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

Guide to editing this map

People have often asked how to edit this map, so I am making this guide. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Step 1: Get an Editor

Any XML editor will work. I use EditiX-Free-XML Editor2009. Opening the file with Notepad or WordPad works as well.

Step 2: Determine what you need to change

Generally, most of the changes you will need to make involve changing striping (or lack of striping). Most logical striping combinations already exist; creating new two- and three-stripe combinations is easy, though creating a new four-stripe pattern would require some familarity with SVG creation.

Step 3: Editing the map

The legal status of same-sex marriages and unions in each state is indicated by a fill pattern selected by one of the following codes.

• marriage: Same-sex marriages
• foreign: Foreign same-sex marriages recognized
• transition: State in process of legalizing same-sex marriages
• foreignstay: Ruling ordering recognition of foreign same-sex marriages stayed
• marriagestay: Judicial ruling against a same-sex marriage ban stayed pending appeal
• marriageban: Constitution or statute bans same-sex marriage
• nolaw: No specific law regarding same-sex marriage

Patterns for compound legal statuses exist: foreign-marriageban and foreignstay-marriageban are included.

New multi-color combinations for compound statuses to put in the SVG defs section are easy to construct:

  <g id="foreign-marriageban">
    <use xlink:href="#part1of2" class="foreign"/>
    <use xlink:href="#part2of2" class="marriageban"/>
  </g>

The pattern may be invoked and its center positioned so that it fully overlaps the clipping path used to define the shape of a state or territory.

  <!-- Missouri -->
  <g clip-path="url(#clipPathMO)">
    <use xlink:href="#foreign-marriageban" transform="translate(538,297)"/>
  </g>

The transformation may include scaling or rotation to enhance the appearance of small, striped regions without fear of disturbing the region's outline:

  <use xlink:href="#foreign-marriageban" transform="translate(97.5,120) scale(0.8) rotate(-65)"/>

In regard to the translations: Except for Alaska and Hawaii, all the US states use the top-left of the image as the origin. Alaska, Hawaii and the insular territories have their origins located at the top-left of their insets. This makes them easy to move.

The color palette for the states and territories is defined entirely within the CSS near the top. Only the inset lines and the white circle outline for the enlarged, circular representation of Washington D.C. have hard-coded colors.

When editing the SVG file with Notepad, say, it is helpful to have the SVG file loaded into your web browser. You can usually load the image simply by dragging the SVG file's icon into the browser window. Whenever you save the changes you've made, press F5 in the browser to refresh the image.

Step 4: Check and submit the new version

When you are satisfied with the changes, check it carefully, use the W3 Validator and if all is well, upload the new version.

So that the SVG file can easily be edited even with crude text editors like Notepad, it is helpful to use CRLF for the line endings.

Last remaining holdouts

Feel free to amend or add information as needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Kansas: For the moment, the governor still appears to be defying the ruling by refusing to recognize same-sex marriages at the state level.[1]

The odd thing about KS is that their AG has admitted in court that Obergefell is law, and has told the court that they are following it now. The Gov seems to be going: well, we'll see about implementation, don't call us we'll call you... Difbobatl (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think in the near future the governor will finally concede. His language is getting weaker and weaker with each statement he makes on the issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like Jindal he is running out of lies to tell. Difbobatl (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

One story [2] seemed to intimate a legislative solution ... they're not back until 2016. Mw843 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If they keep dragging their feet, some judge will order them to do it way before we get to 2016. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The legislative "solution" has nothing to do with recognition, he just wants it to be easier for clerks to not offer licenses. Some judge will order them next week. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. Difbobatl (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Puerto Rico: Governor's executive order requires compliance with Obergefell ruling by mid-July.[3] Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• U.S. Virgin Islands: Governor has said he will issue an executive order requiring compliance with Obergefell decision.[4] No hard information on when.

• Northern Mariana Islands: Governor has said the territory will comply with the ruling.[5] No hard information on when.

• American Samoa: Still uncertainty as to whether the Obergefell ruling applies to the island and no information as to whether or not the island's government plans on complying.

