the rings seem to reference specific cases. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(1) The main map doesn't deal with individual, local, or past cases.

(2) The rings are explained and there are rings on the world maps too.

(3) Because the map has a separate color for "federal recognition" unlike this map.

(4) Because the map deals more with federal law than this map (which deals with state/territory/district law). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tinmanic. The map should be moved or removed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC) I moved it to the 2014 section Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina update

The judge in the North Carolina federal case issued an order denying the General Assembly's request for oral arguments but requesting new briefs on whether the Assembly even has sufficient standing, due Monday. As a side effect, no ruling is likely until Monday. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina ban just got thrown out

So turns out I forgot about the second case in North Carolina, and that one just had a ruling striking down the North Carolina ban. Here is the ruling, and we should wait for licenses to be issued before we turn North Carolina marriage blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Licenses being issued in North Carolina: Twitter pic. I'm thinking both Idaho and North Carolina should go dark blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on both counts. Mw843 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Idaho

SCOTUS lifts stay ... I'd say Idaho goes dark blue. Mw843 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this myself. Posted above in "Is Idaho issuing licenses?": Order from SCOTUS re: stay for Idaho: "The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied. The orders heretofore entered by Justice Kennedy are vacated." http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101014zr.pdf 9th Cir issued mandate for Idaho, right? If so, I'd say dark blue is appropriate for Idaho. AstareGod (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Does it require a district court order first, as in Nevada last night? Did the mandate apply to Idaho? See https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/520695577261387776 Tinmanic (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Good point, I'll revert my edit until we know for sure. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol, nevermind. You already did it... xD Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Any word on the ground if licenses have started being issued? Ghal416 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I've seen yet. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah okay. Then a waiting game till then. I also forgot that the 9C still has to deal with the mandate again. Ghal416 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The 9th has to re-issue their mandate, which was recalled after Kennedy stayed. Mw843 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

At least one Idaho county is issuing licences . Mw843 (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we wait till the 9C re-sends the mandate? Ghal416 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/oct/10/supreme-court-says-same-sex-marriage-can-proceed-i/ From article: "Latah County Clerk Susan Petersen said on the advice of the Latah County prosecutor she issued the license about 3:45 p.m. The two women came to her office in Moscow about 2:30 p.m. to get a license and had to wait while officials determined if they were allowed to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples, said Petersen, a Republican." Ghal416 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for the mandate. Mw843 (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty. Ghal416 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Governor Otter will not fight the ruling anymore: article. So once the mandate is out, marriage blue Idaho. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Ghal416 (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The mandate will come fast enough. All these legal issues are just the last straws. I am not even worried about a split in the appeals courts anymore, unless they come up with a truly novel argument. and really, we would have seen those already by now. This is not your run of the mill split where additional arguments can be found and made. Everything is on the table, and they will try some variants of those arguments but that is it. Just a matter of time. The only question remaining is how many months before the last state goes dark blue? 2602:304:AF83:77A0:5940:3BA1:7B76:1B4A (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The quickest way to get all 50 would be for the 6th Circuit to rule against same-sex marriage, which would probably force the Supreme Court to take the case in time for a June 2015 national ruling. If the 6th Circuit rules for same-sex marriage, we'll be waiting on the 5th, 8th, and 11th Circuits which might take another year to work through the cases. However, this speculation is out of the scope of this page per WP:CRYSTAL. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the fastest way is the 6th going along with the others, and I am pretty sure most district federal courts will start raining summary judgements in all cases, with expedited appeals following. The question now is not if you have an argument, but if you have a novel argument that was not contain in any of the 9 cases (7 plus 2) that the supreme court has refused to hear or stay. Idaho tried a strict Baker, and the full court did not see that as an avenue to a reversal. I think the reality is that there are only three judges at the supreme court who are willing to rule against it. If you read Roberts dissent of Windsor carefully, he does not voted against it on any merits, just a technicality. Anyway, the future will tell. 2602:304:AF83:77A0:5940:3BA1:7B76:1B4A (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the Ninth Circuit page on the case; the mandate being reissued should appear there. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Motion to dissolve stay posted to that site: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/10/10/14-35420%20motion%20to%20dissolve%20stay.pdf Ghal416 (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Can mandates be issued over the weekend, or only business days? Ghal416 (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

9th has given Idaho until noon Monday to respond to motion to dissolve stay . Mw843 (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the order. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So I was blocked on Commons for my Good Faith edit (turning Idaho blue). I probably won't be editing Wikipedia or Commons anymore. It's not worth editing. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean blocked? Like, you have no editing abilities? Swifty819 (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Swifty819: I can't update the map (or any image on Wikimedia) for 1 week because I mistakenly colored Idaho dark blue! The reason why I said I won't be editing anymore is because this banning has made me depressed and indignant, so I don't wanna be a Wikipedia/Wikimedia editor anymore.

