Jump to content

File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the Supreme Court decision, this map does not make sense

[edit]

SCOTUS made their decisions. SSM is now legal nationwide. If states or other localities are not recognizing the decision, the map could show this, but there is no longer anything complicated about the legality of the issue, just about compliance. Shouldn't the map should make this much clearer? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I don't give a shit. I don't give a shit what makes sense, or if this is an encyclopedia where no opinions are permitted. A lot of people have worked very hard to make this map accurate and reflect what is the legal status in each state. Let people enjoy the dark blue map for a few days. You can wiki-lawyer later.68.199.96.18 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this comment at all. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he was (inartfully) trying to say is that once the map goes all blue, we will essentially retire it and remove it from all articles that use it, as it will no longer have any real use. So by having a couple states and territories still holding out, you get to enjoy a sea of blue across almost the entire country, if only for a few more days or weeks. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I have no problem with this map being here, what doesn't make sense to me is to have a caption that says "Current legal status of same-sex marriage is disputed" or "Decision overturning same-sex marriage ban, stayed indefinitely pending appeal". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The legend descriptions have been changed to be more clear. The following line has been added: "Same-sex marriage is de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges" Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The light blue makes sense, but I don't understand the pink and purple. What distinctions make more than one non-yet-complying color necessary? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The territories still colored pink (or light red) are that way basically because we don't yet have any official word about them from any reliable sources about when same-sex marriage licenses will begin being issued. The time difference is probably one reason for this. Kansas is purple because, last I have heard, the state government is still refusing to recognize the legality of same-sex marriages. Things are happening very quickly and I think we've been doing a good job of keeping up with the latest developments to keep this map as up to date as possible based on the information we have available to us. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So then the purple means "the state government has not yet recognized the decision" and pink means "the status of the state governments recognition is unknown"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purple is more like "some marriage licenses have been, and are being issued in the state, but the state government refuses to recognize same-sex marriage, despite the SCOTUS decision" and pink is more like "no marriage licenses are known to have ever been issued in the territory, and the last official word we have is that the government does not recognize it, but that could change soon in light of the recent decision...maybe?" So, in other words, "it's complicated". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are making my case. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The light blue color means that the state government officials have expressed the intent to begin issuing marriage licenses and recognizing their legality at a definite date or event in the future. That doesn't apply to Kansas or the territories (yet). Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting)

  • Light blue is labeled "Same-sex marriage legalization pending, but not yet in effect; Same-sex marriage will be de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges2" This would be more accurate if it read "Same-sex marriage is legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges2, but is not yet in effect".
  • Purple is labeled "Current legal status of same-sex marriage is disputed; Same-sex marriage will be de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges3" This would be more accurate if it read " "Same-sex marriage is legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges2, but is not yet totally in effect state-wide"
  • Gray is labeled "Same-sex marriage banned; applicability of Obergefell v. Hodges unknown", which sounds very much like Pink.
  • Pink is labeled "Same-sex marriage banned, despite the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional; Same-sex marriage is de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges", perhaps this should read "Same-sex marriage is legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges2, but it is unknown if it is in effect"
--☑ SamuelWantman 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference of grey and pink is that in pink, the SCOTUS ruling applies (we have precedent in Guam and PR), whereas it grey we don't know if it applies. — kwami (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admittedly have disappeared for a good while, so I don't know if this has been discussed, but perhaps we could freeze this map as it was immediately before the ruling? The information this map shows in its current state is not very useful as within a few weeks every hold-out will be legally obligated to perform SSM. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was discussed at least a little, and I (and I think a few others maybe) thought that freezing the map would be even less helpful. You can always recreate another map to be exactly how this map was immediately prior to the decision if you want, but I actually think having this map still be current is far more helpful to readers, as there are still a couple of states that are holding out. Once the last state turns blue, this map should just be retired, and its file history will serve as a record of how it changed and evolved over time. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this map is going to be here for a while because Kansas has been a holdout for several months and will likely remain that way for several more, it will probably be more difficult for the territories to legalize it, and who knows when the Fifth Circuit will legalize it for Mississippi..? But I am in favor of keeping this map until same-sex marriage is legal in every state, district (D.C.), and territory. Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, SSM is legal in every state and territory (possibly to the exclusion of AM Samoa). You are looking for some standard that does not exist. Any official not offering licenses or recognition at this point is in violation of the constitution and their oath of office. Louisiana is now offering licenses. Could we change them dark blue at least? Difbobatl (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Samoa

[edit]

