Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Legalization method

In the section States that license same-sex marriage, why do we say that various states have legalized SSM by legislative action without noting that a governor's signature was involved? We just note the instance in which a legislature enacted legislature over a governor's veto. Seems like we're ignoring how a bill becomes a law. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well most of time bills are passed into law is with signatures. There are other ways (e.g., overriding or sitting on the Governor's desk too long), but in the case of SSM, the only time a signature wasn't involved was with the override in Vermont. As a result, it is just simpler to point out the exceptions. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction summary/list of states with legal SSM

I really feel that because the list of states with SSM has grown much larger, it is unreasonable to list them individually in the intro summary. I think it makes more sense to just state how many states have SSM in the intro, and readers can easily see which states do and which states do not in the body of the page. It looks cumbersome and that defeats the purpose of a summary, there are just too many states now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackD523 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it looks unwieldy, although I think a note might be better than removing the list out right. What I'm thinking is turning this:

Seventeen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized same-sex marriage;

into

Seventeen states as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized same-sex marriage;

The information is still quickly accessible, but no longer so visually clunky. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Listing each state is particularly redundant with the adjacent template listing them as well. Not everyone will recognize all the postal abbreviations, so we should still have the spelled out names close by, but I think the note would work. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, good idea. As time goes on, this problem will only get worse as more states legalize, and it is certainly looking like that is going to happen. We might as well do it now. Jackson Doty 20:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackD523 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been implemented. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Illinois

Gov Quinn's twitter account says (1) he "encourages" county clerks to issue licenses to SS couples in accordance with AG's opinion and (2) the dept of public health with record them once solemnized. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we remove the June 2014 statement about Illinois then? It seems to be in full force now. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel like he has allowed it to go county by county until June. Let people get used to everything and maybe lessen the paperwork that would be involved. I would leave the June comment, as that is when the full state will be allowed and what is in the text of the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalodan (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think 7 out of 102 counties will issue licenses to same-sex couples early, so it's far from universal. But since anyone who wants a license can go to one of the 7 and get a license, it might as well be universal. Pretty odd mix. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

See discussion at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Illinois_confusion EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits re denial of service/sales to same-sex marrieds

Should this entry cover this topic? There have been several in the news -- refusals to bake wedding cake -- but two actual lawsuits I know of:

• The New Mexico case described here that the US Supreme Court is scheduled look at on March 21, Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, and decide whether to hear on appeal. It's a case of discrimination based on sexual orientation but it's same-sex marriage that's driving the photographer's refusal to provide services.
• The Massachusetts case described here in which the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester is refusing to sell a property to a gay married couple because the venue might be used for same-sex weddings.

And what would we call such a section? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither case has yet reached the federal level, if I'm reading this right (the New Mexico case has appealed to it, but its appeal has not yet been accepted.) As such, I'd say that neither reaches the level of the national article yet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Third local case: teacher dismissed by Eastside Catholic in Seattle for getting SSMd here.
• Fourth local case: Fontbonne Academy, MA, Catholics again, employment here

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Michigan struck down

"In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman today struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony, just like their heterosexual counterparts."[1] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Very likely to be stayed, but good news nonetheless. Appears most maps are up-to-date. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am storing a version of the page at User:EvergreenFir/sandbox2 for easy copy-paste in the likely event of a stay. Will need some editing, but table totals are correct as are the number of states that allow SSM. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the maps (SSM in US, world marriage equality, world homosexuality laws). Reversion points for each map is in the page histories.Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor update: some Michigan counties planning on issuing marriage licenses Saturday morning (trying to page link my phone browser hates edit boxes with a passion... ) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, last night I added the line to the Same-sex marriage in Michigan article listing the three counties issuing today, and it looks like most counties would be on board for Monday. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem with map in "State Laws" section

The key to the map under the State Laws heading contains an error. The color for "Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal3" is golden-brown on the map, but the color in the map's key is black. If you click through to the map, the key found on that page is correct. 71.70.212.46 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That was an artifact of me changing the stay color a few hours ago. It has been fixed. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Indiana

Indiana's ruling needs to be added; I don't know how to do that appropriately. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/10/indiana-gay-marriage/7565909/ --Prcc27 (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

--Thanks for that; I saw your post and added it under Presently in litigation > U.S. district court cases. The case is Baskin v. Bogan. MarkGT (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohio

Judge Black's anticipated ruling, due April 14, is just out in Henry v. Hines (formerly Henry v. Wymyslo.) Per the ruling: "The record before the Court, which includes the judicially-noticed record in Obergefell, is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the State’s ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and, therefore, Ohio’s marriage recognition bans are facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances.[1]" (emphasis is in the original.)