By the way, If anyone wants to gave their input on my banning you can do so on my Wikimedia talk page, the admin's Wikimedia talk page (@Ankry:), and here Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the 9C is giving Idaho till noon on Monday to respond to this...but aren't they not around then? It is a federal holiday on Monday after all. Ghal416 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Precedent colour as stripes?

Would it help to stripe precedent states such as Wyoming and Alaska with a new colour? It would show the current state of SSM legality in the state, but also indicate that they are in a circuit that has set a precedent with other states. It might cut down on the editing and introduce transparency into the current murky "transition" and "precedent" terms. Just an idea. Kumorifox (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We did a section on that above. Dralwik is about to make just such a change. Ghal416 (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Derp... Sorry for doubling up topics. Kumorifox (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Just letting you know ;) Ghal416 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Kansas and South Carolina

There's basically the same situation in both states: the state Supreme Court has ordered the bodies that were issuing licences to stop, Kansas until a hearing on Nov. 6, South Carolina until there is a ruling from a federal judge. Should this count as an indefinite stay? Mw843 (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. It has to be an indefinite stay given down from a court in order to count for such a distinction, no? Ghal416 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I sometime feel like we're headed into "angels on the head of a pin" with some of the legal hairsplitting. Mw843 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, but it does help keeping it consistent. I feel of late there is a tendency to run out ahead of movements, and it only serves to make us go in circles. Technically, there is no indefinite stay..yet...and there is as of yet no appeal, so it's probably best just to keep them as is. Just my opinion. Ghal416 (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And the "Precedent Map" is now up (thank you!), which helps. Mw843 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to contribute :) Much thanks to Dralwik. Ghal416 (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, guys. Here's to more map changes soon. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording for precedent color

If anyone has any suggestions for the precedent color wording other than what we have, please do put it here. I personally keep going back and forth on whether vulnerable is the right word. Swifty819 (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried to think of one, but I can't seem to nail down a suitable alternate. But of course feel free to change. Ghal416 (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"at risk"? Mw843 (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That could work actually. Ghal416 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no federal "Circuit Courts." There are US courts of appeals and there are 13 circuits. MKleid (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

.....It is as you say. I guess we should change that. Swifty819 (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that going back and forth to be honest in terminology. Besides, it would just be wordy the other way wouldn't it? Ghal416 (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I also found this quote on the wiki page for the US appeals courts: "The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system" Swifty819 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah okay. Then it works. What do you think of Mw's request? Ghal416 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it works. I just want to be sure that whatever we use, it doesn't imply that the ban is necessarily being challenged in court right now. Swifty819 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "at risk" fits that just as much as "vulnerable". But I leave it to you my friend. Ghal416 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The US Circuit Court system was superceded by the courts of appeals a century ago. They are not the same. Wikipedia should commit itself to excellence by avoiding misnomers. MKleid (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is also true, but most people still say "The Seventh Circuit" or "The Ninth Circuit". Swifty819 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, this isn't about overaccuracy. I've seen the other terminology used perfectly well and it is more concise, which fits descriptions in map legends better. I support keeping it. Ghal416 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I changed Circuit Court to Appellate Court in the legend. Does that work? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not think of this. Do you have any input for the other half of our discussion. Swifty819 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Close. I just think circuit rolls off the tongue a little better to be honest. Ghal416 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see that; I'm not as concerned about wording as I am coloring, and the Appellate Court wording is mostly to nip this debate in the bud and address the accuracy concerns. As for vulnerable vs. at risk, I'm fine with either. Although if you change the wording, make sure you get both the legend on the Commons map page and on the map template. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is accurate enough. I'll defer to the "at risk" change if Swifty is fine with it. But of course I join with whatever consensus there is. Ghal416 (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing jumps out at me one way or the other. Do as you wish. Swifty819 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Appellate or Circuit? Ghal416 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"appellate court" is probably better because it will translate directly into the other languages better than "circuit court" will. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It is done. Ghal416 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I (and hopefully anyone else) will let you know if we have any more ideas. Swifty819 (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Please do. Ghal416 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Recognition Color