AM is currently pink, meaning that SSM is de jure legal. But we don't know that: American Samoans do not enjoy the full protection of the 14th Amendment. I think it should be grey for status unknown. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says "de jure legal". But regardless, does the SCOTUS precedent apply to American Samoa? or does it only apply to citizens? We don't know, so coloring it pink is OR. — kwami (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template says "will be de jure legal". The precedent is binding on all federal courts and AFAIK American Samoa has one. It's up to America Samoa's federal court to decide if SCOTUS' ruling applies to them; not us. Regardless, there is still a SCOTUS precedent against it. Prcc27 (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says "same-sex marriage is de jure legal per U.S. Supreme Court ruling". We do not know that is true, so saying it is OR. It also says "same-sex marriage banned, despite the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional". Again, we don't know that's true.
There's the High Court of American Samoa. But the question is, if SSM was legalized per the guarantees of the 14th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment does not fully apply to American Samoa, does the precedent apply to American Samoa? We simply don't know. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commons map legend might need to be fixed, but the template on Wikipedia says "will be". Do you have a source that says the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to American Samoa..? Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read our article on AM, or do a web search for citizenship. The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US, but AM is not in the US. A number of concomitant rights do not apply to AM either. For all we know, SSM is one of them. We have a precedent for the territories subject to circuit courts, whose people are citizens, but AM is uncharted territory. — kwami (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If American Samoa is not in the United States for our intents or otherwise, it should be removed from the map. Dustin (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would also be OR. The situation is a bit like the Netherlands, Denmark, the UK, or New Zealand. — kwami (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not including American Samoa would not be original research. I don't know what you are talking about. Plus, if it is not guaranteed now that same-sex marriage will be legalized in American Samoa, that would mean that it will be the last thing on the entire map for what could be a long time and would be of no benefit to viewers in that it would result in viewers needing this map just for a territory that isn't even incorporated. Dustin (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And if we remove Northern Ireland from the map, SSM is legal in all of the UK. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. If it is not incorporated and is not part of the United States and they are not even citizens, there is no reason good reason to include the territory of American Samoa which in the end would remain a stain on the otherwise consistent map. Plus, Northern Ireland is an entire country! That is not a good comparison. Dustin (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
American Samoa is an entire country. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The United Kingdom is not a country. It is made up of four different countries. The United States, however, is a country. If American Samoa is a country other than the United States, it has no business being on this map! Dustin (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what definition of "country" you are looking at. One definition of "country" is a sovereign state. Under that definition, the UK is a "country". Calling the 4 political divisions of the UK "countries" is really a matter of historical use. The constituent states that make up the U.S. used to sometimes be referred to as "countries" also, but that usage has fallen out of use. What is labeled a "country" or "state" or "nation" is somewhat arbitrary. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the constituent countries of the United Kingdom are not equivalent to states in the United States, and the United Kingdom is not a federation while the United States is. Dustin (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. The federal system of the U.S. in which state legislatures retain some sovereignty independent from the federal government is different from the unitary state system of the U.K. where all sovereignty is vested with the parliament and any powers the constituent country parliaments exercise are subject to the will of the British parliament. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzalez-Pagan doesn't appear to be aware that they're not citizens. There was just a case at the DC circuit court that refused to grant them citizenship, saying that they have no right to it. — kwami (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Including Curacao, Sint Maarten, and Aruba on a map of the Netherlands would probably be a more comparable situation than Northern Ireland and the UK, both geographically and politically. And SSM isn't legal in any of those, although they do have to recognize marriages performed in the Netherlands proper, same-sex or not. As mentioned above, special laws concern American Samoa even compared to other territories, yet alone the United States proper. If it turns out they (and possibly the USVI and NMI) are not going to legalize it, and don't even have to, we put a note saying "United States proper" followed by all the territories where it is also legal, similar to what is done for the Netherlands. Also, the Equal Protection clause only applies to states, not territories (or the District of Columbia) which is why Brown v. Board had a companion case for those which struck down segregation laws on other grounds. Considering that the Supreme Court has recently been interpreting the word "state" in a broader sense, that could potentially change, or they could just do like in the companion case to Brown and find anti-SSM laws also violate other parts of the constitution that do apply to the territories and DC, but it could take years of court fights. Smartyllama (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Samoa should have its own color. Pink could be re-used, since all the other territories either recognized, or announced they will. Difbobatl (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If AS is not recognizing because they aren't "really" part of the US, then they shouldn't "really" even be on this map at all then, should they. Erase it from the map. Njsustain (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please either BE BOLD and remove AS (which I'm sure will get reverted by the "owner" of this map) or give AS its own color. Lumping them and Kansas in one color makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Apparently we now have to have a 30-day debate to change anything on this map. So much for Wikipedia being group-editable... Difbobatl (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Virgin Islands

[edit]

According to this report, the implementation of the SCOTUS ruling in the U.S. Virgin Islands would be problematic... Ron 1987 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated [2], USVI now recognizing SSM. Someone please color them dark blue. Difbobatl (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update 7/3/15: Gov. Kenneth Mapp has yet to issue his executive order, no marriage for now. The pink color is appropriate, possible change to light blue or dark blue once the order is issued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 18:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas

[edit]

Why is it blue? It should be purple, since several counties have yet to issue marriage licenses. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20150626-interactive-map-how-texas-counties-are-handling-same-sex-marriage-licenses.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.44.138 (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If a county in California all of the sudden decided to stop issuing same-sex marriages would California be colored purple? The reason Texas is blue is because they stay was lifted from the federal district court ruling. Prcc27 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bad premise. The stay was lifted in Kansas but several counties are still not issuing, hence purple. It would be different if counties suddenly stopped issing in Texas, but since they have never issued as of yet, it should be purple for the time being. Kumorifox (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kansas is still different because the ruling didn't require the state to recognize same-sex marriages and thus even if you do get married in Kansas you won't receive recognition from the state. Also, I'm pretty sure Texas isn't the only state with counties refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, but we shouldn't color every single state with rogue counties purple. This map deals with same-sex marriage legality, and same-sex marriage is fully legal in Texas, but only partially legal in Kansas! Prcc27 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texas law makes a marriage license issued in one county valid statewide, thus Texas is properly all blue. Texas Marriage Code, Title I, Ch. 2. Section 2.001. Argos'Dad 14:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas map