If these territories are of such earth shattering importance that they justify having the whole map (KS notwithstanding), why has no one taken my suggestion to shrink the continental US [KS would still be seen clearly] and make the territories larger, so people can actually see what remains non-dark blue on this map? Maybe they could be enlarged and put the the right of the east coast? I don't have the software to do this myself, but it makes sense. Njsustain (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I created a version of the map that just contains the territories: File:Same-sex_marriage_in_US_territories.svg. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we should remove the big map, and either use this territory map on the territory section or just go for a table. Difbobatl (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the territories in isolation begs the question - why not just present this data in tabular format? Currently they are just a few boxes with colored shapes in them, and aren't particularly useful to someone who does not know which shape corresponds to which territory (this is equally problematic when they are an inset in a larger map). Same goes for the mainland; now that only one state isn't dark blue, unless someone has the context of knowing that particular state is Kansas, the only thing it conveys is "one of these states is not like the others". I really think the map has now outlived its purpose and the information it is trying to convey would be better served in a simple table that named the states/territories not in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling. Shereth 21:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually like the territorial map. My only possible nitpick is that it says "US" instead of "United States", but that isn't really a super-major issue. Dustin (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the territorial map is few people know which image represents which territory (other than possibly PR). Give me one good reason articles shouldn't present the information for the few remaining holdouts in tabular format rather than a map of unrecognizable territories? Njsustain (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone has never heard of American Samoa/U.S. Virgin Islands etc., neither a map nor a table will help. Dustin (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say anything about providing information to someone who has never *heard* of them. I simply asked which would be the better way to convey the information. A heck of a lot more people have heard of the territories than can recognize their outlines, especially on a teeny tiny map. Njsustain (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Once the entire US is blue, I personally don't see any point to the map. Territories in little boxes are too difficult to recognize for a map to be useful. So, once Kansas goes, IMO we should retire the map and switch to tabular format.

Perhaps we could have a table with dates of implementation -- first licenses, official state acceptance, last hold-out county, etc. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• That might be a good argument for removing the map from the articles, but we don't have to retire the map when that happens. We should be able to look back at this map for historical purposes and shouldn't lock it until the entire country is dark blue. Prcc27 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with that. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

New information from American Samoa: AG of American Samoa reviewing decision, Territorial Government to provide comment soon: http://www.samoanews.com/content/en/ag-reviews-supreme-court%E2%80%99s-same-sex-marriage-ruling It appears that we might be able to change the color of American Samoa on the map in the very near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Superior Court Judge orders marriage in the U.S. Virgin Islands within 8 days. See link: http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/iphone/homepage.aspx#_articleb6e76b7d-c692-4c94-ae4e-4df830d22451/waarticleb6e76b7d-c692-4c94-ae4e-4df830d22451/b6e76b7d-c692-4c94-ae4e-4df830d22451/true Awyow (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like that will only be the case for 1 jurisdiction so I'd probably color Virgin Islands purple. Prcc27 (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Also, I think Puerto Rico's 15 days are up but I don't want to violate WP:OR! Prcc27 (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would you color the USVI purple when the source clearly states marriages will begin in eight days? Never mind Mapp had already signed an executive order. Same-sex marriage is happening in the USVI within days. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Mapp's order isn't in legal effect due to the Lt. Gov's absence. He has to sign it as well and the next in the line of succession refused to sign on. However, the court order applies to the entirety of the territory. The article makes no reference to it only applying to one jurisdiction. On a separate note: I'm monitoring news stories heavily about Marriage in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. Awyow (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, Marriage is set to begin in Puerto Rico on Wednesday, July 15th. http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/07/08/marriage-equality-victory-puerto-rico Awyow (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Same-sex marriage is supposed to already be legal in PR because it's been 15 days, but I guess some people decided to take longer to comply with the ruling... Also, I don't understand why Virgin Islands is light blue. The fact that same-sex couples can apply for a marriage license would mean it should be dark blue. Many states that legalized same-sex marriage that have a waiting period were colored dark blue in the past not light blue because same-sex marriage was still legal. Different-sex couples probably have a waiting period too so same-sex couples are currently equal to them. But I think dark blue would be wrong because even if same-sex marriage is performed, the territory won't recognize it until the executive order is signed by the Lt. Gov (and who knows when that will happen). So since same-sex marriage performance is legal but recognition isn't, purple is the appropriate color. Prcc27 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States

Please join discussion pertaining to whether or not this map should be removed from the Same-sex marriage in the United States article [6]. Prcc27 (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas is complying