Anyone up for using medium blue as the transition color and light blue as the recognition color (or vice versa). I understand that changing the key too many times is a concern- but I'm just putting this idea out there... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This has already been put up, look above. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: Thanks, I just fixed my wording (I accidentally said transition twice). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I just moved this proposal down to make it a separate one and because it was buried by other sections. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If you mean use the old "civil unions blue" color for out-of-state recognition rather than the dark gray (currently only used to stipe Missouri) then I would STRONGLY SUPPORT that. I have never liked using dark gray for that. Using a shade of blue would make so much more sense to the maps overall color scheme. But I'd prefer to keep the current light blue "transition color" as it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I was suggesting both but I honestly prefer medium blue for recognition, light blue for "transition". Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I STRONGLY SUPPORT using medium blue for recognition of out of state SSM, especially since civil unions are out of the map. I would also suggest using the dark grey for no position (ie. no recognition/ban). Makes the territories stand out a bit more as well.Einsteinboricua (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing about swapping the dark gray for the light gray to help define the territories better, so I support that proposal as well. The light gray on the territorial islands sort of gets lost since the territories are small and isolated on the map. The dark gray would do a better job of defining their shape on the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the swapping of dark grey for light grey for the "no position" regions, it will make the territories much easier to see. However, I do not support medium blue for recognition; I would prefer medium blue for transition and light blue for recognition. In my opinion, transition takes precedence over recognition only, and so transition should appear higher up the legend, and to stay consistent with the colouring, transition should be a darker shade than recognition. But if I am incorrect in this assumption and recognition actually does take precedence over transition, then I concur with previous statements. Kumorifox (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox:The transition color is also used for when a state legalizes recognition of foreign same-sex marriages. It makes sense for a state to go from medium blue for legalizing recognition to light blue for when it actually goes into effect. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I support dark gray for the territories. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27:I thought the current recognition colour for out-of-state AND foreign marriages was dark grey, and the current transition colour was light blue. Or am I confused now? In any case, I'd assume it would go like so: light for recognition, medium for transition to full legality, and dark for legality (i.e. going darker as legality progresses). Kumorifox (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Recognizing marriages performed out-of-state is a higher status than transitioning to allowing marriages to be performed in state, because during a transition, there are no marriages being recognized or performed, whereas there are marriages at least being recognized when out-of-state marriages are recognized. That's why I am for leaving the transition color as is and using the medium blue for out-of-state recognition. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clearing that up. In that case, I support medium blue for recognition, and dark grey for the territories. Kumorifox (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I meant it makes no sense... Sorry for the confusion I might have caused! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose recognizing SSM but not performing them is relatively neutral. Dark gray is neutral. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "neutral" about recognizing out-of-state marriages. If all you have to do to get your same-sex marriage fully recognized by your home state (and the federal government) is drive across state lines or fly to Vegas for the weekend and get married, then it's more legalized than during the "transition" to legalization that we use a blue color on. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Also with the current striping it would be balanced on the map. The blue would reflect a degree of legalization and the red would reflect the ban. I think the grey coloring would neutralize a degree of positive75.179.42.181 (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove same-sex unions

Status of same-sex marriage in the United States

---

  Performed and recognized

  Recognized when performed elsewhere

  Recognized by state and federal governments, but not by tribal government

  (mixed jurisdiction; not performed by tribal government)

  (mixed jurisdiction; not performed or recognized by tribal government)

---

• v
• t
• e

Now that there are no states colored as medium blue (same-sex unions) I think it is time for this map to officially become a same-sex marriage map instead of being a same-sex union map. If this map becomes a marriage only map, we get rid of footnote #2 and footnote #4 and even shorten footnote #1 a little bit. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. No need for unions anymore. Swifty819 (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong support. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Support. Ghal416 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. Civil unions are so last week. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Last week. That's hilarious. I just had to say that. Swifty819 (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. Laikalynx (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this so hard. Tinmanic (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

support Happy to see that we will no longer have civil unions, we got better we got marriages :D--Allan120102 (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Have we got snowball yet? Swifty819 (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems that way. Best to follow clause guidelines I guess. Ghal416 (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It's nice that we all finally agree on something. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It truly is. Swifty819 (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done per WP:SNOWBALL. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The changes weren't made to the commons map. However, I believe I have successfully completed those changes myself. Swifty819 (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, in some states that have SSM banned, they still have some kind of union that homosexuals can join into, such as domestic partnerships and such, in certain jurisdictions. Should there be at least one footnote pointing that out? Just curious. Ghal416 (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. There is a page specific for that on this site already: Same-sex unions. Although, that page (maps included) is in need of update. Ghal416 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For the first time in a very long time, we all agree on a map change. This is exciting (: Even though it's after the fact, I also support this change. Good peacefull work everybody! aharris206 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The commons map

Just a note. At some point, when we agree on wording enough that we can call it consensus, I believe we should modify the map on the commons so as to have it match the template here. At the moment, they differ somewhat significantly for precedent color. However, I made the footnotes match because I can prove snowball if I must. Swifty819 (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the current wording (contrary to...) is the best of the suggestions we had. I support this. Kumorifox (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I feel it is sort of splitting hairs at this point (I think "at risk" carries the same point just fine). But it works. Ghal416 (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the wording on the template, and believe the wording on Commons should be changed to match. Swifty819 (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Idaho 2

