Jump to content

File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Virginia and Michigan

Both Virginia and Michigan have "complete" consitutional bans on same-sex marriage, same sex unions, domestic partnerships, receprical benifits and any other unmarried union between two persons. The color is currently red on the map, but I think that it should be black on the map - what do you think?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been wanting the same thing for a while now. Additionally, Nebraska and South Dakota have complete bans as well. Vickiloves08 (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you source that (NB and SD)? this article says that Virginia and Michigan are the only ones, and the language of the amendments are all different. Fortuynist (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Iowa

In Iowa, when does the same sex marriage verdict become effective? When will officials hand out marriage licences to gay couples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • On April 27 ----- read the news buddy. You ask a lot of questions on here that are answered by quick google searches. Same IP address on almost all the last 6-9 posts.

VERMONT!

enough said. add another purple color change to the to-do list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.123.131 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! And green stripes should be abolished, since civil unions won't be any longer performed from september on. Finedelledanze (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They will be recognized though. How are you sure there won't be any left over? Hekerui (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Because the Vermont marriage law states that unions won't be granted once marriages are granted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

D.C.

Today, the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.[1] So I think a light blue should be added there. --Solicitor2 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean the dot should be green with blue stripes? Green is enough I would say. Hekerui (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Solicitor2 and SeanMD80. It would be best to just make half the circle dark blue and the other half light blue. It could still be interpreted correctly from that. However, we still have to wait for final approval from Congress. Yankhill (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was decided never to stripe two "positive" colors. If recognizing out-of-district marriages is considered a higher level of recognition than civil unions, then it probably should just be light blue. 75.82.129.74 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we consider light blue a "positive" color in the sense of this map. Light blue and grey are the "neutral" colors. Being Light Blue or Grey states that that state has no position on same-sex unions, however DC does have a position on same-sex unions and should be striped accordingly. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The updated news article says that the vote is not final yet. The final vote will be in May and then it needs to be approved by the mayor and eventually be reviewed by the Congress.--Solicitor2 (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Today the City Council voted to recognize out of state marriages, so it should be light blue as well. [1] --Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Red-green colorblindness

Can objects be used to mitigate the need for a wide range of colors? (300px as in article)
  Same-sex marriages
  Foreign same-sex marriages recognized
△  Unions granting rights similar to marriage ▽  Unions granting limited/enumerated rights
  Statute bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage
  Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

This map is very difficult or even impossible to read for colorblind people (such as me).

"Same-sex marriages" and "Unions granting limited/enumerated rights" look the same.

Also "Unions granting rights similar to marriage", "Constitution bans same-sex marriage" and "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions" look the same.

[[2]] If anyone could change that, that would be great. Thanks --86.213.166.168 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

From the category page I see that we have 5 distinctions to make: (black), (white), (yellow), (blue, purple), (red, green, brown, grey). One that we obviously are not using is black, which should be used to mask the most different (statute-wise) similarity. For the reasons of California and Oregon, I chose "Unions granting rights similar to marriage" to make black. Are there any other easy ones that you can suggest changes for? Fortuynist (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you make distinctions between shades of colors? Between      and      (red and maroon)? Fortuynist (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Objects (in the example to the right, stars) can be used instead of colors to impart information, but the smaller states pose a problem. If the bigger states (which have mostly bans) are given stars, then there will be too many. New England might need to be zoomed in. Any suggestions? Fortuynist (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Solid color yellow can be used for civil unions, which means the star means marriage only (no half stars) in the latest update. The only problem here is that there is no distinction between civil unions which offer all the rights except the name "marriage" and ones that offer just a few benefits. How should that be done? Fortuynist (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me, for the following reasons:

1. "Statute bans same-sex marriage" not listed. 2. "Foreign same-sex marriages recognized" not listed. 3. Your distinction between "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions" and "Constitution bans any type of reciprocal benefits for two people of the same sex" seems arbitrary. I feel they should be in the same category.

Otherwise, it seems perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.58.41 (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the arbitrary distinction (from this suggestion) and used the colors to make the civil unions/lesser benefits distinction (blue vs yellow). Foreign marriages recognized is a pentagon shape. SSM banned by statute is      (gray, the default map color), is that OK? Fortuynist (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, and I think color-blind users should be able to tell the difference. Good job! 98.210.58.41 (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Problems for me with this new type of map....

1) there is a difference between a marriage and a "union similar to marriage" The states of IA/VT/MA/CT should not be the same as CA/OR/NH/NJ. Civil Unions and SSM are not equivalent and shouldn't be on this map. Separate is not equal or else VT wouldn't have just done what it did. Maybe just having the star and leaving the state gray would work (hmm, then it might get confused with other gray states....hmm)