According to Equality Kansas, the state is now recognizing same-sex couples' marriages, meaning only the territories are holding out. But the source does note that Governor Brownback is refusing to confirm the change in policy. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• The source doesn't say anything about joint tax filing and since the governor is being difficult it is likely that other forms of recognition are being denied while some forms aren't. Prcc27 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, well if the owner of this file doesn't approve, even if he has no evidence to back up his statement, obviously no one can make any changes. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Until you provide some evidence that the state fully recognizes same-sex marriage the the status quo should remain. Besides, some recognition isn't even in effect yet: "Effective immediately same sex marriage partners and eligible children CAN be added to SEHP coverage!! The coverage would go in to effect 8/1/15." [7] Prcc27 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • As Scalia would say, pure applesauce. You are grasping at straws, crystal-gazing, and spinning out original research. Stop wasting time and misleading Wikipedia's readers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • It isn't WP:CRYSTAL, the source clearly says that same-sex couples won't get SEHP coverage until August. And Dralwik's source notes that the governor is being difficult and the source doesn't say same-sex couples are fully being recognized. "same-sex couples can get their name changes processed on their drivers licenses, and that state employees can enroll their same-sex spouses in their state employee health plans" doesn't equal same-sex couples can file taxes jointly, visit their spouse in a hospital, be recognized on death certificates, etc. Prcc27 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I agree with Kudzu that this is blatantly misleading Wikipedia readers as to the state of affairs of SSM in the US. Kansas is no longer treating same sex couples differently than opposite sex couples now getting married. They would also have to wait until the beginning of next month to start receiving benefits. Your analysis demonstrates a misunderstanding of benefits, and you are clearly being totally obstructionist to the proper updating of this map. I feel administrative intervention is needed to address your obvious ownership of this map and the associated article. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, but you need to provide a source for your claims. Where does the source say that same-sex couples are being treated the same way as different-sex couples? A) the source only references some forms of recognition, not all forms and B) the governor hasn't conceded yet. Also, I'm not the only one against Kansas being colored dark blue! Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
            • It's not an election. We don't need the governor to make a concession speech. One source whose job it is to find out this very thing in Kansas (see below) has indicated the state is providing all benefits. All counties and districts are providing licenses... that is not in question. Therefore unless you can provide a source that someone in KS is being denied benefits and it is state policy to do so, it would be inappropriate to revert the map again and, let me guess, claim you need "more reliable sources." 68.199.96.18 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas is medium complying but until I see Kansas being force by judge Crabtree or Sam Brownback saying he is going to comply I say to left Kansas purple as is not complying fully.--Allan120102 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Purple is okay for now, but I support Kansas going to dark blue as soon as Brownback concedes. The standard of all benefits going into effect has never been the standard on this map. The standard has been marriage and recognition, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Brownback has conceded, he's just moving slowly to implement: [8] [9] Nonetheless, state agencies are acting, as these articles show. Marriage is available in all Kansas counties to same-sex couples, and the state is providing marriage benefits. Do we really need to run down a checklist, applying a standard we have not applied anywhere else in the country, in order to turn Kansas blue and be done with this map? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