[edit]

I am sorry I know this have nothing to be in here,but can someone turn pink the 20th judicial district of Kansas, as they are not issuing same sex marriage licenses.They are blue right now, we need to change it to pink.--Allan120102 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which counties are in the 20th? And what source said they aren't issuing, just to be sure? All sources so far have mentioned issuing by all the blue counties so far. Kumorifox (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Allan120102 isn't talking about changing this map. This definitely shouldn't be discussed here.. Prcc27 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it shouldn't be here, but I am not sure if someone sees when I post links like for example in the Kansas page.http://www.salina.com/news/local/first-same-sex-marriage-license-issued-in-saline-county/article_d01974c3-159f-5d15-8336-fde4b0af7522.html the 20th judicial district haven't been issuing so far which include Rice , Ellsworth , Russell , Barton and Stafford. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Allan120102 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas has recognized the legality of same-sex marriage under Obergefell v. Hodges[[3]]. Can we please change them to dark blue and get rid of their footnote? Difbobatl (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana

[edit]

Louisiana should not be colored purple for "legally complicated" - the situation there is not complex. That the AG and the Governor disagree on when SSM will become legal in the state is immaterial; the important fact is that they both agree that SSM is coming and there is nothing they can do to stop it. The purple "complicated" color is for places where there is genuine confusion as to whether or not SSM is legal, such as Kansas where some counties are issuing licenses but the state is refusing to recognize them. No one is issuing SSM licenses in Louisiana, the state is quite clear about not currently recognizing SSM. There is no confusion. Shereth 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana has started issuing same-sex marriage licenses - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisiana-starts-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses/. - htonl (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now Louisiana should be purple: Jindal and the AG are opposed to immediate licensing, but at least one parish is ignoring their opinions, and going with their own lawyer's view. Mw843 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Louisiana is complicated because according to the AG same-sex marriage has been legalized and will be in effect soon, but the governor claims that the Fifth Circuit has to legalize it which could take several days or months. When the mandate is issued, there will be confusion as to whether SSM is legal or not because according to the AG the answer would be "yes", but according to the governor the answer would be "no". Prcc27 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with that reasoning but given that parishes in LA are now issuing in spite of the executive government's resistance I am now content to leave it purple. Shereth 20:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana is not complicated. SSM is legal. Please see [4]. Various politicians are using various arguments that are not legally correct to try and encourage individual officials to not offer licenses, but the state admits that it is the law. There is no such thing as a "25 day waiting period" for SCOTUS decisions. This is a misunderstanding. Difbobatl (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be time to change Louisiana to dark blue. The govornor has said the state will comply with the ruling and it seems that all but one of Louisiana's parish clerks are now issuing same-sex marriage licenses.[5] Rreagan007 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please change Louisiana. The notes should also be changed to fit a) legal facts, and b) accompanying articles. They are a mess as is... Difbobatl (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the state is arguing that same-sex marriage will be legal, but is not currently legal. As a result, the state still does not recognize same-sex marriages as of today so purple is an appropriate color! Prcc27 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If the state government does not recognise the marriages, then purple is the appropriate colour, as per Kansas. Kumorifox (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the only question at this point is recognition (around which point there is some evidence that Louisiana IS now recognizing). Could we please label everything to match that? 72.162.1.252 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Kansas blue?

[edit]

Why isn't Kansas blue? I don't see a news source about any county in Kansas defying the Supreme Court. In the absence of such, we should assume all counties are complying with a binding decision of the United States Supreme Court. Tinmanic (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see something that says the state is recognizing before the color changes. Mw843 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why though? Governor Brownback's assent isn't required for county courts to start following federal law. Tinmanic (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get married, but the state government refuses to acknowledge it, and grant you the associated rights and benefits, you have something less than a marriage. Mw843 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas should be blue. Difbobatl (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kansas recognising its same-sex marriage licenses yet? If not, purple is the proper colour. I have not seen any source that says KS is recognising thus far, even though they are bound to by SCOTUS. They wouldn't be the first state to defy the ruling. Kumorifox (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From Equality Kansas, the state government is still refusing to recognize same-sex couples' marriages and will continue to do so unless specifically ordered to recognize. Definitely still purple. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All counties in Kansas received orders from their judicial district judges to issue, [6], but I don't know if the Brownback regime is recognising them yet. Kumorifox (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC) They are, please see[[7]]. Difbobatl (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama and Texas defiant of SCOTUS order

[edit]