2) My second problem is that some of the states in the proposed sample need stripes.....WA, NH, ME, MD, and HI all grant positive rights to SScouples but at the same time prohibit SSM by statute (but not by their state constitution). Both positive and negative rights should be reflected on the map! Passing SSM in NY only requires amending marriage laws.....but passing SSM in Maryland requires a simultaneous repeal of another already existing law. Politically these are very different things.71.217.109.32 (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you change New York and New Mexico? NY and NM not implemented DOMA. Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont are yellow. It is mistake. These states recognize or will be recognize only same-sex marriage, not civil unions or domestic partnership. Rhode Island not recognize foreign same-sex marriage. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
How is it now? Statute bans SSM is blue, Constitution bans SSM is red, Constitution bans SSM, CU, DP, etc, is black. NY, RI, NM is gray because they have no specific ban. A star is same-sex marriage legal, a pentagon is foreign marriages recognized, a triangle is unions with similar rights, an inverted triangle is unions with limited rights.
Also, I think Rhode Island does (#Rhode Island). But you or I can remove that pentagon if you can clear up that misunderstanding. Fortuynist (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, this map is incorrect: NJ does not prohibit same-sex marriage with any statute. Therefore, under the current coloring, it should be grey. I like the idea of this new-colored map, but the symbols need to be improved to look less messy. SeanMD80talk | contribs 21:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I made NJ grey, and tried to reduce clutter by making full marriage just yellow; no star. The only symbols used now are the ▰ for foreign SSMs recognized, ▲ for marriage-like programs, and ▼ for limited programs. How does it look? Fortuynist (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


(I'm the original poster) I've been watching the various proposals for colorblind-friendly maps and I'm starting to think it's a little bit pointless now. Because, something that will be fine for people with protanopia probably won't be fine for someone with deuteranopia. When you're gaining some viewers, you're always losing some others. Besides, adding symbols to the map probably isn't the best for the overall clarity of the map. So, to be honest, I have no idea of what the best to do is here. Probably just wait for the entire US to be performing SSMs :-) Anyway, Thanks a lot for all those who put their efforts in there. --90.13.179.169 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not have two maps, one for the status of same-sex marriage, the other detailing same-sex unions? Gavino (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

A map solely about same-sex marriage would essentially be a map of bans and constitutional amendments (which we already have), and same-sex unions are and have been since their inception a stepping stone towards marriage and have died when marriage is achieved. Fortuynist (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of going through all these loops to fix the color blind issue, could we just switch the color green out for a dark blue? Wouldn't that fix the color blind issue without having to completly redo the map?--Found5dollar (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we could. This proposal with the symbols is very ugly and would be incredibly annoying to look at and decipher. If the issue is that some people can't differentiate between red and green, the solution is to change either the red or the green, not to scrap it and start from scratch. Firestorm Talk 05:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
or if we can only use thoes 4 colors, change the green to black since there is already a blue on the map.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not as simple as red and green. (Blue and purple) and (Red, Green, Brown, and Grey) cannot be distinguished, so red and orange looks the same on the map to a RGCB user. (see this.) Some of the confusion may be due to the two symbols. I have eliminated one for a lighter shade of blue (modeled on europe map) for foreign marriages (only New York), so the only symbol is a triangle, either upright or inverted for strong or weak civil unions.
Symbols will most likely have to be used if we want to make the distinction between Washington (with a DOMA and DPs) and Colorado (with a Constitution DOMA and DPs) which we already do already with stripes. Symbols are not ugly or annoying if we make clever use of them (as was done with stripes before). Fortuynist (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we jumping the gun?

Gay marriage won't be a reality in Iowa for several more weeks and in Vermont for several more months. Should the map reflect what is true now? Or just what will be true at some point in the future?216.156.120.62 (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

- HAHA we wait decades for something like this, and we get blessed with 2 states in a week. I say we disregard the technical things. There is no prop 8 situation in either state. If something were to go wrong, we would change that. But for now, let's just enjoy the new map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.225.232 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

VT and CT

Why does VT and CT have strips??? - it now has full gay marriage so why can't it be just purple the same as Iowa and Massaussetts. - YES FINALLY!!!!!!

I would like to thank the politicians of Vermont for there 100 votes to override the homophobic republican Gov veto!

Very limited benifits in Maryland and Colorado surly they should be included on the map as the blue stripes.

Also Hawaii should be in pink because it does say in the Hawaiian Consitution "the legislature only can make rules on marriage which must consist of two people of the opposite sex".


I will place bets for same sex marriage being legal in New Jersey next (September of this year), then California (from 1.1.2010), then Rhode Island (2011), then New Hampshire (2012), then Maine in 2013, Maine might increase its domestic partnerships - just like Washington and Hawaii has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Stripes on VT were removed because the bill enabling SSM discontinued civil unions. However, I am not sure if the court decision in Connecticut did that. It would be silly, because essentially it ruled that civil unions were inadequate for CT, but maybe it's kept as a "stepping stone" to Marriage like France's domestic partnership for heterosexual couples? (Please research this if you have the capacity)
re: Hawaii, The constitutional amendment is unlike that of any other state; as you said it does not define marriage at the constitutional level, it just says that the legislature decides (increasing the ease of reversibility). The statute is what bans same-sex marriage, not the constitution, therefore it is yellow. We could make it pink, but we already have too many colors, and we'll need to cut down on the existing ones because of problems with red-green colorblind users. Fortuynist (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In CT the supreme court mandated marriage but did not strike down or elimante civil unions - so both currently exist. There is a bill in the connecticut legislature that would elimante civil unions as a further option (but I'm unsure if it converst current civil unions to marriages. In VT the new law autmotaically converst civil unions to marriages and as of 9/1/09 marriage will be the only option available. So techinically, the map should be either yellow/green striped because CURRENTLY you can get a civil union and after 9/1/09 the state should be solid purple as only marriage will be an option then.128.208.60.197 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Since when did Rhode Island recognize foreign same-sex marriages from abroard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the question was asked of the Attorney General in that state. See the fourth paragraph on this page. Fortuynist (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Attorney General has no authority to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdictions. All he did was issue an advisory opinion without the force of law (see Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island). California's Attorney General believes Prop 8 is invalid, does that mean California should be purple? Rhode Island should be gray.Theknightswhosay (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok Fortuynist (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships in Colorado