@Aharris206: Please revert your change to Idaho in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. Until the 9th Circuit acts, same-sex marriage is not legal. Mw843 (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Idaho is causing a lot of confusion, I must say. Kumorifox (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We've gone from the Ninth Circuit permitting marriages but the state holding out to the state permitting marriages but the Ninth Circuit holding out on the mandate. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: Sorry for the confusion, I saw that couples were getting married, and wrongly assumed that meant it was legal thought the state. This is not the case though, just like when the clerk in Pennsylvania was issuing marriage licenses on her own initiate. Hopefully the 9th circuit will act soon and re-send the mandate, so the confusion is over. It is quite literally hanging on a thread. aharris206 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, they gave Idaho till noon tomorrow to respond, but I'm curious how that will work. Isn't it a federal holiday tomorrow? Ghal416 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Idaho response is here; the Governor is still asking for the stay. Now we see if the plaintiffs respond (5 PM PDT deadline iirc). If Otter's request is denied tonight, Idaho may be dark blue by the end of the evening. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alaska!

Alaska now has ME. http://www.adn.com/article/20141012/federal-judge-rules-alaskas-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional . The question is whether to turn it blue now, when people can pick up applications, or when they can actually get married?

Solid blue is ok because an injunction was issued. First time I see a ruling on sunday of this type, With Alaska and Idaho that makes 30 states with 5 more in the comings weeks that leave 15 more states.--Allan120102 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I say now. The decision goes into effect immediately. The court "immediately enjoins" the state from enforcing the ban. https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/521432554550091776 Tinmanic (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Solid blue. A stay is unlikely to be issued at any level of the federal court system. S51438 (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Have licenses been issued? I'd hold off till the next step of what state officials do before making the change. If there would be a change, it should be light blue at the most. Ghal416 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a Sunday of a three-day weekend, so it's unlikely a marriage bureau in Alaska is open. Nevertheless, marriage is now legal in Alaska. The court ruling has immediate legal effect. Very straightforward. Tinmanic (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Already taken care of. I do apologise for not having asked here, I thought the decision was obvious. Mea culpa! Kumorifox (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Has there been any word on a state appeal? If the state is appealing then Alaska is light blue for now but if the state won't dark blue is OK. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A ruling means nothing by itself though if state officials haven't made it clear what they will do next. Also, until licenses are being distributed, no same-sex marriage is technically taking place. Just feel like it's jumping the gun at this point. I'm thrilled at the ruling, but just on the fence about taking this step until it is without a doubt (there still is in this case). EDIT: Agreed with Dralwik. Ghal416 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done My apologies once again for the hasty earlier edit. Alaska is now transition blue. Kumorifox (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh no worries my friend. Just saying is all. Meant no ill will. If anything, we also need a description in the footnote concerning SSM pending states for AK. Ghal416 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I would leave it light blue until we know that the state will not appeal. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Legalization isn't "pending" or "not yet in effect" (light blue), it's in effect and "legal" (dark blue). Having Alaska as light blue is misleading. If a same-sex couple wants to get married, they might be discouraged from trying because the map says it's not legal yet- even though there might be a clerk out there willing to issue a license to a same-sex couple. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Until we get that news, it means nothing. It's just speculation beyond what we know. Until licenses are issued and/or state officials drop their case, it's not happening yet. Ghal416 (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Ghal416: It does mean something, there is no speculation. Same-sex marriage is legal in Alaska and the law isn't "pending". Offices are closed, that's why same-sex marriages aren't being issued yet. I'm in California and if I wanted to get married to some person of the same-sex I wouldn't be able to because it's Sunday. That doesn't mean that we should color California something other than blue though does it...? Of course not, same-sex marriage is still legal in California!!! This map doesn't deal with when a same-sex couple can get married, it deals with when same-sex marriage is the law.Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, no need for the exclamation points. Second of all, what you say isn't what I've heard others have said on what constitutes dark blue status. I've heard your take, and I've heard from others that there should be more concrete proof of such. Perhaps we should have another discussion section on this, otherwise we are going to go back and forth on this.Ghal416 (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with solid blue, on the basis that the state has no reasonable prospects of an appeal to worry about ... if this was Nebraska, or Georgia, OTOH, I think we'd have been going to light blue. Mw843 (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I find the debate on this thread shocking. It does NOT matter what state officials will do, NOR does the map state "Dark blue = states where gay marriage licenses are offered". When a federal court says IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS, it does not mean once appeals are finalized, it means now; same-sex marriage bans are struck down in Alaska. Legalization does not mean licenses are offered (Where was the light blue when Illinois was painted dark blue 6 months before licenses were offered?). If that is the case, then the description for the dark blue should be changed immediately. S51438 (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point, this. Kumorifox (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Then we should have another debate about what constitutes dark blue, because I've heard two different takes on what it should be: purely legal or more concrete/licenses/no appeal. Till then, we're going to keep going back and forth on this. Which is it? Ghal416 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dark blue has meant "legalization" since the map transitioned to the current color scheme years ago. Why some editors want to suddenly redefine dark blue AND create new colors is unknown to me. If anything, we could redefine dark blue and ditch the light blue. S51438 (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The precedence was set with Illinois, as was said, therefore, I'm going to take a stance and say dark blue is legality regardless of further possible appeals etc. Transition colours can always be applied once the maybe has become a certainty. The map should indeed reflect the currently known status, not speculated status. Kumorifox (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: Illinois was pre-transition color era. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with that, as I'm fairly new here, but does someone have a link to a discussion in the past where this was talked about? Just want clarity. Ghal416 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Ghal416: This has been discussed a lot! You're gonna have to dig through some archives... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Ghal416: Here's your discussion. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7e/20131120233818%21Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg Published NOVEMBER 20 2013. Under your "consensus", Illinois should have been colored light blue. Destroying precedent is okay, but not without some description change as well. S51438 (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but Pcc27 stated that a new consensus was made recently with the new transition blue color. Therefore, this might not apply anymore. I'll wait to see what others say in the new discussion section on this and then I'll follow in turn. Ghal416 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have gone back to coloring it blue, even given the appeal, and here's why: The circuit court is bound by stare decisis. They will reject the appeal. It is not much less than a legal certainty. --krimin_killr21(talk) 02:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A temporary stay from the circuit court has been issued. It might be best to watch this, especially if the Supreme Court grants a lasting stay through the circuit appeal. https://www.scribd.com/doc/243145330/14-35856-5 68.184.112.64 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudos & Alaska marriage licenses