Looks like AL and TX need to go purple. TX attorney general is telling clerks they don't have to issue licenses, and in Alabama: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/roy_moore_gay_marriage.html#incart_breaking I guess the south will keep the map from being all dark blue for a while longer. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TX & AL should remain blue. Attorneys General are making non-binding statements about individual employees. This has no bearing on the legality of SSM. Difbobatl (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree on both accounts; there is a difference between an official saying that state employees do not have to issue licenses and telling them do not issue licenses. In neither case does it appear officials are intimating that SSM is not legal in their state. Shereth 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same-sex marriage is legal in both states so they should remain dark blue. Prcc27 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think KS and LA purple, TX and AL blue. Mw843 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some KY clerks are refusing to issue licenses. Perhaps the purpose of the map should be altered at this point. Rather than where it is "legal", it should be where it is performed without issue, or "available in practice statewide." Njsustain (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with that as well. It places too high a burden on the editors of this map to try and stay on top of whether or not a state is at 100% statewide compliance. Furthermore in most states it tends to be a moot point - even if the clerks in one county refuse to issue licenses, it's usually no more than a short drive down the road to hit up another county courthouse and get your license which is recognized statewide, no matter what county you happen to live in. It is much simpler to maintain an accurate map that asks the question "can you obtain an SSM licence in this state" rather than "can you obtain an SSM license in every single jurisdiction within this state". Shereth 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then at some point the decision should be made as to whether the map is moot. If only some territories are wholly defiant, that shouldn't warrant an entire map. Njsustain (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at some point the map will be retired and that's already been mentioned. Personally I am comfortable with retiring the map once all 50 states are dark blue - I don't see the point in maintaining the map just to wait for what could be a protracted and confusing wait on unincorporated territories. Shereth 21:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AL should go back to purple. The Supreme Court of Alabama has issued an order effectively banning same-sex marriage licenses for 25 days, until SCOTUS issues its mandate. [8] The situation is exactly as before Obergefell with conflicting court orders, with some counties issuing and others refusing. Kumorifox (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Territories need correcting

[edit]

Officials in the CNMI and USVI say they intend to comply with the ruling: Saipan Tribune Virgin Islands Daily News Those territories should be light blue, as their current color implies local officials are resisting implementation or ignoring the ruling -- it is evident that is not the case.

As for American Samoa, it appears the ruling does not affect it: American Samoa - MEUSA Again, the current color implies the territory is flouting the Supreme Court decision, despite the fact it is not expressly binding there. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first link talks about lawmakers but we only care about governors and attorney generals, the second link says that Virgin Islands' law has to be repealed first, but that hasn't happened yet. As for American Samoa... I guess it should either be dark red or purple. Prcc27 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio New Zealand story makes it clearer that the CNMI administration will respond to the ruling, but the color should stay for now.[10]. American Samoa is subject to SCOTUS precedent.[11] Mw843 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is still an open question as to whether the ruling applies to American Samoa [12]. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources are less circumspect on the Northern Marianas. Both the Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety make it clear that Inos intends to comply with the ruling: [13] [14] It should be represented on the map the same way that the USVI is: territorial officials have said they will put the ruling into effect in both. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point may be moot, given the comment below, but I did find this, from The High Court of American Samoa decision in Craddick v. Territorial Register:[15]

"First, we note that the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection are fundamental rights which do apply in the Territory of American Samoa." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw843 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USVI [16] is recognizing. They should be changed to dark blue. Difbobatl (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to give American Samoa the same color as Louisiana. Difbobatl (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parting thoughts

[edit]

So after some reflection on the subject over the course of the day I believe that this map has more or less run its course and reached the end of its useful life. The vast majority of the states have capitulated and are now issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples and have yet to be struck by meteors. It's already been removed from the Same-sex marriage page, and has been bumped down on the Same-sex marriage in the United States, and I expect to see other SSM related pages following suit in the near future. I've enjoyed the debate and discussion on the topic but, other than some minor hand-wringing over the fates of holdouts like Kansas and Louisiana, I don't foresee much more in the future for productive discussion on this particular page and think I'm going to move on, myself. That said, a few final opinions I thought I'd leave -

  • The evolution of the map has left it more or less at a point where one of two statuses apply : dark blue states that offer and recognize SSM, and those who are holding their breath in protest until the order comes down from the Supreme Court before abiding by Obergefell v. Hodges. I don't even think it's necessary to resort to calling the situation "legally confusing", and if the map is to continue in the meantime, it would be sufficient to have just dark blue and a color for "Not yet in compliance with SCOUTS ruling". In three weeks it'll be a moot point anyway, even the most recalcitrant of states will not flaunt the order when it comes down and their stalling will come to a fruitless end.
  • Most of the territories (outside of American Samoa) can probably be covered by the same "Not yet in compliance with SCOTUS ruling" label.
  • American Samoa is a unique outlier and I think that all our fussing and hand-wringing about what to do with it borders on OR without a reliable source that breaks the situation down. The sources that have been presented thus far are all confused themselves; if they don't know what the current situation is there, it's a little disingenuous of us to try and claim that we do.