Governor Ritter of Colorado just signed a bill granting benefits to same-sex couples in the state, so perhaps we should give Colorado a blue stripe. Here's a reference: http://www.examiner.com/x-6256-Denver-Legal-News-Examiner~y2009m4d9-Its-not-marriage-but-its-a-start —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he's correct. It should look like Washington, except the statue stripes replaced with the constitutional ban (orange) stripes. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, would please someone change Colorado to amendment-red with limited rights-blue? Hekerui (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Definitely yes. Could you change also this map? Ron 1987 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This was not made for same-sex couples, even if opponents smear it as such and gay groups celebrate—it was senior citizens and low income groups who lobbied for it. Unlike civil unions or domestic partnerships proper, there are not the usual cohabitation/relation/age restrictions, and the rights granted are more on the contractual than marriage side. We should think about defining our standards for inclusion on the map. Fortuynist (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's your standard then you'd have to support removing the current way Hawaii is put on the map. This law provides enumerated rights, I think it deserved inclusion. Or Hawaii should be striken too. Hekerui (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no standards. Does the community? While the benefits may both be minuscule and "Reciprocal Beneficiary", what is the intent? Hawaii's partnerships are explicitly for people who are prohibited from marrying. Fortuynist (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for New Mexico and Rhode Island

How about we simply mark them in gray, which can stand for "no marriage laws" or "no specific prohibition" or "not performed, no specific prohibition" — ? Neither of the two recognize foreign marriages at this time. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely I agree. It very good idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Adding a new color to the existing map (and to the legend) would make it unusable for the 5 other languages that it's used in until someone gets around to translating it. That's why it's being redone in another way. It is undisputed that New Mexico does not recognize foreign marriages, but Rhode Island was. Can you provide a source refuting the link here? Fortuynist (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
That question is unclear. This source not enough. No haven't any other sources, which confirm your opinion. Ron 1987 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Legends are important, but grey (without an explanation on non-English wikipedias) would be better imo (at least as a band-aid fix) than having purple (for New Mexico) when foreign is not recognized. Wikignome0529 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New Translations for Gray Box

English: No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions. Spanish: Ninguna prohibición específica o reconocimiento de mismo - matrimonios sexuales o uniones. German: Kein spezifisches Verbot oder Anerkennung von demselben - Sexualehen oder Vereinigungen. French: Aucune prohibition spécifique ou la reconnaissance de même - les mariages sexuels ou les unions. Italian: Nessuna proibizione specifici o nessuno riconoscimento di matrimoni di stesso-sesso o le unioni. Esperanto: Ne specifa malpermision aux rekoni da gejo edzecos aux unuiĝos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal92 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of these translations are incorrect. You should replace them with:

German: Kein spezifisches Verbot oder Anerkennung von gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehen oder Partnerschaften Spanish: Ninguna prohibición específica o reconocimiento de matrimonios o uniones homosexuales French: Aucune prohibition spécifique ou reconnaissance de mariages ou unions homosexuels Italiano: Nessuna proibizione specifica o riconoscimento di matrimoni o unioni omosessuali

Although I only have a basic knowledge of Esperanto , my guess is that you should check for that translation too (it does not quite seem right to me either). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.170 (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese was not added on the commons page until now, so it needs a translation too. Fortuynist (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Colorado

Colorado needs blue/orange stripes, because they have certain/some rights - NOT most or all the rights of marriage (green). Remember Colorado has a consitutional amendment banning SSM, but NOT other unions!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Fortuynist (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Simplify the map, please