BREAKING: Kansas recognition http://eqks.org/breaking-news-state-of-kansas-recognizes-same-sex-marriages/ I agree with Kudzu, Kansas should be blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Last statement about income taxes was that couples still could not file jointly, but if they can adopt as married couples, that has presumably changed as well, or at least will by the time it comes to file. Still a bit purplish, but borderline. — kwami (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit purplish? Oh, for crying out loud. Unless there is evidence people are systematically having tax returns rejected (kind of difficult for that to happen in July) that is not a reason to pretend Kansas is some kind of rogue state. Newsflash, people have been denied and will be denied benefits due them all over the country. That doesn't mean it's up to this map or article to hem and haw about what states WE feel really have marriage equality and which don't. This is bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, not a productive discussion that is improving WP. Really, can we move on now? Better territorial maps are needed to represent the current situation in the US. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Since we aren't in tax filing season, I doubt there are any same-sex couples in Kansas who are currently trying to file a joint tax return, so it's kind of a moot point anyway. I have little doubt that come next tax season, same-sex couples will be able to file jointly in Kansas. Regardless, I don't think that this is enough to keep Kansas from being blue on the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Any word about hospital visitation, death certificates, etc. and it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that by tax season they will recognize same-sex couples for tax purposes when as of now they haven't announced that they will be. There are probably more than just 5 benefits provided with marriage and instead of trying to make sure every benefit that is given to different sex couples is given to same-sex couples, we should wait for the governor's concession or for a district court to order the state to fully recognize same-sex marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, strongly. Same sex couples are being given marriage licenses throughout the state. It's your burden to prove that for some reason known only to you that this last state couldn't possibly ever be fully blue, and that unless some gala spectacle is made out of handing out benefits that you can't accept it. I'm sorry, but it is not necessary to prove beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that every single person in Kansas is receiving every possible benefit before changing it to blue. There was and is ample information available to have reason to believe KS is blue. That it was the last state does not mean that there is a greater burden of proof nor that you have a right to dig your heels in the dirt. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I will point out that A) the governor never ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages, B) for tax filing purposes- same-sex couples are still being denied recognition and even if nobody can get tax returns (which I'm pretty sure happens after filing taxes anyways so that doesn't make sense) or file taxes now- it is WP:CRYSTAL to assume that by tax season they will receive recognition when there's been no announcement pertaining to that, and C) the burden of proof lies with you because unless I missed the governor ordering full compliance- recognition is only being given on agencies' own initiative and I don't think it's possible to track every state agency and every benefit possible. If you provide a source that says ever agency is recognizing and every benefit that can possibly be given is given, or that the governor is ordering the state to fully comply then I could understand where you're coming from. But until then- if you can't do that then there's no point in arguing with you! Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is that Kansas should be blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Awyow: That's debatable, just because more people "vote" for dark blue doesn't change the fact that same-sex couples are being denied recognition for tax purposes! And even if this was a vote, the vote would be slim 5-3. But since it's not a vote, it's about who has the strongest arguments and AFAIC same-sex couples aren't being treated equally which means Kansas is complicated. Prcc27 (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not complicated. You have zero evidence anyone is being denied any benefits, and no one agrees with you that as of today Kansas shouldn't be blue. Give it up, honey. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Honey, this source notes that same-sex couples are being denied recognition! And Kwami seems to agree with me that Kansas shouldn't be dark blue so that's not true. Prcc27 (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• From that source I just provided: "Kansas is the last state to recognize same-sex couples’ marriages as a matter of state policy – and even then, that recognition remains incomplete." Same-sex marriage isn't fully recognized so purple is the appropriate color. We can't go against the WP:Reliable Sources and claim that Kansas is fully complying when the sources say otherwise! Prcc27 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Prcc27, most state agencies in Kansas are complying as of today and Gov. Brownback conceded and issued an executive order protecting clergymen and religious organizations in the State of Kansas. Brownback stated that Kansas must abide by the U.S. Constitution and the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. https://governor.ks.gov/media-room/executive-orders Your standard of 100% = recognition has never been the standard for this map. From the article you just cited, it said that the department is implementing changes. If you are so concerned over tax filing, then create a map for "Joint Tax Filing for Same Sex Couples in the United States." This map is for marriage and recognition, not implementation of departmental changes for certain benefits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awyow (talk • contribs) 00:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I feel like there should either be 100% recognition or the governor should order the state to comply. Can you please quote the part where he says that the state has to recognize same-sex marriages...? I'm having a hard time interpreting it that way without violating WP:OR! Prcc27 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• From the WP:OR page: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." So trying to interpret the primary source that way violates WP:OR! Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I linked the executive order and not the press release and statements by Brownback. http://governor.ks.gov/media-room/media-releases/2015/07/07/governor-sam-brownback-issues-executive-order-protecting-the-religious-freedom-of-kansas-clergy-and-religious-organizations Awyow (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if that qualifies as a secondary source or not.. Prcc27 (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

From the other Talk page, posted by Htonl: Kansas has now conceded, apparently:

The order comes a day after Brownback quietly allowed state agencies to comply with the high court's ruling, so couples can now do things like place state workers’ spouses on health care plans.

[...]

Eileen Hawley, Brownback’s spokeswoman, on Tuesday downplayed the move to finally implement the high court's decision, saying it wasn’t a “directive” from the governor’s office. They had been undergoing “a thoughtful process” to comply with the June 26 high court ruling, she said.

“We are a nation of laws and we will comply with the laws of the nation,” Hawley said.

Awyow (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

But the real question is whether Prcc27 concedes. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to be a Debby downer but the spokeswoman even said the governor didn't give a directive. And yes, she said that they will comply with the laws but when? Also, state agencies are allowed to comply, do you know if they have to comply? But the governor's "concession" seems half-assed to me tbh! Prcc27 (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're waiting for Sam Brownback to address the state, tears in his eyes, as he announces his personal capitulation to the cause of marriage equality, you will be waiting a long time. In no other state have we applied the checklist-style standard you want for Kansas. The fight is over; an obdurate right-wing ideologue like Brownback isn't about to make a big show of complying, but by all accounts, the state is doing it anyway. Same-sex marriage is legal and recognized throughout the state of Kansas. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually we have applied this checklist to every state, it's precisely what we've done. We colored states dark blue when A) the governor or AG conceded/issued an executive order or B) a federal court directly ordered the state to comply. The state is not complying by "all accounts" because it isn't being recognized for tax purposes and possibly other purposes as well. Prcc27 (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas update: [10] Prcc27 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just gonna leave this here... "Instead of ordering state agencies to immediately comply with Obergefell, Brownback doubled down on his anti-LGBT bigotry and told his agencies how to avoid compliance." [11] Prcc27 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Islands stalled

The Governor has signed the executive order, but the Lt. Governor is out of the territory, and the President of the Senate (his designated replacement) won't sign off of the order becoming effective. Mw843 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully, the Superior Court has stepped in and rendered the situation moot: [12] Judge Dunston said even though the legislature hasn't acted, the SCOTUS precedent applies, so the court will. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