As an Alaskan, I'd like to extend my appreciation to all the editors involved in this discussion who have been helping to ensure that the map is accurate — with regards to Alaska, as well as other states. With regard to the the issuance of marriage licenses, today (Monday, October 13) is a federal holiday, not a state holiday. And even yesterday, a Sunday, the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics announced that it would be issuing marriage licenses for same-sex marriages beginning today (Monday). In Alaska, there is a three-day waiting period after issuance of a marriage license before a marriage can take place, so expect the first same-sex marriage(s) here to take place on Thursday. Of the five plaintiff couples in the lawsuit that was decided yesterday, four couples were already legally married in other states, so now have their marriages recognized. The one couple which was not yet married has already stated their intent to seek a marriage license this morning and to get married on Thursday. No one here believes that Gov. Sean Parnell's intent to appeal U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess' decision yesterday will result in anything other than a waste of the state's money. — Yksin (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also a good opportunity for us editors to learn the machinery of the legal system. Congrats on the happy news and it's uplifting to see that dark blue is the accurate color for Alaska. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dralwik! And a technical clarification about Alaska marriage licenses, per the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics Marriage Licenses page:

Waiting Period.

There is a three (3) business day waiting period that begins once a mailed or faxed application is received by the issuing office. This means that you must wait at least three full business days after the application is submitted before you can pick up the license and the marriage ceremony can be performed.

i.e., the waiting period is between the application and the issuance of the marriage license, not between the issuance and the solemnization of the marriage. (solemnization is the actual term used in Alaska marriage law.) —Yksin (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And if anyone needs a reliable source, here's the Alaska Dispatch News (formerly the Anchorage Daily News): With Alaska's gay marriage ban overturned, couples file for marriage licenses. The story also verifies what Facebook contacts had said: that Alaska has already updated marriage applications to gender-neutral language for couples, identifying them as Party A and party B instead of bride and groom as formerly. (Wow, this has been a long time coming. We were the first state to have enshrined marriage discrimination in our state constitution in 1998. I remember it well.) — Yksin (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage template blocked

Looks like yet another administrator has a heavy trigger finger and this time blocked the same-sex marriage template from being updated by most people due to alleged "edit-warring," over Idaho. I left the administrator a message on his Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redrose64#Your_blocking_of_the_same-sex_marriage_template_is_unwarranted. Tinmanic (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not for this map though right..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I would hold off on editing anyway. Despite the ruling in AK, state officials could still appeal and no licenses have been issued as of yet. If there were to be an edit, it should be AK being light blue. Same sex marriage isn't taking place yet. Ghal416 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That goes against YEARS of agreement on what constitutes dark blue. S51438 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a previous discussion on this? I'm not being combative, as I'm new here and want to know. Otherwise, Pcc27 has begun a discussion on it below. Ghal416 (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@S51438: Actually, consensus went from dark blue when a state legalizes same-sex marriage, to dark blue only when it is in effect, back to dark blue when a state legalizes same-sex marriage (this was a false consensus because the previous consensus was ignored and users stated they were against the false consensus), and then the transition color was recently added so then when a state legalizes same-sex marriage they go to light blue instead of dark blue. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

When can a state be colored dark blue?