In my opinion the map is more complex than it should be, why not remove the stripes and color the states to the broadest right granted? New England looks like a mess with all those stripes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.78.147 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It seems unnecessary and cumbersome to specify the status of civil union laws in a state where full same-sex marriage is recognized. 75.82.129.74 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - where options exist they should be included on the map. There are difference under the laws in most state between domestic partnership or civil unions that are purported to be fully equal to marriage. There are differences and legally they are not interchangeable. There may be reasons a person wants to pursue these different options. As for the number of stripes it is important to remember that some of the colors on the map represent negative rights and some positive rights. A negative right being a legal ban of some sort on relationship recognition under the law (red, orange, and yellow). A positive right is one where affirmative recognition exists (green or purple). Thus, most states with affirmative rights also have a negative law too. And we should recognize the barriers that exist in states to full recognition----In NH a law has to be repealed to enact SSM but in NY an affirmative law is all that is needed. These are important and substantive distinctions.71.39.140.1 (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the map should be simplified as much as possible. That is not to say that all the stripes are irrelevant, but I believe that most of them are. We can look at them on a case-by-case basis:
  • Maine, Hawaii, Maryland, Washington and New Hampshire. In these states, there is recognition of civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiary registries. There are also "statutory bans" on same-sex marriage, but in practical terms, these amount to nothing more than saying that same-sex marriage is not legal, which is already assumed by the fact that they are not marked in purple. There is no need to specifically mark these states with yellow stripes; unlike a constitutional ban, a statutory definition of marriage as being between "one man and one woman" can be easily changed by the legislature, using the same process as would be used in legalising same-sex marriage. Thus, I believe we should colour Washington and New Hampshire in green only (Washington just passed an extension of its domestic partnership laws), and Hawaii, Maryland and Maine in dark blue only.
  • Connecticut and Vermont. In these states, there is recognition of both civil unions and same-sex marriage. Thus, it is technically correct to colour them in both green and purple. However, I believe this unnecessarily clutters the map and makes these states appear as if they do not have full SSM. I believing colouring them in purple only will be a lot clearer.
  • New Jersey. In this state, civil unions coexist alongside domestic partnerships. Like Connecticut and Vermont, I think we should only represent the highest level of recognition on the map. This would be civil unions, meaning that New Jersey should be coloured in green only.
  • California, Oregon and Colorado. This is the only case, in my opinion, where we should be using stripes. In all of these states, there is a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Alongside this "negative right", there are also laws affirmatively recognising same-sex unions in the form of domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiary registries. Constitutional bans are very significant and should be represented on the map, since they can't be changed by legislatures or struck down by courts.
In any case, something about this map needs to definitely change. I acknowledge that US law is very complex and varied in this regard, but having eight different colours and different combinations of stripes makes it far too cluttered and confusing. Ronline ✉ 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yellow stripes: They are not assumed in the same way. In some cases, the statuary bans were passed by referendum, which the legislature cannot strike down. There are other important legal distinctions, because in New York, because there is no statuary ban, the executive can order the state to recognize foreign SSMs, and further political distinctions, indicator of a climate in a state...
CT and VT, I agree. We have to remember that this is a map, not an article. This change was actually implemented for Vermont, but the editor that reverted it said that civil unions will stay until September 1, when Vermont's law comes into effect, which I think is an inconsistent position. He should justify his opinion on the talk page this time. The overwhelming consensus is for pure purple.
For NJ, when civil unions were implemented, domestic partnerships were changed so that you have to be 62 years old or older to get into one, so they are not relevant for most same-sex couples, I have boldly made the change (&CT, VT) which I think will be the least controversial. Fortuynist (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering, should NY and RI be striped part yellow? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, because same-sex marriage is not explicitly banned in either of those states. If it were, they couldn't recognize foreign marriages, which they do. Fortuynist (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What about civil unions? What's the status of civil unions in New York and Rhode Island? If both states have "green-level" same-sex civil unions, maybe "blue" should be put between "purple" and "green" in the key in order to convey this. 75.82.129.74 (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
New York (see its article) recognizes civil unions and domestic partnerships from other places. There is much less information on Rhode Island, and maybe it should be ranked down to gray, because I cannot produce multiple sources for its justification as gray. That foreign marriages are lighter than domestic partnerships is strange, but I'm not good enough with colors to touch it. Fortuynist (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Backing up the yellow stripes comment: Remember here in California there was a statutory ban on SSM that was passed by referendum. The legislature twice passed bills trying to work through a loophole on that referendum; Arnold said that the loophole idea did not work and hence vetoed them despite his support for SSM.

Side note: April 2009 appears to be a great month for LGBT rights and a few currently striped states (NH, ME, and possibly CA) may be becoming solid purple this month or next month. Is there any guide converting a striped state unstriped? I tried converting NH to purple just to test it out, but it turned grey. 03:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason it turned grey is because, if you reclassed its link as "Striped-marriage-marriage" you did not also define what "Striped-marriage-marriage" that is– between <defs>the defs tags</defs> you need:
        <g id="Striped-marriage-marriage">
            <use xlink:href="#Striped-backdrop" class="marriage"/>
            <use xlink:href="#Striped-stripes" class="marriage"/>
        </g>
There is another method, which eliminates the stripe code for NH completely. That just involves taking the <path> code for NH from a clean map like File:Blank US Map.svg (which this is based off) and replacing the NH <use> tag with it. Fortuynist (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely removed all the "extra stuff" at the top that was associated with NH. I retained the coordinate data and tried to create a <path id="NH" class="marriage" d="...." /> tag (I used the same coordinate data for NH that was provided in section for making stripes) where <use id="NH" xlink:href="#Striped-similar-statute" clip-path="url(#clipPathNH)" transform="translate(1006.68, -122.69)"/> was. I guess I should just used the clean code from the other image next time i experiment with SVG. Anyways well thanks for the info. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


I am glad that the suggestion of making NH, MD, HI, WA,and ME only one color (green or shade of purple) was not taken ----- I feel it is vital that the affirmative rights granted AND the negative bans in place BOTH be represented on these maps. To color NH green, for example, would imply there is no statutory ban on SSM. We can't "assume" if a state doesn't have yellow that there is a ban in place......because of NY, NM, and RI!