So licenses on the 15th, but no recognition, etcetera, until the Lt. Gov. returns, the President of the Senate relents, or someone gets in front of a judge? Mw843 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I think we should leave it up to reliable secondary sources to figure that out rather than speculating. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And actually, from that story, we can say licenses are available ... everybody has an 8 day wait. Mw843 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. VI should be purple with a footnote that says same-sex marriage is licensed but not recognized! Prcc27 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No. If a source states that SSM is licensed but explicitly not recognized, produce it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's not how it works. The judge didn't order the territory to recognize same-sex marriages and if there isn't a source that says same-sex marriage is recognized then we have to assume the status quo hasn't changed! Prcc27 (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the old adage about what happens when you assume? Please read WP:OR again. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's not WP:OR because Virgin Islands defines marriage as between a man and a woman but a judge ordered same-sex marriage licenses to be issued. The judge didn't order recognition and until there is a WP:reliable source that says the territory is fully recognizing same-sex marriage then recognition is still banned. Prcc27 (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this article, recognition is occurring with benefits. The executive order will likely be signed on Wednesday, July 15th. http://stcroixsource.com/content/news/local-news/2015/07/13/superior-court-move-forward-same-sex-marriage-licenses Awyow (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything about Virgin Islands recognizing same-sex marriages... Prcc27 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The access to benefits was your standard of recognition over the Kansas dispute. "The ruling also gives lawfully married same sex couples the equal rights to put their spouses on their health insurance, designate beneficiaries, designate individuals to make decisions on their behalf in their time of illness, and file join tax returns at Bureau of Internal Revenue." -From the article. Awyow (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure "the ruling" is referring to Obergefell and the article doesn't say those benefits are being given to Virgin Islanders... All it says it that same-sex couples in general can receive those benefits per Obergefell. But it doesn't say that same-sex marriage recognition has been implemented. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the article's wording but IMHO the article doesn't clearly say that same-sex marriages are recognized in Virgin Islands. Prcc27 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think VI and MP should both be either pink or light blue, until it can be verified that each has full recognition, and also to distinguish them from the dark blue. Samoa should be a completely different color since the ruling may not be applied there... intense yellow maybe; the situation isn't "complicated" there... it just isn't applicable. And the purple there is also indistinguishable from the dark blue on the main map. Njsustain (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I support USVI going to light blue, if not dark blue. Plus the Executive Order will likely be signed tomorrow. I'm fine with the Northern Mariana Islands remaining pink for now. American Samoa is still ambiguous. It has not been determined whether the ruling applies, still waiting on their AG to make a statement on the matter. Plus the precedent would apply if American Samoans are deemed as citizens in a ruling from a current lawsuit in the DC Circuit. Awyow (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It can certainly wait for tomorrow if an announcement is expected. If it goes dark blue then MP might as well just remain pink then. But the color of Samoa needs to be changed in any case. If the map should still be updated, then people need to be able to see that Samoa is not the same color as the states. Bright red or yellow or whatever... but right now it doesn't look any different than the dark blue. Njsustain (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands should be pink unless there's an effective date for same-sex marriage legislation. Virgin Islands should be purple because same-sex marriage is already licensed but recognition is in transition so things are "complicated" enough for the purple coloring! Prcc27 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

→:::You're not addressing what I'm saying, at all. You have this idea in your head that certain colors represent certain notions. They represent what we want them to represent. Right now you and others are just having a juvenile edit war for a graphic which should have long since been retired. There are three American territories that don't have full, total, complete marriage equality in practice. All that requires is three footnotes, not a symposium over what to color each of the three. I would change the map myself but don't have the ability to do so. There should be two colors, dark blue and gray, and there should be three footnotes for the three gray territories. But since I have no ability to change the map I'll just enjoy watching people having conniptions over the colors of the three itty bitty territories.

Just curious, what do y'all plan to do when/if the map is all dark blue? Have edit wars about what to put in the footnotes for the single color key? Njsustain (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, why else would people be editing Wikipedia?Naraht (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the "standard" y'all were allegedly going by, i.e. whether the governor had "conceded", Virgin Islands should be dark blue. The Governor has more than conceded... he signed an executive order. It's a done deal. Yes, the Lt. gov needs to sign that he witnessed the gov's signature, but that is pretty much the definition of a "mere formality." Marriage licenses have already been issued to same sex couples for goodness sake. Please follow "your own" rules, and someone please make VI dark blue so we can tidy up the map and its notes for now. The last two territories will probably not be resolved for some time. Njsustain (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• But the lt. Gov hasn't conceded and if the lt. Gov declines to sign it then what happens? Either way, I can't change the map because I'm on a mobile device. Prcc27 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a concession. It's an acknowledgment of the governor's signature. Anyway as you can see from the multitude of people who have reverted your reverts on the Same sex unions template, the consensus is Clearly that there is full marriage equality in VI. If you care to update the graphic to dark blue when you are able to, it would be appreciated by all those editors and would make the map more accurate for viewers. The footnotes can then be updated for AS and MP. A note can remain about VI if you really think it's helpful, but I don't think it's important information, and keeping VI anything other than Dark blue is misleading. Njsustain (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