In any event, thanks to everyone who has participated in trying to keep this map up to date and informative! Shereth 03:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I STRONGLY AGREE with Shereth. There is no point in anything other than dark blue (with a possible general comment about those not in compliance with SCOTUS, and a possible footnote about AM Samoa). Difbobatl (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of the above sentiments that this map has (almost) run its course. Though as long as the map is still being actively used in articles, I think it is worth it to try to keep it maintained a little while longer. This map has been maintained and updated repeatedly over the last 7 years, I think maintaining it a few more days (or weeks) isn't too much of a burden before we finally put it out to pasture. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favor of just lumping American Samoa into the "not yet in compliance" category and letting that be a catch-all for any non-blue jurisdictions at this point. Dralwik|Have a Chat 08:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote Jstephenclark from above: "A SCOTUS ruling will not put every state and local official in the country under a court order to issue licenses, recognize marriages, and extend spousal benefits. That means if any official refuses, he can't be held in contempt of court and sent to jail yet. To take care of resistors like that, yes, you'd have use the other cases that are now pending or file a new lawsuit. Then, once a court order issued, the official could be held in contempt if he continues to refuse to comply. BUT that is only necessary IF certain state or local officials refuse to implement the SCOTUS decision voluntarily. That is NOT how these things normally work because refusal to implement the SCOTUS decision will amount to a violation of the Constitution, as definitively and finally interpreted. There will be no more room for arguing about whether the state ban is still valid. The moment SCOTUS rules, the Constitution will definitively prohibit states from withholding marriage from gay couples. Because state and local officials have a paramount duty to abide by the U.S. Constitution--in fact, that duty is in their oaths, and it's in the Constitution itself--almost all will just immediately fall into line, probably on the advice of attorneys general and other legal advisers. Somehow this myth has arisen that the Constitution doesn't count and that state and local officials just routinely ignore it unless hit with a court order. Not true at all. You only need a court order when they refuse to follow the Constitution. So if they voluntarily comply, as almost all will, the other pending cases become irrelevant. They can just be dismissed as moot. In fact, the courts will probably be obliged in many instances to dismiss them as moot because federal courts generally aren't permitted to adjudicate cases that have become moot. It's only if some state or local official tries to hold out that a live dispute would exist and a court order would be necessary to force them into compliance. This has been my point all along. If somebody like Prcc is waiting for courts to impose orders on every state and local official everywhere in the country, that is never going to happen because that's not how the system works. That is the remedy only when state or local officials refuse to follow the Constitution. Frankly, I'd be surprised if there are any holdouts once SCOTUS rules, because the state and local officials would be knowingly and intentionally violating the Constitution and don't want to be held liable for it. In other words, victory in other places is not going to come from a court order of any court at all; it's going to come from state and local officials conceding defeat and voluntarily complying. That's how the system works. Jstephenclark (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)". There is no more need for this map. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the map has been taken off the SSM in US page, so it doesn't have much practical relevance now. I'll however reply to Jstephenclark and say that how the system ACTUALLY works is that until a clerk actually gives you a license, you don't have a right to the license, whether it is legally valid for the clerk to do so or not. That's reality. That's the power of the state and local authorities. That is all that really needs to be mentioned now. Not what is legal, but what is happening on the ground. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the way the law works. Any official not following the SCOTUS decision is in violation of the constitution and their oath of office. If you want to have a separate map with a special color and footnote for that, go ahead, but a) it should read "some locations in violation of US Constitution" and b) it is pointless anyway. Also, even Louisiana is now offering, so this argument is about Kansas' not following the constitution. Difbobatl (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have discussed why SCOTUS' decision isn't currently binding on those states many times. The ruling is a nationwide precedent and the mandate hasn't even been issued yet. Please read through the talk page to figure out why we have the map set up the way it is! Also, some parishes in Louisiana may be licensing same-sex couples, but that doesn't mean those couples are receiving recognition from the state. Prcc27 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27: you do not understand how constitutional law works. It isn't an issue of binding. Supreme Court decisions are the law. If an official wants to defy the constitution, then yes it will take a mandate from a court to find them in contempt. This does not change the status of law. They are violating the constitution and their oath of office. It does not require a mandate to be issued. See argument by @Jstephenclark above. Difbobatl (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to give the impression that I think Jstephenclark knows everything, but if I can use their argument against you: "victory in other places is not going to come from a court order of any court at all; it's going to come from state and local officials conceding defeat and voluntarily complying. That's how the system works." Well Kansas hasn't conceded and complied yet! Louisiana conceded but they are waiting for either the SCOTUS mandate to be issued or the Fifth Circuit to rule. Remember, Louisiana still has a district court ruling in favor of their same-sex marriage ban and the ruling hasn't been directly reversed yet, but will soon be reversed. But I have a question, if SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage bans are constitutional, would that have automatically made same-sex marriage illegal in every state that didn't repeal their same-sex marriage bans? Does that mean same-sex marriage would have been illegal in California, Oregon, Nevada, etc. again immediately following the SCOTUS ruling? Just wondering what you think! Prcc27 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to have the bit about Native American jurisdiction any longer. It's been completely subsumed by the SCOTUS decision. Okay if I remove it? 68.199.96.18 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, please don't remove it! the SCOTUS ruling likely doesn't affect Native American tribal jurisdictions. Prcc27 (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, but I really don't see the point. It seemed relevant when they were able to perform marriages when others couldn't, but it seems an extremely minor point that's not relevant to the current state of marriage in the country at this point. Can be in the history part of the article, but in this template it certainly seems superfluous. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are Native American tribes that ban it despite it being legal in the state they're located in. Prcc27 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • At least with regards to United States law, aren't Native American tribal jurisdictions considered separate countries with their own laws? Dustin (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. While they do have their own laws, just like states do, they are still subject to U.S. federal law. However, whether or not the legal precedent in the Obergefell decision specifically applies to them would likely take another lawsuit to settle conclusively. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for Some Major Restructuring