ONE CONCERN - I still think that CT should have civil union stripes. In September no more civil unions will be granted in Vermont and all of them will be converted to marriages. Thus pure purple makes sense for VT. In NJ the way the civil unions were created and domestic partnership registry changed DPs aren't really an option anymore so a solid color for NJ makes sense too. However, in CT the law on the books and the options available to SS couples include BOTH marriage AND civil unions. If wikipedia is about accuracy then I would think CT should remain striped. Think about the instance of CA......for a brief while BOTH domestic partnerships AND marriage existed so this map had DP AND SSM stripes on it. It was important to list both because the DP law was still on the books and all DPs stayed valid and were not automatically converted over to marriages. When Prop 8 passed the validity and legality of the DP laws was not changed. So there IS a difference and real reason to include stripes of affirmative rights on this map. I move that CT go back to striped.

Also while Governor Gregoire has pledged to sign the DP expansion bill she has not done so yet! (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009) I want to know what standards exist for updating this map. SSM in Vermont isn't legal until 9/1/09, SSM in Iowa isn't legal until 4/27, and the DP expansion in WA won't be legal until late July. So why is this map reflecting future events rather than CURRENT ones????128.95.18.68 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

While accuracy is something Wikipedia is, indeed, known to strive for, the fact that certain information is "accurate" doesn't mean it should necessarily be included in this particular image. The facts in the image should be concisely conveyed, not thoroughly explanatory of each state's family laws concerning same-sex couples (as opposed to the in-depth nature of a full article on the subject). Seeing that some states which provide for gay marriages are completely purple while others are striped with purple and some other color, might lead people casually looking at the image and its legend to believe such striped states have gay marriage "all but officially," or something like that. Regards, --BrandonThePianist (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The Connecticut legislature just codified last year's court decision legalizing same-sex marriage into law, and with it killed Civil Unions, which will not be offered anymore and will merge into marriage by 2010 [3] Fortuynist (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, I'm the the one who asked about standards above --- agree that just 5 days later my concerns about CT stirping are now moot. However, the question about updating future events versus reflecting current events still stand and I"m not sure it has been answered well enough.128.208.60.197 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
My own answer is that the subtleties of law passed with a signature or law pending a signature is left for the articles this image graces, which have much more room for time delineation than maps. Users of this map are more likely looking for updates than accuracy, which is why it has been those users to update the maps when news of change is certain, not the map maintainers. Fortuynist (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Washington state

Washington state should be green with yellow stripes now because the "all but marriage" bill got passed by both the House and the Senate and then got signed just recently by the lady Gov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Fortuynist (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Washington got changed back to "limited rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.34.24 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the color scheme was just changed. Fortuynist (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[4] It would seem that the bill specified here has not been signed by the gov., and faces a possible additional hurdle. The stripes need to be changed back to green. 129.2.170.45 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done, changed to yellow/green. Wikignome0529 (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Blue and Green

It would make more sense for green to represent civil unions granting limited rights, and blue to represent civil unions with all the rights of marriage, since this would better follow the rainbow color progression associated with marriage rights that has been loosely established in this map. It would be more logical if the much more common pattern of red-orange-yellow-green-blue-purple were used to convey the progression from least marital rights to most marital rights, instead of red-orange-yellow-blue-green-purple. By this logic, this color coding may be confusing to some, who would assume blue conveys more marital rights than green. --Wbush89 (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your request was logical, so I granted it.

 Done Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It was disorienting to see this change on articles that did not have their legends changed, especially outside of English Wikipedia. Please use checkusage and change all the legends if you change the color scheme of the map again.
Also, in this new map, the two purples (DP & marriage) are less distinguishable, with the change of their distance from marriage states. Fortuynist (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the legends on the pages under the file links section on the English Wikipedia already Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Stripe width

Could the stripes be made to be a bit narrower? They're fine for states like California and Colorado, but for the states in the Northeast, especially Maryland, and Hawaii as well, they're a bit too fat relative to the size of the states and their irregular shape, which makes it harder to read and interpret. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on this. Though, different states with different stripe widths would make a mess. However, I don’t see anything wrong with making the stripes a little narrower. I get so confused in the New England states. Andrew Colvin (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

At what size are you confused? The 800px preview in the image page, or the 300px on articles, or even smaller? I am not, but maybe that's because I internalized the shapes of the states. Luckily, New England is where the laws seem to be changing the most rapidly. A one-color change to either Maine or New Hampshire will make both states clear. Fortuynist (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I swapped the color order for the yellow-green stripes states (the green is the striped, the yellow is the backdrop), so now the green part of MD is along the DE border. As a result, DE is much clearer. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks good. Its pleanty legible; lets just hope Deleware or Rhode Island dont need stripes. (Or maybe we should hope?) Andrew Colvin (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That does look better for the northeast states, although for Hawaii some of the islands are still almost all one color, which might be confusing to somebody. I think it's probably fine though. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 06:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