AFAIC, the executive order still needs the Lt. gov's signature so same-sex marriage remains illegal! Prcc27 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop shouting at me, as per WP:SHOUT. You use exclamation points constantly and it is equivalent. As per WP:OR your speculation that a procedural formality will not take place is not a reason for you to stop others from editing an article. I can't force you to edit the map but as you have been edit warring with multiple people over VI legalization I will call you on any further such edits. Stop... just stop already. Njsustain (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Due to your clear intransigence, and refusal to accept the clear consensus on VI both here and at other files, I have gone ahead with changes to the map. You clearly have some motive other than improving WP. I don't think it's appropriate nor productive to speculate what that motive is, but you've clearly been obstructing progress. If you wish to be constructive and move along with the clear consensus, I suggest you work with others rather than against them and use your editor to make VI dark blue.

In addition, I'm asking you to please stop harping on "past practice" for everything. A) It is irrelevant... there is nothing that says we have to conform to previous practices in articles. B) Since Obergefell the situation is obviously completely different. There are new practices to put in place now based on the new situations on the ground. Njsustain (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Did we color Puerto Rico dark blue after the governor signed an executive order..? No, we waited until it went into effect. Also, re-read WP:SHOUT again because it doesn't say exclamation points are considered shouting! Prcc27 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with light blue, but since same-sex marriage is already partially legal- only recognition is pending not performance. Striping it dark blue for performance and light blue for recognition pending would make more sense but current consensus is use purple for partial legality! Prcc27 (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense. Consensus is absolutely clear that there is full legality in VI. You are the only one who disagrees. THE ONLY ONE!!!!!! The Governor has signed the order. Re-read the sources. Njsustain (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Stop ignoring me and stop shouting at me! It doesn't go into effect until the Lt. Gov signs it, period. [13] Prcc27 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You are redundant, annoying, and childish. Stop reverting. Everyone is against you. You've lost. If you keep reverting I'll ask administration to intervene as clearly you are the only person who thinks VI is not fullys legal and cannot produce a source to prove anyone is being denied rights despite the fact (that you conceded to) that licenses are being given. You can't expect anyone to believe recognition isn't taking place for licenses the government itself is giving out unless you have a source saying so. THE CONSENSUS IS AGAINST YOU, PERIOD. STOP!!!

Everyone isn't against me, at least one other user agrees with me that performance is legal but recognition is not. Either way, this isn't a democracy. All sources on the current status of same-sex marriage only mention performance so you are the one that needs to provide a source that they recognize. It is WP:OR to make those assumptions without a reliable source. Also, I will report you to an admin if you keep shouting at me.... Prcc27 (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Key and Footnotes

IMO, the Virgin Islands footnote completely mis-characterises the situation in USVI, and needs to be removed. Mw843 (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The whole key and footnote section is ridiculous and pointless at this stage in the game. Excluding places with full equality, the map has three colors for four territories. That's hardly the purpose of a graphic. Why not just have two colors... 1) dark blue: SSM legal, 2) gray: SSM not fully legal... see article same sex marriage in the US. The footnote about the native tribes needs to go to. They are not show in the graphic, so discussing them in the footnotes is superfluous. Again, this isn't an article, it's a graphic. Njsustain (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the English Key and footnotes. The Native American tribe legality has nothing to do with this graphic. I simplified other redundant/unclear language. I still don't see the point in having all these different categories. I'm unable to change the graphic itself, but there is no point in having separate colors for VI, MP, and PR. They should all be the same color because SSM is legal in all three territories, but not yet recognized, for whatever reason. They should all be gray or whatever, and when they are fully implemented can be changed to dark blue as needed. The footnotes can still describe the particular situation in each territory. Having both footnotes and multiple colors is redundant and pointless. Could someone please make the three of them the same color (it really doesn't matter what color, as long as they are all the same) and we can leave a footnote in for each territory. The only one that could really another color is Am Samoa as it might not be considered legal at all there, and implementation is indefinite, if it ever even happens (and it should not be purple as it is too close to the dark blue and is very hard to distinguish due to its size, unlike KS, MO, AL were... maybe gold or orange?). Njsustain (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the current key is wrong at the moment as there is a light blue color but there is no light blue in the map. Njsustain (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• VI would be light blue but same-sex marriage is already partially legal there..! Prcc27 (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You are again not addressing what I'm saying. AND CAN YOU PLEASE STOP SHOUTING? YOU END EVERY SENTENCE WITH AN EXCLAMATION POINT. YOU KEEP LECTURING EVERYONE ABOUT WP RULES BUT APPARENTLY THINK THEY DON'T APPLY TO YOU. Njsustain (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Using an exclamation point doesn't violate WP:SHOUT but using all caps (like you just did) does. I'm not going to waste my time here! Please be civil because I don't appreciate you shouting at me... Prcc27 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You're the least collegial editor I've ever seen on wp. You are always violating Wp: own, cuvil, OR, concensus, etc. You don't get that this isn't a wp:bureaucracy or courtroom. Everything you do us contrary to improving wp. I have no interest nor need in complying with your version of being civil, in which everyone must do what you want but you need not consider anyone else's opinions.Njsustain (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well obviously if I was violating WP policy (which I'm not saying I was) that doesn't give you the right to violate it too. Because if anything, that would just make you look like a hypocrite; just saying! Prcc27 (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Bwahahaha... yeah... being a hypocrite makes someone look really ridiculous(!)