Should a state be colored dark blue when same-sex marriage is legal and the law is in effect or should it be left light blue until same-sex marriage licenses are issued. I think states should be blue immediately when it becomes legal. If blue = a same-sex couple can get a marriage license then my state (California) can't be blue right now because offices are closed for the weekend. This map deals with laws, not issuance of licenses. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Under the current description, and under agreement since the color scheme years ago, dark blue signifies legality. If we are to follow the traditional model, Alaska should be colored DARK BLUE. Some editors want to ignore this and make it issued, without changing the description. If we are to make this huge change, then the description MUST be altered. S51438 (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Would like to know how previous talk has been on this, as I've heard two different takes on this. About time this is settled. I tend to ride on the train of "until licenses are issued and state officials are not pressing for further appeals/stays, it isn't legal yet"), but I defer to whatever you all agree on. I'm new after all. Ghal416 (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The transition color is the new consensus, but it shouldn't be used on state's where same-sex marriage is legal (i.e. Alaska). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as the transition blue leaves the door open regarding when SSM will be taking place, it could cover this. But again, I'll wait to see what others state regarding this. That way, we can be on the same page about this. Ghal416 (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ghal416: "as the transition blue leaves the door open regarding when SSM will be taking place," No, that distorts what the definition of dark blue is according to the map key. Light blue is a transition to legality not "SSM taking place". S51438 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but the transition to legality involves, or can involve, several steps. Indeed a judge striking down a ban is a huge step, but that doesn't mean people rushing to get married will be accepted by the state. Officials have to drop and/or decide not to appeal the ruling (which hasn't happened yet in this case) and then licenses have to be issued (also not happening). I can see your point, but I can also see the other side (@Dralwik) as well in how they could view it. Ghal416 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Legal - Permitted by Law" The only question for blue v. light blue is this-- Is SSM permitted by law? The answer here is yes. Is it permitted by the Clerk's Office, perhaps not, but that isn't the test. If I were married and I went to Alaska, I'd still be married. --krimin_killr21(talk) 02:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• But the ruling went into effect immediately and as of now- the ruling hasn't been stayed. Like I said before, the reason why people aren't rushing to get married is because it's a weekend (and If Alaska celebrates the holiday dedicated to the genocidal guy who "discovered" America, licenses won't be issued tomorrow either). But the same goes for other marriage equality states, I can't marry someone of the same sex right now because offices are closed. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise...we can leave it as dark blue for now. However, when couples go to get those licenses on Tuesday (and of course they will), if clerks decide to wait for further instruction from officials, then it will be light blue. Of course the state will have to weight in by then, so by then all this should clear up. Technically, you are correct. Ghal416 (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• If we are going to do that (which I'm not saying we should) then the light blue wording is going to have to be changed because regardless of whether or not same-sex couples are denied, Alaska qualifies as "same-sex marriage legal" and not "legalization pending, not yet in effect". Prcc27 (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For me it's a simple guideline: no state can be marriage blue while the state is still fighting the ruling. Do we have any word on whether Alaska will not appeal like Idaho did? Until then it is a violation of CRYSTAL to say that marriage equality is definitely in in Alaska and that licenses will be issued. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As of yet, no word. The injunction has been issued, but the state has not weighed in yet. That's all that is in place at the moment. Ghal416 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alaska will appeal: article. Light blue is the proper color. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

From article: "Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R) released a statement on Sunday saying that he would appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though that court has already struck down similar bans in Idaho and Nevada. “As Alaska’s governor, I have a duty to defend and uphold the law and the Alaska Constitution,” Parnell said in the statement. “Although the district court today may have been bound by the recent Ninth Circuit panel opinion, the status of that opinion and the law in general in this area is in flux. I will defend our constitution.”" Stand corrected, definitely should be light blue. Ghal416 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not quite, just because Alaska will appeal doesn't mean they will get a stay. If anything, it's a violation of CRYSTAL to assume that Alaska's ruling (which has already gone into effect) will be stayed. Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why beige is inappropriate for Alaska. Same-sex marriage is in flux there, hence light blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Same-sex marriage is not in flux there because it is already legal. If the ruling is stayed then it will no longer be legal. Until then, the map needs to reflect Alaska as "same-sex marriage legal" not "legalization pending, not yet in effect."