The superscript to the footnote, [1], reads: "The Court’s Order today does NOT require Ohio to authorize the performance of same-sex marriage in Ohio. Today’s ruling merely requires Ohio to recognize valid same-sex marriages lawfully performed in states which do authorize such marriages."

At the end of the opinion, the judge stays his ruling until he can hear arguments on a longer stay. The full footnote of that reads: "The Court STAYS enforcement of this Order and the Permanent Injunction until the parties have briefed whether or not this Court should fully stay its Orders until completion of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. The Court is inclined to stay its finding of facial unconstitutionality but not to stay the Orders as to the as-applied claims of the four couples who are Plaintiffs because they have demonstrated that a stay will harm them individually due to the imminent births of their children and other time-sensitive concerns. The Court inclines toward a finding that the issuance of correct birth certificates for Plaintiffs’ children, due in June or earlier, should not be stayed. The Court is further inclined to conclude that the Defendants will not be harmed by compliance with the requirements of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs shall file today their memorandum contra Defendants’ oral motion to stay, and Defendants shall file a reply memorandum before 3:00 p.m. tomorrow. The Court shall then rule expeditiously."

Please help me in updating the Ohio SSM pages in an orderly fashion per the news. MarkGT (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee

Tennessee doesn't seem to be recognizing those marriages anymore. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sex-marriages-tenn-case-invalid-23499793 --Prcc27 (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recognition Table

Shouldn't there be a table for state(s) that recognize same-sex marriage..? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you mean SSM preformed elsewhere then only two states do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The map shows only Oregon, with a footnote about KY. Is that right? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't get why we can't have a table for state(s) that recognize same-sex marriage.. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Your argument against the recognition tables is weak. If that argument worked on Wikipedia, Wisconsin wouldn't be striped light blue on the Samesex marriage in USA map; nor would Oregon be striped dark gray. It doesn't matter how many states recognize or have stays to recognize. There is still useful information present (like the percentage of states that recognize/have stays to recognize as well as when they went into effect). Also, same-sex marriage recognition is more of a right than same-sex marriage being stayed because residents of those states can't get married to the same-sex and aren't recognized in that state. So I really don't see how we can keep the stayed table but remove the recognition table.. Why do we have to wait for more states to recognize same-sex marriage/have same-sex marriage recognition stays..? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The information is already included elsewhere in the article though and is summed up nicely while the other tables are good for listing many states at once. Your argument does not work either as you are comparing different articles when not all articles are the same here on Wikipedia. See also: WP:IINFO. This should be an article, not a collection of tables with lists everything related to SSM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the map shows seven (7) states with court decisions favoring same-sex marriage (SSM) striped in gold. This includes the orders in Bourke and Henry that find the respective state bans unconstitutional, but specifically unconstitutional as applied to forbidding out-of-state recognition. However, the table omits the 'out-of-state recognition only' orders, and shows the five (5) states ordered to perform in-state SSM marriage. That can be construed as a discrepancy.

It can also be confusing, as some find a victory a victory†. Hence the need to either 1. use only one table, but add OH and KY and explain the situation, 2. use the multiple table solution, 3. use the one table without OH and KY but add an explanation. This might necessitate removing OH and KY from the current map. In all eventuality, the issue will become moot once the appeals courts rule. But for now, I think it's best that we establish consensus before doing it one way or another.

† There's no table listing the pre-Windsor D.Nev., D.Hawaii, and 8th Circuit losses.

MarkGT (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to make a table for all those states striped in gold then they can do so just I would combine the tables. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not all of the information in the tables that were removed is included in the article. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the recognition table ought to exist, because the couples in those states have the same rights in marriage as those that perform, they simply need to go elsewhere first. I support Prcc27 Swifty819 (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Map

Is there some technical reason for the map to appear as it does, with the use of stripes, rather than creating new solid colors to represent the status in the states that are currently being litigated? The use of the stripes creates confusion (look at Oregon!) and renders the data inaccessible for people with certain forms of colorblindness and color contrast issues. Aecamadi (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)aecamadi

There have been efforts to find a new solid color for the stayed states, but the discussion went to stripes of pre-existing colors quickly, as they do not require trying to reach consensus on the best shade of a new color. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Idaho

Federal magistrate strikes same-sex marriage ban in Idaho effective 9 a.m. local time Friday. Idaho Statesman: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3183291/judge-rules-idaho-gay-marriage.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1 Fortguy (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have the table updated; I'll use your source as the ref. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Another sources if you need it: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/federal-court-strikes-down-idaho-ban-on-same-sex-marriage/ EvergreenFir (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That's the way I found out about Idaho and that's the source I have in the Commons maps edit summaries. All the applicable maps should be up to date now. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Judge refuses to stay ruling: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/federal-magistrate-refuses-to-stay-idaho-same-sex-marriage-ruling/ EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Arkansas