NJ should be striped yellow

The NJ does not offer SSMs nor recognize foreign ones for a reason. I believe there is a statue against SSM in NJ. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because a state doesn't offer SSM or recognize other SSM doesn't mean that there is a statutory ban on SSM. An absence of a law does not imply disapproval or a ban ---- This comment is based on an illogical assumption. I've been searching NJ law for a DOMA and can't find one. Do you have a citation rather than a mere assertion/illogical guess
Also - NJ does recognize foreign SSM - check out the Attorney General Opinion at http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases07/ag-formal-opinion-2.16.07.pdf. So please cite rather than assert. DaveIseminger (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are misreading, they don't. They recognize foreign unions and civil unions and DPs


In Lewis v. Harris it was determined that the separate, but less than "equal" DP system was unfair. The legislature ultimately determined that separate, but "equal" civil unions work just fine and, so they do have laws banning SSM. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC) (modified 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Where is the language that explicitly bans same-sex marriage in the New Jersey code? Fortuynist (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention of same-sex couples in the New Jersey statue when it comes to prohibitions, it only covers people along the lines of relatives. Here's a copy of the NJ statue NJ Statute: Marriage Restrictions Someone please revert. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.state.nj.us/health/vital/marriage_apply.shtml

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=45777623&Depth=2&TD=WRAP&advquery=opposite%20sex%20marriage&depth=4&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&rank=&record={ACA2}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42&wordsaroundhits=2&x=0&y=0&zz= 26:8A-2-e

That's interesting, but it's not explicit. A statuary ban on same-sex marriage is something like what North Carolina has, saying Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina. in addition to marriage requirements
or Pennsylvania's, which wraps two into one: It is hereby declared to be the strong and longstanding public policy of this Commonwealth that marriage shall be between one man and one woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex which was entered into in another state or foreign jurisdiction, even if valid where entered into, shall be void in this Commonwealth.
Notice that these bans ban marriages from being recognized, but New Jersey just has the rules for establishing a marriage, opening the door to foreign recognition and reinterpretation. Fortuynist (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Discouraging warning/Commons?

A new change to the edit page of this talk page (and of other en.wiki talk pages for images) is discouraging its use for requesting deletion, contact, or corrections in a big red box, saying that talk pages here are not watched by many users. Is this the time to move the discussion to Wikiproject LGBT maps on commons, like other LGBT related maps? Or are there more advantages in keeping it here? Fortuynist (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The other maps really do need the notice, because update requests were being scattered everywhere (en.wiki File talk, commons File talk, en.wiki user talk pages, Commons user talk pages). This map is pretty unique in having such an actively-used & followed en.wiki File talk page though (& someone placed a link to en.wiki on the Commons file talk page a while back). Normally Commons would be the best place for talk (since the image is hosted there & it is used on multiple Wikipedias other than English), but the current system seems to be working(?)....... Wikignome0529 (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Map is wrong on Utah

Utah courts have ruled that Utah's amendment doesn't ban domestic partnerships. Salt Lake City and County currently have them. Utah's Governor has even indicated that he believes the amendment doesn't even ban civil unions since they aren't the same as marriage but courts would need to decide. Please fix this. 97.117.125.64 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you back this up with some sources? Andrew Colvin (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I could believe this, because of the wording of the text and the Common Ground Initiative. However, this map doesn't have a color for "Bans same-sex unions and similar unions but not unions with substantially less rights." One could always be created.
e: Aha!
This is an important distinction to make– we do it the other way. I propose black for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, civil unions, and on any contract that allows two people of the same sex to share any benefits of marriage (ex: Virginia's), reserving orange for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and similar unions (ex: Wisconsin's). Garnishee (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Utah courts have ruled that Utah's amendment doesn't ban domestic partnerships. Salt Lake City and County currently have them. Utah's Governor has even indicated that he believes the amendment doesn't even ban civil unions since they aren't the same as marriage but courts would need to decide. Please fix this. 97.117.125.64 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? CTJF83Talk 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 97.117.125.64 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not sure how you'd color UT. Perhaps orange since domestic partnerships have already been found to be allowed by the courts, and civil unions are thought by many including the governor to be allowed as well under the amendment. And maybe a speck of green for Salt Lake City and County for its current domestic partnership registry? 97.117.125.64 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the multicolored states are confusing as heck. I'm for simplification. Czolgolz (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya, we do the state as a whole, so no specks for cities or counties. CTJF83Talk 15:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well for the state as a whole UT does not ban domestic partnerships. And those links prove it with court rulings. So its still wrong. 97.117.119.102 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.89.5 (talk)

Why not just make 2 maps?

The stripes are confusing as heck as one person put it, why not have one map that shows the stats of same sex unions in the USA and one that shows the stats of Same Sex Marriage. now I dont know how to make one of these maps myself im just proposing an idea here.Knowledgekid87 11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something else too, the title under the map says: U.S. same-sex union laws. Since this topic is about same sex marriages that there is another reason why there should be two seperate maps.Knowledgekid87 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This map is about the laws, or rather, the status of the laws. Same-sex marriage (in the context that we're describing them in) can't be legal or illegal without laws. Another map you may be interested in is this, which sacrifices some information for clarity. Garnishee (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the map is a bit misleading