[edit]

Please join the conversation at Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States#Time for Some Major Restructuring. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana to recognize SSM immediately

[edit]

Louisiana will recognize SSM immediately per Governor Jindal. Smartyllama (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally they were going to wait until the mandate, but the article says that with some counties issuing, they want to make it statewide now to avoid different implementation dates. Louisiana should be blue. Smartyllama (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another source, again more recent than Jindal's memo and again quoting Jindal and his counsel. What Jindal said on June 29 may have been the case at that time, but it no longer is. Smartyllama (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Louisiana Clerks of Court Association wants all parishes to issue to avoid confusion; the state doesn't recognize ssm AFAIK. There's an article from the same day that was posted that says otherwise. Your's is an outlier. I don't see anything in your second article that indicates same-sex marriage is recognized, can you quote what I missed? And even if the governor is complying, that doesn't mean the AG is, so purple would still be appropriate. [17] Prcc27 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prcc27: Please give up this obsession you have with the color purple. Louisiana has given up and so should you. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note per WP:PRIMARY that this news article would take precedence over Jindal's own press release, regardless of the sources' timing. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. This is a legal matter, so why on Earth should a secondary news sources take precedence over a release by an actual official? While secondary sources can help to back up claims, they should only take precedence to an extent. (edit conflict) I suppose if a secondary source is more recent and provides information proving that the state government's stance is different from the actual goings on, then it may be used, but all that aside, there is a limit to which you can apply WP:PRIMARY. Dustin (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. The politician is going to be biased and present only his side of the view. 2. The news source is going to be more current; Jindal's memo is frozen on July 26. If you have an issue, take it up on the policy page; this is not the place. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment probably is outdated; I edited it only to see an edit conflict because you responded too quickly. Dustin (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comment still stands. We are not a legal journal nor a news source ourselves so it is not our place to interpret the governor's statements ourselves. We can merely follow the actual statements in the memo along with the more up-to-date interpretation in third party sources. We cannot let the memo be the dictating authority. Also there is no time limit on how quickly one can respond here so please avoid an accusatory tone. Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text is incorrect. It seems to be referring to both LA and KS not recognizing SSM, when I belive only KS still has their heels dug in. BTW my favorite movie is the Color Purple so I will never let it go. ;) P.S. How about giving up on the Native American Tribal jurisdiction? It's not the point of this map... at all... Let it go. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have contradicting secondary sources, but most of them say the state does not recognize same-sex marriages (even the ones posted on the same day as the outlier). Prcc27 (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then we go with the majority and keep Louisiana purple for now. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, to make the map a little more clearer, maybe the continental US could be shrunk a bit and the territories made larger so it could more easily be seen where there are holdouts and where their status is. This is definitely beyond my abilities, but I think it would be a good idea to do so at this point. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response the 5th Circuit reversing the District Court that upheld Louisiana's ban, and remanding the case for the District Court to enter a judgement, the Governor's office said ""Our agencies will follow the Louisiana Constitution until the District Court orders us otherwise".[18] So Louisiana stays purple. Mw843 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find other sources to back up your assertion that LA will not follow the ruling from the 5th either? I have a source that says otherwise. Not counting the fact that previously (as is stated in the footnote) Jindal had said that he was awaiting a ruling from the 5th. Of course, if he ignores SCOTUS why would he care about the 5th... Difbobatl (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same info from the Times-Picayune article [19] ... Jindal's not actually defying or ignoring any ruling ... he's just putting off implementing the ruling for as long as he possibly can. Mw843 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana better be in purple as Kansas as none of them are recognizing same sex marriages. None are going to comply unless their district court acts. So I find it ironic that Louisiana is blue and not Kansas. both are going to comply probably this week or the next but it need to show what is happening right now .http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/bobby_jindal_says_state_govern.html .--Allan120102 (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here [[20]] is the reference that all Parishes are offering SSM licenses. Difbobatl (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Language of the Map

[edit]