Wright v Arkansas ruling was issued today striking down the state's ban. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-same-sex-marriage-ban/ EvergreenFir (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead section incorrectly states that the Arkansas ban was struck down by a U.S. district court. As indicated further in the article, the ruling was issued by a state circuit judge in Pulaski County. There are no reports that licenses have been issued, and it is unclear if any can be issued before regular business opens on Monday. It is also unclear whether the judge's decision has any bearing outside of the judge's jurisdiction. The ruling will most likely be appealed and stayed. Fortguy (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this ruling will probably be stayed -- but since there is no stay in effect, same-sex marriage is currently legal in Arkansas. We'll see whether a court orders a stay before clerks' offices open Monday morning -- and if they don't, whether we see a Utah-like situation where some clerks refuse to comply with the ruling. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a chance that some licenses will be issued in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, where around ten same-sex couples have appeared at the courthouse and the clerks are looking for emergency clarification. Too early to put anything in the Same-sex marriage in Arkansas article, but something to keep an eye on. newspaper article Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

License issued. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the state article. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pulaski Circuit Court ruling only applies to the six counties within its jurisdiction, so on that basis same-sex marriage has not necessarily been legalized statewide. An argument that could be brought up on appeal to a higher court, is whether or not the circuit judge event has the authority to add or remove provisions from the Arkansas Constitution, or delcare portions of the state constitution unenforceable. I could see a federal judge having teh authority to strike down portions of the state constitution if they conflict with the US constitution, but changes to the state constitution would otherwise have to be decided upon by the legislature and/or voters, depending on how the constitutional amendment process is spelled out in the constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.53.79 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Presumably the state Supreme Court will address the issue of jurisdiction; for now we're thinking outside counties issuing licenses is sufficient to consider the ruling state-wide. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: Arkansas Supreme Court refuses to stay ruling. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/arkansas-supreme-court-wont-stay-same-sex-marriage-ruling/ Tagging Dralwik EvergreenFir (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

While they didn't stay the ruling, they did say in that article that a different law barring county clerks from issuing same sex marriage licenses is still in effect. Sounds like there is still uncertainty there. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we remove Arkansas from the table since the note on the table says "This table shows only states that license same-sex marriages or have legalized it. It does not include states that recognize same-sex marriages but do not license them"? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The maps are up to date. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Now, SSM is back on again after Piazza expanded his ruling to strike down the state ban on clerks issuing licenses to same sex couples. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arkansas-judge-gay-marriage-20140515-story.html // Is being appealed and stay being sought, but for moment anyway it's legal again. I've updated the Arkansas article with these critical details. Jono52795 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ruling stayed http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/05/ark-supreme-court-ruling/ 98.27.157.58 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mistake in map

There is a mistake in the map in the right corner of the section Presently in litigation (Litigation against Same-sex marriage bans in the United States). In the map Arkansas is in the color of Litigation in U.S. court of appeals. But there is NO federal case in Arkansas regarding SSM (there is state court case). Please correct it. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The legend on the map is out of date; I believe the purple is meant to cover any level of appealed ruling being stayed. I inserted the purple's key from the map's page on Commons. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 13:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Arkansas has same color like Texas, Oklahoma and Idaho. Thats wrong. Are you sure we are talking about same map?? Arkansas's case NOT in Federal court of appeals. 46.71.209.28 (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The purple you're talking about is being used for both state and federal court rulings being appealed. Both situations are covered by the one color. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I further changed the wording in the legend to be more straightforward. It now simply states "Judicial ruling against a SSM ban stayed pending appeal". Artichoker^[talk] 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Pennsylvania ruling today

USA Today is reporting that the judge hearing Whitewood v. Wolf will issue a ruling after 2 PM Eastern (which is in 8 minutes). I already have cloaked comments on the two tables with population figures inclusive of Pennsylvania, so the tables can be quickly updated once the ruling is out. The Governor is expected to appeal, although this could be a New Jersey situation where a blue state drops the appeal after a short time. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Judged ruled to legalize, but we don't know yet if it will be put into effect or stayed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to change Pennsylvania's color in map (blue color, but if Governor appeal the case, we must use same color like for Texas or Oklahoma). 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Which map are you referring to? Pennsylvania's color has already been changed to dark blue. Artichoker^[talk] 06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

ОК, now I see it. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah um thanks for getting rid of my thing about Pennsylvania... This is a talk page not the actual Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.230.4 (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wire is reporting that the Governor has 30 days to make an appeal; no word on whether he plans to do so. Couples are being married across the state. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He does not plan to do so. [2]. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

^ yea Teammm ^talk
_email 03:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