Almost as ridiculous as say, being incapable of discussing article changes that other people are suggesting, changing article content willy-nilly based solely on your own myopic point of view and whim, (WP:OR be damned), and only making comments on the talk pages to make excuses regarding why you continuously revert all other people's edits to your own non-consesual version. Yeah, that would certainly make someone look ridiculous. (Oh, and er... "I'm not going to waste my time here!" ... yeah, definitely not hypocritical.) Njsustain (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of Graphic

The caption for a graphic is meant to explain what is shown in the graphic, in order to enhance an article, in this case states in which SSM is performed or recognized. This graphic is therefore meant to show which states (and by extension territories and DC) SSM is performed or recognized in. Statements about federal government recognition are appropriate for an article on SSM in the US, not for a graphic about SSM in the US by state. Therefore it is appropriate to remove such a statement.

Please note that consensus is not required in order to edit articles, nor is an RfC required to do so. There is no consensus to have the statement remain in. I addressed the statement, and have a rational reason why it should not be in this graphic. Repeating that the fact is "important" does not change the fact that such a statement belongs not in this graphic, but in an appropriate article.

Similarly, neither this graphic nor its associated article are meant to show which native tribes perform same sex marriages, exactly like it is not meant to show which churches perform same sex marriages, which catering halls welcome same sex marriage, nor what the price of tea in China is. It's been removed from the graphic because it is not relevant to the graphic. Yes, it's "important", but that doesn't mean that it belongs in the caption of this graphic.

As per the guidelines (not rules... they are NOT rules) of WP, if anyone has a logical reason to disagree with what I've said here, please discuss them here in a rational conversation, rather than simply revert, complain that anyone who has a different opinion is "shouting", post a litany of WP guidelines, and calling them "rules" as if you are going to tattle on me to the teacher. Njsustain (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CNMI versus American Samoa - why not the same colour?