By the way, I requested for this page to be protected because of all the edits regarding Alaska. Prcc27 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But it is basically pending. Now that the state officials (Governor no less) has made it apparent that they will appeal, the assumption of legality is not so firm. Indeed, practitioners could attempt to get a license, but now that state officials have announced their intentions, legalization is most certainly in a "pending" state. To assume that they can't get a stay is an assumption, and was done beforehand with Idaho before it was righted. There is no solely dark blue and beigh distinction anymore, which it seems you are advocating for here...now there is a transition blue state in between the two. That, in my view, is where Alaska is right now. Agree with Dralwik. Ghal416 (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Legalization isn't pending, legalization is in effect! The law is already in effect and Alaska is in the same situation as California right now: Same-sex marriage is legal, but no licenses are being issued right now because offices are closed. Prcc27 (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right now, but the process of legalization is still ongoing which calls for light blue. Keep the average reader in mind who will want to know at a glance which states hand out licenses via dark blue and as long as the state is appealing, that will not include Alaska. We cannot put de jure status above reality. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Then the wording for light blue and dark blue have to be changed because "Same-sex marriage legal" 100% qualifies for Alaska. Prcc27 (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the state has announced their intentions to appeal would not change whether the offices are closed or not. I could side with changing the wording of the light blue color to something like "Subject of same-sex marriage ban legalization in flux", but I still think Alaska fits that more than dark blue.Ghal416 (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Dark Blue coloration. The Law now is that Same Sex Marriages are legal. The only way this would change is if the 9th decision is overturned (would go back to red) or if it is stayed (would go to gold) unless either of those things happen Marriage is legal even during an appeal. There is nothing 'in process' about the situation. Saying wait and see if they are granted a stay is purely speculative (and most likely not going to happen)75.179.42.181 (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But you are making an assumption based on a former distinction that no longer applies. There is dark blue, transition light blue, and beige for stays. Whether AK gets a stay or not is irrelevant here, what matters is that the situation of legalization is not set thanks in part to the fact that state officials intend to appeal the judge's decision. That doesn't change whether it's the weekend or not. That fits light blue more than dark blue, which it might have been before this new news. Ghal416 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't assuming anything. Even if the state appeals, unless there is a stay, the law and the state's legal requirement is to grant and recognise marriages. The state appealing doesn't change the factual state of the law.75.179.42.181 (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The map has been changed 7 times now in regard to Alaska and will probably be protected. Prcc27 (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with 75.179.42.181. Prcc27 (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, that won't be the case, because again the state at the moment is going to appeal that decision. Just like we did with Idaho, it should be light blue. If we followed this line of yours, we'd be completely ignoring the transition blue color. That's not what the rubric has now. I respect your right to not like it, but that's what it is. Again, I can see perhaps the wording could be dealt with, but I'm following what the system is now. Alaska clearly is in flux. Whether the 9C or the SCOTUS grants a stay or not is a question dealing with the beige color, not this. Ghal416 (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just as a further point of consideration. Any couples in Alaska who are already married in another jurisdiction instantly had their marriage recognised. If a married couple went into a hospital tonight they would have all the rights due them as a legally married couple. If Alaska were actually belonging in the light blue category this would not be the case. The light blue color would be appropriate if the order said marriage will begin 91 days after the stay is lifted(like Florida), or if the decision was waiting for the court to issue an order (like idaho) but his decision went into effect immediately and is in effect.75.179.42.181 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So, if the appeal is physically filed this coming week and waiting for the 9C or SCOTUS or whatever to rule on it, then it will fit light blue? We need to put this distinction down so we can lessen these moments. Ghal416 (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, If/when the appeal is filed, it will still be dark blue and the state will still be required to comply with the district court ruling, unless the 9th or the SCOTUS issues a stay of the district court ruling. If a stay is issued it will turn gold. Hypothetically if the stay was then lifted it could immediately turn dark blue, unless what happened in Idaho happens again in Alaska. In Idaho the 9th issued an order, then Kennedy granted a stay, after Kennedy granted the stay the 9th withdrew their order, the SCOTUS then reversed the stay, but the 9th had already withdrawn their order so Idaho is now light blue while we wait for the 9th to reissue their order after the stay being lifted. {edit: and not specifically relevant but The ninth is waiting until either noon or 1PM PT tomorrow for further motions before making their next move which will likely be reissuing their order.75.179.42.181 (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Except before the stay, Idaho was light blue for a time. It was at or around that time that they filed an appeal, to which Kennedy issued a stay, and it turned gold. There is now transition blue to cover these situations. I can compromise on holding it off until that appeal is officially filed, but to not do so ignores the fact that there is a distinction between dark blue and beige now. We can't just ignore it. Ghal416 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Ghal416: Actually, Idaho went from dark blue to gold. See, even if same-sex marriage is legal AND licenses are being issued to same-sex couples, the ruling can still be stayed (or even overturned). Prcc27 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I did see light blue there as a result of licenses not being issued, and it was left that way until they were. Then, as you say, it was stayed. Ghal416 (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Ghal46: Exactly, if you're arguing that a state should be left light blue until licenses are issued because the ruling can be stayed then you might as well leave the state light blue when they start issuing licenses because the ruling could still be stayed after the fact. What exactly are you arguing here..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What I am saying is that while same-sex marriage was legal, licenses weren't issued and it appeared that light blue was used to identify that distinction. I'm just staying consistent. If was good enough then, why not now? Ghal416 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Ghal416: It wasn't good enough then, I have always opposed a de facto map. Consensus can change per WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, which is why I'm proposing that we color a state blue the moment same-sex marriage is legal. Even then, I'm not convinced there was every consensus for waiting until licenses are issued. Prcc27 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it seems more spurious as time goes on. I guess I'll defer to 75.179's definition below for now. Ghal416 (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I give up. Let's see what tomorrow brings with Idaho. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Light blue = Marriage equality not in effect, but it is scheduled to go into effect. Gold/beige = A ruling is stayed by the court and has no effective date.75.179.42.181 (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That I can get behind. Ghal416 (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Ghal416: Actually, I think 75.179.42.181 means Light blue = same-sex marriage law not in effect or temporary stay; gold = indefinite stay. Prcc27 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Gold/beige is an indefinite stay with the proviso that it is being appealed. Light blue, at least seeing here is either: a temporary stay done to work out kinks in providing SSM, waiting for a potential ruling after the state officials have given up the fight, awaiting a mandate to carry on with the law (SSM), or a stay about to expire at some future date. Ghal416 (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The decision being appealed changes nothing!!! If Alaska continues to appeal the decision and a clerk issues a marriage license, the district court's decision could still be stayed or overturned right? If the state gets their way, those licenses would be invalidated. When a same-sex couple receives a license, the ruling is still "in flux." For example, Idaho issued a license to a same-sex couple and Idaho was colored blue, but then the ruling was stayed and Idaho was colored gold. The state's appeal doesn't change the fact that same-sex marriage is currently legal and a license being issued to a same-sex couple doesn't change the fact that the ruling is still "in flux." Prcc27 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