While the map is perfect in every other aspect, there is one trait that has been bugging me for quite sometime. I feel that a second color should be added for "Constitution bans all forms of same-sex unions banned" (which includes Michigan, Nebraska, Virginia, and South Dakota — as all four ban marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) while the others (such as Texas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, etc) only ban marriage and civil unions, not domestic partnerships. Secondly, if we make such a change, I think we should change the current (red) category "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions" to "Constitution bans same-sex marriages and civil unions", as the majority in red at the moment do not ban all forms of same-sex unions. VoodooIsland (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We could use black. But with new colors comes the need for new translations for the legends in all of the languages this image is used with. Does anyone have the appropriate language skills? Garnishee (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this would be a good change too but I do not have the language skills to help. I agree black makes the most senseDaveIseminger (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
And make the map even more complex than it is now? I would say No to this, the map is already complex enough with the states that have stripes, and the wide variety of colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.210.77 (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps brown instead of black? Black would stick out a lot on the map and draw excessive attention to Michigan, Nebraska, etc. --205.208.125.81 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If that won't cause more trouble for colorblind users, brown is a better idea than black. Fortuynist (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Or how about dark red? I don't know if those who are color blind can make it out, but here's what it looks like:
     Bans same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any marriage-like contract between unmarried persons

Or is that chocolate brown? If so, then brown is fine. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, chocolate brown it very good option. I think black it is not good idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to add colors, why not go ahead and switch to a red-green colorblind-accessible version (but keeping the stripes)... varying shades of blue could be used for recognition, and varying shades of red could be used for bans (similar to File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (Northern America).svg, but using more shades since the US map has more levels). I would be willing to update the legend colors on non-English Wikipedias. Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the reasoning of having foreign recognition as pink on that map. Are there not enough shades of blue? Campagne (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I played around with it (North America map) some (and even uploaded a different version), but once you have more than 3 shades of blue it starts getting harder to distinguish between the different colors on the map -- especially with the New England states, due to their size. and if you go very light on the blue, it can look similar to grey (the color for "no recognition") It shares its color scheme with 2 other continent maps (South America and Europe), so one of the blue shades is "unregistered cohabitation" (though no country or state on the North America map qualifies for this color). So for now it is purple. Wikignome0529 (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WA state.....not yet

The comments above are incorrect. While the WA legislature has passed a bill to fully expand the DP in the state the Governor has not signed it yet. While she is expected to sign it and has stated she will sing it she has 20 days excluding sundays from the date the legislature adjourns to sign the bill. I'm just as excited as the next person but for pete's sake the bill hasn't even been signed yet so why does the map indicate it is law already? See http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009. When the Governor signs it that will be listed on the provided link.

I know people are excited but this isn't even a signed bill yet and as we all know anything can happen in the world of politics up to and including a governor's signature.DaveIseminger (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC The bill passed the legislature on April 15, 2009 and is awaiting Governor Gregoire's signature expected to occur on May 18,1009.[2] and http://heraldnet.com/article/20090505/NEWS01/705059848

On May 4, 2009 Referendum 71 was filed in the Washington Secretary of State's Office to attempt to prevent the 2009 Domestic Partnership Legislation from becoming Law. Opponents have until July 25, 2009 to gather 120,577 signatures to force a November 2009 ballot vote. http://heraldnet.com/article/20090505/NEWS01/705059848DaveI (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Gregorie is planning on signing the bill on Monday. If she does sign it, will we change the color to purple or should we wait on the referendum? Personally, I think we should change it to purple immediately and only change WA's color if the referendum fails.--haha169 (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
We finally agree. Here is the citation/verification reference for those who need it http://governor.wa.gov/billaction/2009/2009051801.pdf DaveI (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine

Since Maine's governor just approved same-sex marriage, it should be changed to purple. Although signatures (55,000 are needed) will no doubt be gathered for a peoples' veto which would suspend the law until a vote can be held on the issue, this has not yet been done. --205.208.125.202 (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine as well as the others that are predated should be changed back until it becomes law and they are in the clear, there is an old saying dont count your chickens before they are hatched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgekid87 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Better yet, we could have a icon for the referendum if it happens. (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • However, this news site puts it well: http://www.wmtw.com/news/19506277/detail.html The burden right now is for the supporters of the people's veto to have enough signatures to put it on the ballot. Paraphrasing, this news page stipulates that the law won't be stayed UNTIL they say they've submitted the required amount of signatures. Then the secretary of state has 30 days to certify the signatures, and if they are, then the stay is continued until the election.
Keeping all of this in mind, I feel that Maine should still be painted purple. Yankhill (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I realy do not care which color Maine is, but if we change Maine we need to change Vermont as well. They both have legalized Marriage, but it is not in effect yet. That is what this map is showing, not if it may be overturned or not, but what is factualy accurate in the terms of marriage and civil unions in each state. Both of these states have to have the same showing.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree. 68.60.76.178 (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes exactly. Yankhill (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming

The map should acknowledge that Wyoming recognizes same-sex marriage; read the article on LGBT rights in Wyoming if you don't believe me. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming allows for Sex between two males or two females and NOT Marriage if you read the whole article. http://www.hrc.org/your_community/1111.htm Knowledgekid87 00:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe he's refering to this article: http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/02/07/news/wyoming/4358731527d0459f87257556000617e0.txt According to this (which may or may not be biased), Wyoming should have light blue strips. 170.3.8.253 (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states." Hmm. Maybe it should be light blue. Maybe someone can take a look at the text of the law. 75.82.129.74 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine in the event of a people's veto ballot measure