We list all the states where it's been ruled unconstitutional since December 2013. Why this arbitrary date? CTF83! 23:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That's to cover the unanimous rulings since United States v. Windsor. Might be clearer to use that wording though. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As for the cloaked comment, I'd exclude New Jersey and New Mexico as the states had no such bans on marriages but rather a lack of specifying which couples were eligible. Let that sentence concern definite legal bans on same-sex marriage struck down by courts post-Windsor. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map USA

Hey, since this article predominately touches on same-sex marriage rather than same-sex partnerships in general, could we switch the current partnership map for the United States with this map [3]? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the way the map is and I don't think readers would gain anything from us reducing the amount of information it displays. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: Hi there! Civil unions aren't all that relevant to this article. But what's really concerning is that the map could potentially have a maximum of 11 different colors while this map could only have up to 7 different colors. Furthermore, not only does it reduce the amount of colors, it also reduces the striping (in the other map triple striping is possible; quadruple striping was possible at a time as well). The footnotes are also reduced as well.

Regards, --Prcc27 (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think civil unions actually are quite relevant, considering their historical place in the national debate over same-sex marriage. Including them on the map also provides visual information to readers who might otherwise assume those states afford no legal status to same-sex couples. Furthermore, the current color scheme presents a distinction between states and territories that have statutory bans on same-sex marriage and states that have taken more extreme steps of banning it in their constitutions or banning all forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples in their constitutions. I'm not too concerned about striping, which is commonplace on Wiki informational maps; the legend makes that easy for readers to decipher, and there seems to be a general trend toward monotones just from the way the legal issues in each state are being resolved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: Good point. Yes, it does show the distinction between different bans. What it doesn't do however is show the distinction between whether or not same-sex marriage is legal due to a legislative statue passed, constitutional referendum passed, a judicial ruling, and states that permit both same-sex marriage and other unions (as opposed to states that don't allow either unions) are only represented as a footnote (which isn't necessarily bad, but why not have a footnote for states that ban both?) I'm not saying it isn't useful information, however- it might be too much information for readers who are mostly focused on finding out about the current status on same-sex marriage. Having the U.S. same-sex marriage map makes it easier for them to find the information they're seeking. And if they want to find out information about other unions as well, they can search for other articles on the topic. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said -- I tend toward the philosophy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think changing the map now will create more confusion than it will clear up. Furthermore, the means by which same-sex marriage was legalized is less relevant to many real-world readers than the status of same-sex unions in various states and territories; the information is well worth recording, but I would consider it a definite lower priority. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And having 11 colors on the map won't cause confusion? It's information overload! Anyways, it seems that this discussion is going around in circles.. Prcc27 (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: The lengthy footnote still hasn't been addressed. Footnote #3 is way longer than it should be for people who are mostly searching for same-sex marriage information. Also, is there any relevance to the fact that there were judicial rulings against bans on same-sex unions similar to marriage stayed pending appeal. If the bans are struck down, there probably wouldn't be any civil unions/domestic partnerships being performed; just marriages. And yes, there is already consensus on the map to differentiate between judicial rulings against same-sex marriage and similar unions versus just same-sex marriage bans. I mean- I'm not saying the information isn't useful, but it's not significant for a same-sex marriage article. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: UPDATE: (Edit) An extra color was added to the map. Footnote #3 removed. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Great. I'm fine with doing what we can to clarify details and cut down on the footnotes. I just don't want to see the map oversimplified, as I think that would disserve Wikipedia's readers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: Interesting. The same-sex partnership map could be considered over-complicated and the marriage map "oversimplified." It's hard to say which one disserves the readers more. But maybe we can have a map that isn't over-complicated and if readers want to know more about the status of other unions they can simply click on a link provided in the map's key. How does this look? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States*

  Same-sex marriage allowed¹

  No prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriage in territory law

  Judicial ruling against a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage stayed pending appeal

  Judicial ruling against a ban on recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages stayed pending appeal

  Law bans same-sex marriage

  Constitution and law ban same-sex marriage

---

*The federal government recognizes all legally performed same-sex marriages, regardless of the current state of residence. Some states have other same-sex unions.
¹ Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions also allow same-sex marriage.