When I get home I'll look into making a de facto map of states that actually issue licenses. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: How will you deal with rogue jurisdictions..? Would the territories be "de facto ban"? Does the entire state have to issue licenses to be colored as de facto legal or just some of the state?Prcc27 (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Rogue jurisdictions and the Kansas and Idaho counties would be a blue ring, Missouri a pale recognition blue, and everything else (territories, ban states, Alaska and Idaho right now) would be a gray like the world marriage map. (haven't seen if Alaska will recognize marriages while it fights). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget South Carolina (I believe). So basically, this map would include previous cases too..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina isn't under an order to recognise marriage yet.

Never mind, South Carolina's licenses were suspended. (I shouldn't have added a ring to South Carolina on the other map..) Prcc27 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like this map isn't necessary, unless there were 'Dark blue' states with legal same sex marriages that were refusing to issue licenses in spite of a court order like Utah did the first time around. I don't think any meet that criteria right now, and if they did a footnote saying "X state is not issuing licenses in violation of a court order" seems more appropriate than an entire third map.75.179.42.181 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, we don't need a de facto map. If anything we could add a footnote explaining that a state is refusing to comply with the law like IP suggested, but I kinda oppose doing that too. Prcc27 (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting a bit ridiculous. There is too much overthinking going on. It's turning into that Borges short story about maps. We do not need a new map or a revised key. Legal is legal; that's what the key says. Therefore, Alaska should be dark blue. It is WP:CRYSTAL to presume otherwise. No appeal has been filed (despite informally stated intentions to do so). No court has acted on that nonexistent appeal. Why does this require further debate? Tinmanic (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As I posted above, the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics is issuing marriage licenses today. There is a three-day waiting period after issuance of a marriage license before the marriage can actually take place, so expect the first weddings in Alaska to take place Thursday. Meanwhile, the four plaintiff same-sex couples in the lawsuit who were already legally married in other states (along with numerous other couples who were also already legally married) are now legally recognized as married in Alaska. Yes: same-sex marriage is legal in Alaska. We are dark blue. This does not change unless a higher court overturns the Judge Burgess' decision; or a stay is put in place which just changes us to whatever color "stays" get. — Yksin (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Technical clarification about Alaska marriage licenses, per the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics Marriage Licenses page: the waiting period is between the application and the issuance of the marriage license, not between the issuance and the solemnization of the marriage. (solemnization is the actual term used in Alaska marriage law.) — Yksin (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)