If the people of Maine get the same-sex marriage bill put on to the ballot, it will be put up to the People's Veto. This essentially means SSM will not begin until people vote and decide if they want it. If and when the right-wing of Maine gets enough votes for the People's Veto to be put on the ballot, should we revert Maine's coloration on the map back to yellow and green? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we should also have a overlayed on Maine so readers won't think that Maine just stopped or voted it down. Fortuynist (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how this would work but the same treatment should exist for Washington State in this move from green/yellow to purple/yellow. The Governor is slated to sign the bill on 5.18.09 and a signature drive will be under way to have a vote in November. We won't know until the end of July/August if a vote will happen. See http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/05/update-domestic-partnership-referendum/ DaveI (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No for WA. That is simply a domestic partnership of California's Prop 8. If it passes then we will do something, otherwise we have to ignore it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This statement doesn't make sense to me. What does "that is simply a DP of California's Prop 8" mean? The situation in WA and ME is exactly the same with the exception that WA will be a vote about rejecting expanding from limited DPs to fully inclusive DPs (so from green/yellow to light purple/yellow stripping) whereas in ME the vote will be about rejecting expanding from limited DPs to Full SSM (so green/yellow to bright purple). Both however are laws that Governor's will have signed and if the appropriate number of signatures are gathered the respective bills are delayed being implemented pending a people's vote ----- but the default in both will be "if signatures aren't gathered then the signed bills become law." Neither of them is a constitutional amendment (like in California) or an initiative (again, like in California). Both are "referendums" and in both WA and ME referendums explicitly refer to a people's vote of a recent legislative bill passed by the legislature in the preceding session (in WA an initiative only refers to a new citizen drafted law that is put to a direct vote of the people if enough signatures are gathered). Can you please explain your reasoning for why ME and WA wouldn't be treated the same for determining when and how to update and indicate people's votes?
This would be important to note on the map (like for ME if the voting icon is utilized) because I believe it will be the first time in the U.S. that affirmative relationship rights for same-sex couples that are not SSM would be put to a people's vote. This will essentially be a vote on "Full DPs/civil unions." DaveI (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
A purple question mark or a green question mark! But technically this would not be the first time that non-SSM SS-unions were put up to a vote. All those red states voted on civil unions and domestic partnerships before, and chose to ban them, and so did the states that did not ban them, it just wasn't close to becoming reality at the time. Fortuynist (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
That might be a simpler symbol but without the vote box it might be more confusing.......and yes, you are correct that this is not the first time non-SSM unions could be on a ballot but this (I think) is the first time that affirmative granted rights (like prop 8) that are not SSM will be on a ballot......well, I guess the forced repeal of Michigan's companies DP status would count. Anyway, this is digressing away form the point.......the point is WA and ME should be treated the same for any notation about possible votes on expansion of relationship recognition rights.DaveI (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire and Vermont have no proposed referendums on marriage or civil union statutes - Maine has a pending people's veto. States are much too liberal and the ability to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in NH and VT is very difficult, seeing (not 100% sure about VT) that you need the legislature to approve the ban first, and the legislatures implemented the same-sex marriage laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btleroy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The following are some points brought up in the above discussion under "Maine" in case it gets unnoticed there:

However, this news site puts it well: http://www.wmtw.com/news/19506277/detail.html The burden right now is for the supporters of the people's veto to have enough signatures to put it on the ballot. Paraphrasing, this news page stipulates that the law won't be stayed UNTIL they say they've submitted the required amount of signatures. Then the secretary of state has 30 days to certify the signatures, and if they are, then the stay is continued until the election.

Keeping all of this in mind, I feel that Maine should still be painted purple. Yankhill (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I realy do not care which color Maine is, but if we change Maine we need to change Vermont as well. They both have legalized Marriage, but it is not in effect yet. That is what this map is showing, not if it may be overturned or not, but what is factualy accurate in the terms of marriage and civil unions in each state. Both of these states have to have the same showing.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree. 68.60.76.178 (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Update on Washington state (not DC)

Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire will sign the "everything-but-marriage" bill into law on Monday 18th May, 2009 [10]. "I always put '(not DC)' to show Washington is a state!!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI - this information was already posted in the WA State section about 5 topics up. Writers are advised to not make the discussion board unnecessarily long or duplicative. comment added by DaveI (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Washington!

There is no constitutional ban on gay marriage in washington. solely a DOMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btleroy (talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do anything on Wikipedia! It's much to confusing! Feel free to delete this but I just wanted to make it known that there is an error on the image. I tried to figure out how to do this the right way - But I'm just not very computer literate. Sorry!!!!! Let's try the tilde thing Btleroy (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct - WA state should be purple/yellow striped not purple/orange striped. The update from green to purple was correct but yellow should not have changed to orange. I wish I knew how to fix these maps myself too!DaveI (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the update just now Haha!DaveI (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the incorrect ban change. I was editing the code at school, and I had to make do with notepad. I got confused and changed the statue to constitution on accident.--haha169 (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
  1. ^ http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=3770&MediaType=1&Category=26
  2. ^ http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg/Archive_2&oldid=1190129731"