I agree with Kudzu1. A map without civil unions leaves out important information. Look at it this way: there's marriage "in substance", i.e. the rights and legal effects it has, and there's the name marriage. In the case of Nevada, Colorado and in a limited form Wisconsin, provide same-sex marriage in substance but not in name, so they are relevant when talking about same-sex marriage. And I don't see a reason to remove them at this point, when they are likely going away soon anyway. If the legal situation is complicated, Wikipedia should reflect that. SPQRobin (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@SPQRobin: So you don't like the link idea then? And what makes you think the civil unions are just gonna "go away"? I don't think they're going away soon... Is there any evidence of that? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: With saying civil unions are going away, I meant that it is very likely (considering the recent events) the federal courts will further legalize same-sex marriage in the remaining states, making civil unions redundant. Like what happened with Oregon recently: one less CU/DP state. It would therefore be confusing to remove them from the map at this point. SPQRobin (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this map as well per the objections above. What it seems here is since Prcc27's proposal to get CU/DPs removed from the current map failed, they tried to make a new map and replace the old map... Also, any maps used should be SVG. They scale without image loss and are text editable. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: Actually, someone who opposed my proposal suggested I make all the maps I want. It's not to replace the "old" one. In my opinion, the maps should be used depending on if they are relevant to the articles or not. Some of the maps can even coexist depending on the article. @Dralwik: said he'd make a svg version if there weren't any objections but since there are, that's not going to happen. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"switch the current partnership map for" translates to replace. Being able to make maps is a freedom you have, trying to replace the old map with your new map is not a freedom you have. Anyways I am going to sleep soon. Gnite. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. same sex marriage maps remind me a little of the U.S. map in the Nintendo game "Rampage". In a little animation, whenever George the Gorilla or Lizzie the Lizard finished off a string of cities, the creature would punch a region, changing its color. At the end, the whole map was of one color (black). 74.103.242.195 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.png

Hello, I suggested the partly redundant map that @Prcc27: has been replacing (or advocating replacing) File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg with be deleted as the user has been doing this to undermine the consensus against removing Civil Union and Domestic Partnership content. Please chime in at c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.png. Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

North Dakota

Lawsuit challenges North Dakota gay marriage ban. "Seven couples filed a federal lawsuit Friday challenging the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in North Dakota, making it the last state in the country to be sued by couples seeking the right to marry in their home state." There is presently a federal lawsuit in North Dakota as well. I propose that the map for what is presently in litigation be updated and that it be updated under the heading "Federal District Courts". I don't feel like I myself possess the ability to do so, but just a heads up about it. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've updated the map and the case ought to be posted soon. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Indiana

U.S. District Judge Richard Young has struck down Indiana's ban against same-sex marriages. No stay has been issued.

From WLWT in Cincinnati: http://www.wlwt.com/news/judge-finds-indianas-samesex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/26656262

Link to ruling: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/baskin_in_20140625_entry-on-cross-motions-for-summary-judgment Fortguy (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Boulder County, Colorado

Given the Appeals Court ruling on the Utah case, the Boulder County, Colorado Clerk (in the same circuit as Utah) has said they will start issuing SSM licenses until/unless a court tells them not to [4]. Even if it is too soon to mention this here, it might result in a ruling that can be put in this article. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that a separate ruling in state court in Colorado is expected soon, and the Colorado Supreme Court is seen as likely to uphold a pro-marriage ruling. Denver Post story I would not add anything about the Boulder Clerk to the article; the current marriages probably are not valid. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree; I was more pointing it out to those editing the article for future reference. Thank you for your reply. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Louisiana

I think in the map, Louisiana should be coded for judicial pending for recognizing ss marriage. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/06/federal_judge_to_address_wheth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.28.111 (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That color is for rulings already out. Once the Louisiana judge releases a ruling, if it's for marriage rights and is stayed upon appeal, then Louisiana will be beige. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

About colors

Dear editors, in the map there is a color named judicial ruling against constitutional and statutory ban on same-sex marriage stayed pending appeal. One question: After rulling in Kitchen case Utah, Oklahoma and other states of 10 th circuit are going to send the case to the Supreme court. So, is the word "appeal" is right, when we are talking about case pending in SC (not court of Appeals), or mentioned word refers only to courts of Appeal? Миша Карелин (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The word appeal is still correct, as the action of sending the case to the Supreme Court is still called appeal. The Courts of Appeal get their name by being the first level of appeals from the District Courts, but they are not the only level of appeals. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK thanks. First I thought that we can add a new color for cases pending in SC, but then I realized that it will be TOO much colors :) Миша Карелин (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Map color question

If (for example) Texas is beige which is color coded for Judicial ruling against constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and any existing statutory bans, stayed pending appeal, should it be stripped like Ohio and Kentucky with the color that it is banned?

I mean why aren't the states that are that color have another strip to indicate it's banned if Ohio and Kentucky do? Sorry if I don't make sense..

Those states used to be striped. The discussion to go to the solid gold is at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#Gold. In a nutshell, we removed the stripes to make the map less busy. The stripes on Ohio and Kentucky reflect the partial rulings against those states' bans as their ban on performing marriages remains, whereas the solid beige states have their entire bans struck down in the stayed rulings. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! One last thing. Why do some states like Indiana or Arkansas legalize same sex marriage, but ban it a few days later again?