The legend and notes on this map do not follow correct legal terminology, nor do they follow the accompanying Wikipedia pages. Please see legality, United_States_constitutional_law, Supremacy_Clause, Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States, and the state pages. Also, "complicated" is not legal terminology, and does not help this map. SSM is legal nation-wide. We are doing Wikipedia users a disservice if we imply (or outright say) otherwise. Also, the notes contain detailed arguments that really don't belong in a legend and should be in an article somewhere. I have tried to make these changes, but one wikipedian seems to think this is their personal domain and will not let the legend and notes be corrected. Difbobatl (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De jure legal, yes. And that is stated in the footnotes. But in practice, SSM is still confusing in a few states. We'd be doing Wikipedia users a disservice by providing incomplete information, IMO. Kumorifox (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The de facto state of affairs is as or more important than the de jure state of affairs. Wikipedia should reflect the de facto state of affairs regardless of any legal conflicts. Dustin (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legal MEANS de jure. It makes no sense to prioritize the "de facto" (ie - unconstitutional) state of affairs in some jurisdictions. Difbobatl (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the important question is whether you can get married, not whether some court says you can. Legal rights don't mean much if they're not available. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree! And for that matter, if that is what we are really tracking, then the label should be "availability of SSM". Difbobatl (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is confusion about what makes something legal. This quote should help: "Once the Court has ruled, its decisions have all the effect and permanency of law." [[21]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Tell that to the Kansans who still cannot get legal benefits in their state by being married. They may be legally married, but for all intents and purposes, that legality amounts to zilch if the state does not recognise their marriages. Same in LA. Kumorifox (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a map (linked to an article) titled "Jurisdictions Unconstitutionally Denying Same-sex Marriage Recognition" and track that, you'd be fine. As it is, it has no place here as labeled. Also, LA is over... Difbobatl (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This whole template is getting ridiculous. It's a map, not an article. The footnotes are waaaayyyy out of hand. There really isn't that much going on now. Take these tomes to the relevant article pages. Njsustain (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Njsustain - I agree! I would love for someone to get rid of this joke of a map. Difbobatl (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SSM IS legal in US. We would just have a big dark blue map if that's all there was. You are misusing the term. Difbobatl (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The de jure status of same-sex marriage is ambiguous so what we're left with is the de facto status. I'm usually for a de jure map, but as a wikipedia editor I can't say that same-sex marriage is legal nationwide per SCOTUS when a) it might not even apply to American Samoa, b) the state governments disagree with that assertion, and c) SCOTUS' mandate hasn't even been issued yet. Saying SSM is legal nationwide seems WP:OR to me. I'm getting tired of you reverting against consensus; please stop! Prcc27 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These contentious comments are getting out of hand. The de jure state of affairs, as others have said, means zilch if a state is not recognizing same-sex marriages. The de facto state of affairs is what matters. Dustin (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted numerous sources, including [[22]], as well as the wikipedia pages themselves on the definition of legality and the way us constitutional law works. This is not WP:OR. It is not at all ambiguous (outside of American Samoa, which should be separated). The paper mandate is meaningless (see sources again). Difbobatl (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animated GIF?

[edit]

Is there a way to make this a animated GIF with a time stamp showing all the different versions from Massachusetts in 2005 to now? Or even going further back to show when each state passed laws to ban it up to the present? I hope some one is so talented out there at could do such a thing. Thanks. Moonraker0022 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be cool but they are still states that need to comply like Kansas and Louisiana.Also which was the order in which states comply after Obergefell. I believe Michigan and Nebraska were the first two.--Allan120102 (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana footnote

[edit]

Since my footnote keeps getting reverted. Can we please add a footnote saying same-sex marriage should be fully legal by July 17? The Fifth Circuit ordered the district court to reverse their ruling that upheld the states' ban. The have until that date to do it. [23] Prcc27 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we don't have a crystal ball. [WP:NoCrystal] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 03:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The District Court has to comply with the Fifth Circuit so the even is almost certain to take place! Prcc27 (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bobby Jindal, on the other hand, is not almost certain to do anything. There is no point in talking about this date like we previously talked about a ruling from the 5th which has now come and gone and the story has now changed. It probably will again... Difbobatl (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that the Fifth Circuit has spoken, which is what the governor was waiting for, he updated his statement "Our agencies will follow the Louisiana Constitution until the District Court orders us otherwise." It's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the governor will change his mind. We have to go with what the sources say instead of making assumptions without sources to back it up. Prcc27 (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is twisted logic. First he was waiting for the 5th, now allegedly for the district. His quote isn't a source and wikipedia isn't a newspaper. There is absolutely no need to add that spurious contention into the footnote. Footnotes should be concise, not essays. For that matter the whole map should be in an essay instead of the thing it is now. Difbobatl (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • A reliable source quoted him so we can use it. We always add footnotes when same-sex marriage is set to become legal on or by a certain date. For example Puerto Rico. Prcc27 (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Can we get consensus on removing the inaccurate word "complicated"? The only thing that is complicated is that we have lumped together American Samoa with states, even though they are very different circumstances. If I had the wherewithal to change the map, I would change the color scheme so that KS/LA could have a recognition note and AM S could have a note referring to its unusual status. Difbobatl (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe LA/KS should be medium blue and we could add a partial legality color. This has been proposed several times but always failed. I'd be open to it. Prcc27 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make sense to have dark blue for the US, except a color for LA/KS saying not yet recognizing, then a color for the other territories that aren't yet offering licenses but will (which is all but AM Samoa), and then a color for AM Samoa with a note that they are a special case. Would you be OK with that? Similarly we could have a sublisting on the template for the territories. As few categories as possible and as precise language as possible. Difbobatl (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want the map to stay exactly the same, but a medium blue color that says "same-sex marriage partially legal" would be fine with me. LA/KS would qualify as medium blue, and the footnotes would still be necessary. Prcc27 (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say exactly the same, but then you discuss changes, so I'm not sure what you are suggesting. There is no partial legality. The issue with KS/LA is recognition. We don't need 4 colors at this point. Difbobatl (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same-sex marriage performance is legal but recognition is not; so same-sex marriage is partially legal. Just like if same-sex marriage performance was illegal but recognition was legal- that would mean same-sex marriage is partially legal. Without a partial legality color I have to support the status quo which means keeping LA/KS colored purple for complicated legal status. Prcc27 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually prefer the status quo. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why not be more precise and accurate and actually state that the issue is recognition? We were about to actually move forward on this. Trying to improve the map... Difbobatl (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana should be light red