It's a matter of whether the judge issuing a ruling immediately stays his ruling or lets it go into effect. If he doesn't put a hold on it, there will be a few days before a higher court steps in and puts marriages on hold. One idea is if a judge lets couples marry in a state, then it will be harder to uphold the ban in a higher court since you'll have married couples at risk of losing benefits. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 05:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

En banc review??

As I understood, the Ninth circuit are going to hear Idaho case en banc. Is that right or I misunderstood? And I guess they will hear all cases pendidng in Ninth circuit same day? If yes, we must put an information in all appropriate articles. M.Karelin (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say no as to en banc, and yes to multiple cases pending being heard same-day.

There was a petition filed by the state defendants on May 30, 2014 to hear Latta v. Otter, the Idaho case, initially en banc. This rarely is granted by U.S. Courts of Appeals; it's more common for en banc review to be granted upon a petition for rehearing. Note that Michigan officials wanted an initial en banc hearing in the Sixth Circuit; that was voted down on April 8, 2014 with none of the active judges of the circuit voting to do so, see DeBoer v. Snyder.

I do not know if the Ninth Circuit has acted on the petition; however as Latta (where a same-sex marriage ban was found unconstitutional), Sevcik v. Sandoval (a Nevada case, same-sex proponents want the circuit to reverse the pre-Windsor decision below that affirms a same-sex marriage ban) and Jackson v. Fuddy (a Hawaii case where the state adopted same-sex marriage, so the issue is moot, but proponents want vacatur of the ban-affirming decision below, Jackson v. Abercrombie, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Haw. 2012)) are all scheduled for oral arguments before the circuit court in San Fransisco on September 8, 2014, 9:30 a.m., that if arguments were en banc, it would specifically say so in the order. Any update would be here. As for the judges, I'm pretty sure, but not exact, that the circuit court chooses and names the three-judge panel two weeks before argument. MarkGT (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dear MarkGT, In the courts decision (see here http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/30/14-35420_Initial%20EB%20motion.pdf) we see the CONCLUSION: The optimal presentation of the exceptionally important Scrutiny Issue in this case coupled with this case’s clean presentation of the exceptionally important Marriage Issue moves beyond all doubt the compelling wisdom of an initial hearing en banc here. Accordingly, Governor Otter respectfully petitions for an initial hearing en banc and for its setting during the week of September 8, 2014. So, I guess it is hard juducial language, but they mean hear the case en banc. M.Karelin (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your quote, M.Karelin, does not come from the court's decision. It's from the Governor's petition! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Bmclaughlin9 and think the separation of powers is what's getting you, M.Karelin. In the U.S. court system, the government can petition for en banc all it wants, however, it's up to the independent judges to grant it, and here, they haven't so far. Re-check your quote: "...Governor Otter respectfully petitions for an initial hearing en banc." Otter isn't a judge, he's the gov't official representing Idaho and merely asking for en banc. MarkGT (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I just thought it was court's decision. M.Karelin (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Bishop v. Oklahoma

Doesn't the Bishop v. Oklahoma case affect the states in the tenth circuit as much as Kitchen v. Herbert..? Shouldn't the Bishop case be referenced in the table for KS, WY, and CO..? --Prcc27 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The impact of Kitchen and Bishop has generally been overstated/misrepresented. There is no reason to believe that -- assuming SCOTUS does not grant cert. -- the Tenth Circuit in either of these cases will order any action on the part of officials in states other than Utah and and Oklahoma. The decisions are binding precedent on the US District Courts in the Tenth Circuit (Kansas et al.), and nothing more. Don't expect Sam Brownback and others of his ilk to throw in the towel.

Just as a stray state years after Lawrence can try to enforce a sodomy statute and only yield when taken to court, the other states in the Tenth Circuit can be expected to continue their refusals to sanction SSMs until forced to do so by a federal court, i.e., a US District Court in that state that will surely order the state to do so in accordance with Kitchen and Bishop. 68.162.221.100 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

At least we know Colorado will fall into line promptly. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Florida

Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia has struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage and has ordered Monroe County to begin issuing licenses on July 22. The state attorney general has promised to appeal. From the Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/07/17/4240865/keys-judge-gay-couples-can-marry.html#storylink=cpy Fortguy (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of appeal. Fortguy (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed User:Prcc27 removed my edit adding "Florida (Monroe County)" and the ruling finding that state's ban unconstitutional—i.e. Huntsman v. Heavilin (which has been stayed)—from the table titled "States with stayed rulings for same-sex marriage" based on the reasoning that "this chart [sic] deals with states. Monroe county ain't a state." While true, such a statement neglects the Huntsman decision will have statewide effect:

Florida is indeed a state with a stayed ruling for same-sex marriage because of this decision, even though the defendant sued only the Monroe County clerk. While this means that only that one county can be enjoined from enforcing the ban if the stay were lifted today, that's not happening and we must look at the "bigger picture." As the ruling has been appealed, this means if affirmed, this ruling will be precedential state-wide. So, once the appeal is decided, we either get same-sex marriage in Florida statewide, or we do not, as a result of Huntsman. No "one county for now" situation.

Thus looking at this case in the broader sense, we find that Florida does indeed have a ruling fitting the criteria for being included on the list, as:

1. the Huntsman ruling applies to same-sex marriage in any Florida county, as it finds state law unconstitutional,

2. the ruling, because of the appeal, is stayed automatically by operation of law, and

3. the ruling has the same effect as the other rulings on the table of states, in that if affirmed on appeal (due to Florida precedent), the ruling will apply statewide (not just to Monroe County), and if overturned on appeal, the state ban will remain in place.

Note that states like Kansas and Wyoming are on the list. Just like Florida, they currently have no state-specific or state-wide (in the narrow sense) ruling — neither a declaratory judgment finding that KS or WY's ban unconstitutional, nor is there any stayed injunction forcing KS and WY to recognize same-sex marriage. Yet, because of the circuit-wide precedent that the 10th Circuit opinions will have (if not overturned via the U.S. Supreme Court), we include KS and WY on the list.

The FL ruling is analogous since Hunstman will become precedent for FL SSM seekers, just as Kitchen and Bishop will become KS and WY precedent for couples seeking marriage there. Thus my opinion to include the ruling on the table, and stripe Florida's red with gold on the maps, or make it solid gold. I am seeking consensus to make this change and other people's opinions on what to do.

This situation is likely to repeat if the ruling in Pareto v. Ruvin (another Fla. Cir. Ct. case) finds the state's ban unconstitutional as well. In Pareto, the Miami-Dade county clerk is the defendant, meaning any injunction will likely only apply to that county. MarkGT (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@MarkGT: I agree with you except the circuit stay affects WY and KS now while the Florida stay doesn't affect the entire state yet. I'm fine with re-adding it but since the references to counties for NM and IL were reverted, I thought it wouldn't be consistent to keep Monroe. Otherwise, I would have left it only. P.S. I supported striping and/or footnote for Florida on the US map. Prcc27 (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we should re-add it but I do think we should be consistent when it comes to counties. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I will keep Monroe County out for now, as no one else has commented regarding that issue. But a similar issue will come up again with Miami-Dade County and the Pareto case, and could come up in Colorado. I'm OK with showing individual counties with SSM on the state SSM page, as we did with New Mexico when there was no appellate court ruling. Problem is back then we didn't have a chart/table with stayed rulings; now we do. Back then there was no NM stay, nor did the state have a ban, so on the national map the state was striped blue/grey.

Gold for stayed rulings didn't exist, but now we have to come to a consensus on whether gold can be striped if a ruling is not statewide. It seems like you're in for striping Florida gold, and I am too. I'll wait for at least two more people to add concurring feedback, then I will see about making the change. MarkGT (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should add stripes to Florida. The judge in the Miami-Dade case "Pareto v. Ruvin" ruled that the ban was unconstitutional, but only for Miami-Dade County. [5] Emigdioofmiami (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Colorado

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-colorado-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frightwolf (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Boulder Co. District Court Judge Andrew Hartman refuses request for injunction from state attorney general and allows county clerk to continue issuing licenses. In response, Denver County now has also begun issuing licenses. From The Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_26123997/judge-rejects-state-attempt-stop-boulder-clerk-from Fortguy (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Pueblo County becomes the third to begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples. From The Pueblo Chieftan: http://www.chieftain.com/news/2717580-120/county-licenses-marriage-couples. Should we have a county-status map such as the one we had for New Mexico before its state supreme court ruling? Fortguy (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new here, but I don't think Colorado should be listed in both tables (states with marriage equality and states with stayed rulings) as it double counts the population and skews the overall percentages. 02:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It should still be counted as states with stayed rulings for ssm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.122.154 (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Since only one county is currently issuing licenses, I don't think it should be blue on the map. Czolgolz (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Map Colors Reflecting 4th District Ruling

I noticed that Virginia is colored dark blue, suggesting that ssm is legal, which it is not. It should be in the "pending review orange" as should WV, NC, & SC which also fall in the 4th District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.30.245.157 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#4th Circuit ruling. Long story short, we aren't sure what to do with the 4th Circuit states. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no initial stay and judgment has been ordered. However, the mandate (a formal, certified order to the court below - i.e. U.S. district court - telling it that it's decision was affirmed, and to take action) will not issue until at least 21 days. Filing a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc will stay the mandate. A stay can come at any time, but getting an order on a motion takes time. Even without a mandate, we can have other courts using the opinion as precedent, and clerks taking action of their own volition a la Colorado. So it's really a tough situation. MarkGT (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SSM in NC, SC, and WV not legalized