[edit]

The governor is actively resisting implementation and insists state agencies will not recognize or perform same-sex marriages until the lower court reverses its prior ruling: [24] Should be light red for now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what the governor says, are clerks issuing licenses or not? It doesn't matter what the governor says if that isn't the true state of affairs. Dustin (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anything Louisiana should be light blue since same-sex marriage will be legal by July 17 [25]. I think Louisiana should stay the same with a footnote that says same-sex marriage will be fully legal by July 17 (as I proposed in one of the above sections). Prcc27 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think purple is the right color since there are licenses being issued in most parishes in Louisiana. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some kind of footnote about Louisiana is appropriate. Something like "Marriages are licensed and performed in Louisiana and will be fully recognized by the state government by July 17." Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to put a footnote with an exact date, then logic dictates that you have got to change LA to light blue. It doesn't make sense otherwise... Difbobatl (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Map

[edit]

Well, I think this map has run it's course. I realize many people have been following the issue a long time and would like to see the map all the way to when it becomes tangent with full marriage equality, but really it's beating a dead horse at this point. The whole issue has a couple of dangling asterisks. All that's really left to say is KS and LA state governments will be in full compliance within 25 days of Obergfeld and PR within 15. Whether that is purple or light blue, no one cares other than the people arguing the minutia here. American Samoa and Native tribes are true asterisks that can be mentioned in articles, but the inclusion serves no purpose on this map, though the territory can remain some other color... not than anyone will be using this map in its current state on any article much longer. (Animation would be great if someone can pull it off... though I shudder to think of the arguments which will ensue regarding the orders and colors.) Again, I understand the desire to see the map come to its end, recognizing it's own irrelevancy, waiting for the last sweeper to cross what was the finish line, but hey, let's just agree that the last nail is about to go in the coffin and there is no point in arguing this minutia. I'm sure there are other articles that can use our knowledge and expertise. Njsustain (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the map should be removed. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the other discussions above... other people are willing to update the map until the very end, so removing prematurely by a few weeks in unnecessary. Please have patience... this map has been updated for years, so a few weeks more will not hurt anyone. I do support the idea of an animation, though, if someone would be willing to work on such a task. Then is a few weeks or whenever, the map in its current form can be replaced. Is there not such a thing as an animated SVG? Or would that not work? If not, the usual GIF will do. Dustin (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be coming from the point of view of putting as many extra colors and disclaimers as possible, and as soon as the map correctly shows nation-wide legalization then removing it. Why the obsession with showing holdouts? Difbobatl (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are fewer remaining colors on this map than there have been in a very long time, and the purpose of showing the remaining holdouts is for the sake of accuracy and completeness. Why the obsession with trying to pretend that the holdouts don't exist? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SCOTUS has the last word and same-sex marriage is the law of the land, but we can't safely say same-sex marriage is legal nationwide. Once a jurisdiction is under direct order or concedes then same-sex marriage is for sure legal. Otherwise, we can't assume that the non-compliance states are breaking the law. We don't need to lock this map until every jurisdiction, even American Samoa is dark blue. If it comes down to American Samoa being the only jurisdiction not colored dark blue, maybe then it will be removed from the articles. But that doesn't mean we have to do anything to this map. It should stay until same-sex marriage is settled nationwide. Prcc27 (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly see no harm in continuing on with updating the map for at least a few more weeks. By then, all the territories (with the possible exception of American Samoa) and even Kansas will likely turn dark blue. At that point, if American Samoa is still a question mark, we can reassess. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you are mis-characterizing the issue. It has been legal everywhere (possibly excluding American Samoa) since June 26th. You are only talking about unconstitutional resistance. Let's label things honestly. Difbobatl (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana District Court Ruling Released

[edit]

Bobby Jindal has run out of excuses.[26] I think Louisiana should go blue. Mw843 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no excuse now to keep LA or KS purple. Dark blue all the way... Difbobatl (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has the Kansas state government changed its mind on recognition? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to change Kansas. Dustin (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KS is not denying recognition. Just being slow with clerical work on recognition in certain state offices. It should be dark blue.
No, Kansas continues to deny recognition: "Brownback on Thursday also defended the state's refusal so far to allow gay and lesbian spouses to change their last names on driver's licenses or to file joint income tax returns".[27] I think it's going to take an explicit court order before the state acts. Mw843 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is going to take a cattle prod to Brownback's rocky mountain oysters before the state acts.Naraht (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg/Archive_18&oldid=929038023"