I would argue that while the Fourth Circuit ruling in Bostic is binding precedent on courts in North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia, that same-sex marriage is not yet legalized there. That is because there's no direct court ruling on point. Note that Bostic has two parts, the opinion, and a judgment ordering the Virginia decision affirmed. We do not have any judgments out of lower courts in NC, SC, or WV, much less any that are to be affirmed.

We do have cases pending U.S. district court affecting these other states, see Fisher-Borne v. Smith (M.D.N.C.), Bradacs v. Haley (D.S.C.), and McGee v. Cole (S.D.W. Va.). Each has had proceedings stayed until the outcome of Bostic. But until a direct judgment is entered that affects these states, for now same-sex marriage is still unlawful in the states that make up the Fourth Circuit, outside of Virginia and Maryland.

My conclusion is that, regarding the map, having VA as blue is OK. I also do not mind whether NC, SC, and WV are left red or turned gold. But I oppose NC, SC, and WV being blue. MarkGT (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Virginia, perhaps temporarily, blue. The other states in the Fourth (besides Maryland) have not legalized marriage equality. As it is now, the map is a misleading representation of this most recent ruling. -Laikalynx (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the states being in blue are wishful thinking as the ruling is very likely to be stayed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The image has it's own talk page, which is already quite lengthy. Have a look at the discussion there. MKleid (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've started a new discussion tackling this coloring issue head on at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#Revisiting the Colorado/Fourth Circuit being blue. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

About map after Bostic's case

First of all: why the Virginia is dark blue on the map? And seconds question: why all the rest of states in 4th circuit still red? And why Florida is red after state courts rulings? I guess it should be changed. M.Karelin (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry I just noticed the discussion about map. M.Karelin (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Bostic v. Shaefer ruling

I just retrieved the judgement order from PACER. It says:

"This judgment shall become final and take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 41." There is no initial stay.

F.R.A.P. 41 states: "The court's mandate must issue 7 days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later. The court may shorten or extend the time."

The judgment itself states: "A petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 calendar days after entry of judgment, except that in civil cases in which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the petition must be filed within 45 days after entry of judgment."

As the United States is not a party here (only a U.S. state), the judgment in Bostic, as it currently stands, will be effective no sooner than in 21 calender days, i.e. August 18, 2014. Of course, once a petition for rehearing is filed, then the mandate stays. And the Fourth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, can always issue a stay of judgment either on motion of any party, or sua sponte. MarkGT (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So, what should we do, per your reasoning? VA does not have a stayed judicial decision, not any longer... but if we strictly apply your criteria we can't move it to the above list either, so we'd have to take it out of both. I'd say we move it up because, as you said in the map talk page, the 4th Circuit judgement order has been entered in PACER and it does not include a stay. Perhaps the "effective date" should be left blank or with a footnote, but VA does not belong in the second table anymore. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 20:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Table

Could someone remove Colorado and Virginia from the marriage table and add them to the stay table, I'm too lazy to do it. A temporary stay is not akin to a law being passed because a court ruling is different from legislation as court rulings have an appeals process and legislation does not. Prcc★27 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Virginia does not have a stay, Colorado needs to be removed. Prcc★27 (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

New susection

I guess we should create new subsection in the section Presently in litigation. New subsection will be named Supreme court, and the first case will be Kitchen v. Herbert (a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court is filed already). M.Karelin (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean this?: Same-sex marriage in the United States#US Supreme Court Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that we retitle it either "Currently in litigation" or simply "In litigation" (or "Under litigation"). While the word "Presently" has several meanings, the most common one doesn't mean "at present", but rather "soon". --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, Nat Gertler made very right suggestion. The word presently not very correct. M.Karelin (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't Oklahoma's case in that section..? Prcc★27 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee

So, it says here that a court in Tennessee has upheld the state's same-sex marriage ban, the first one to do so after nevada. So what do we do about these two? I thought we could add this to the map saying that the ban was upheld in nevada and tennessee and color them with black stripes. I don't know, should we add this case to the article or not? http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/court_rules_tennessee_s_same_sex_marriage_ban_is_constitutional Elahi Ryan (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It was just a trial court on Tennessee and has no impact on any other court or case. So not to the map. The case should be added under Tennessee (a new heading), but there are far better sources like this.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

2 stays

Colorado actually has two stays and that should be reflected on the table. Prcc★27 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)