Currently the map has different colours for the CNMI and American Samoa. One is captioned, "Northern Mariana Islands is determining how to apply Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges. Same sex marriages are currently neither recognized nor licensed," while the other is captioned, "Local authorities are discussing the applicability of U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges to American Samoa." To me those sound like they're basically the same thing, and might as well be the same colour. If there is some relevant difference that can be articulated, it's certainly not clear from the captions. - htonl (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands governor expressed intention to implement the ruling. His administration is working with Attorney General and local mayors to prepare the regulations implementing the ruling. No such intention was expressed by American Samoa authorities. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree there is a difference between what's going on in the two territories, but don't agree there therefore needs to be two different colors in addition to dark blue. The fact is that SSM is neither licensed nor recognized in either territory at the moment, regardless of the reason why. To be honest, I created a new map in which Virgin Islands is dark blue, and the two remaining "holdouts" AS and MP are pink (a footnote can describe the reasons each of the two is pink). Unfortunately I've never uploaded a file to WM commons and have failed at my attempt to load it to this filename. I think I could load it to a different filename, FWIW. In any case, if someone more adept at this could edit the current map and upload it to here (i.e. with all dark blue except AS and MP which would be pink) I think that would be the ideal solution for the moment. Then the key would simply be "dark blue: SSM licensed and recognized" and "pink: SSM not licensed nor recognized [footnote to explain why]". Note: I don't care what the color scheme standard used up to now has been... that's the past and doesn't matter. The current situation does not need 27 different colors. We just need two colors: Legal or Not legal... the end. Njsustain (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically, SSM is legal in the Northern Mariana Islands even though it has yet to be officially licensed or performed there, since the Supreme Court's ruling applies to them. We know it applies to them, because the government officials on the island have acknowledged that it does. American Samoa is more ambiguous, as we don't really know for sure whether or not the ruling applies to them, since the island's government has not acknowledged that it applies to them. If the AS government continues to refuse to submit to the ruling, another lawsuit will probably be required to determine if the Supreme Court's ruling specifically applies to the island. All of that to say that I think having 2 separate colors for the islands is appropriate, as the legal situations are very different. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That's understandable, though I still think needlessly complicated when there is only one non-complying entity for each color. But in any case VI should be dark blue now, and the map should be changed anyway as it's just so hard to see. With AS being small and separate from the other states, the purple is indistinguishable from the dark blue. And NMI are just too small to see regardless of how they're colored. Can the map be edited so the inside of the polygons they're held in are colored in rather than just the tiny shapes? Then NMI could be a pink area of the map, and AS yellow or orange perhaps. Njsustain (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it seems like it's becoming a silly that we have this map of the whole US, when the only part that actually carries any substantial information is the tiny blobs in the corner representing insular territories. I imagine that the majority of readers won't even know which blob represents which territory (except perhaps PR). Maybe it should be replaced where it is being used by text or a table or something like that? - htonl (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. But as you can see on the RfC on the Same-Sex Marriage in the United States talk page, that realization was the equivalent of starting World War Three. Whether this map should be actually used any longer in articles is technically an argument to be undertaken on the respective pages, but indeed whether this map should continue to be updated is perhaps becoming silly at this point. Personally, I suggested making a different graphic, with a smaller continental US, and the territories much larger and clearly labeled, but admitted I don't have the technical ability or WP experience to make this happen. Editors who clearly have this ability have chosen to not use it and instead continue arguing about the colors on the useless/unreadable map. Well, how everyone chooses to spend their time as editors is their own choice of course, but at some point, soon, we will have to admit this has become silly and suggest this graphic and associated template be deleted or archived.

And I also think it's good to note, as someone said, that as far as those tiny indistinguishable and unidentifiable blobs on the lower right go, this is not even a map! A map shows relative positions and sizes as well as shapes; this is just a table of (unidentifiable*) shapes in some rectangles. The actual map (the continental US) is all blue and obsolete. This emphasizes that the graphic (not map) in its current state is not useful and should be either heavily modified or scrapped. (*Let's face it, with most people it's a miracle if they can distinguish Missouri from Arkansas. There are few people who will glean anything useful by looking at those tiny blobs and the associated legend and realize... "Oh, NOW I know what's going on in Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa... thank goodness for this highly useful graphic!") Njsustain (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

New legend

Based on recent discussions, I felt this was much clearer. Obviously having dark blue in the key was superfluous: It's clear in the graphic that virtually the whole country has the same status, and it is well known to even someone living under a rock that the status is full and utter legality. So I simply stated that same sex marriage is legal *except* for those three territories listed in the legend. Since each color has only one territory, there is no point having a "generic" description of what each color means. And since the excepted territories are so tiny and not generally identifiable, it's simply stated in the key which territory each of the three colors is referring to and what the current situation is there. So in practice this is more of a table with a graphic attached to it, rather than vice versa. But that is the reality now.

When the eight day period is up in VI (should be very soon) that whole line including the color block can just be deleted. If someone could change the light blue to dark blue in the graphic, great. If not, so be it, it can stay light blue for all time, but the legality is still the same there as in the rest of the country. Njsustain (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort at simplification, but that just isn't going to work. If the color is on the map, it has to be on the legend. It makes it too confusing otherwise. Readers expect that if a color is on the graphic, it will be in the legend, and people like me who are colorblind could easily mistake the dark blue for the dark purple and just be completely confused about what the heck is going on. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. The legend clearly states "The entire US, etc." so I think it's completely clear. And your second point just doesn't make sense; if one is color blind and can't tell the difference between blue and purple, then what does having the dark blue in the legend as well solve? I would think that would make it less clear if anything. I mean, it says right in the legend that Am. Samoa does not have SSM. Frankly, the colors are completely besides the point right now. Like I said, it's really just a table that says the US is legal except for, explicitly, VI, MP, and AS, and the map of the US is there saying "Hi, I'm a map of the US, in case you forgot what country you were reading about". Still, tomorrow once the 8 day waiting period is over and the farcical light blue for VI can no longer be explained away as being any different from the dark blue, I'll see what I can do with the legend. Njsustain (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We need to go the other direction here. Now that each color is only used once on the map (other than dark blue), we essentially have a USVI color, a Northern Mariana Islands color, and an American Samoa color. Therefore we should remove the image and just keep the legend. The map serves no purpose, and is actually less helpful than the legend itself since most people would not be able to identify all the US territories by their shapes on a tiny map. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but the map is not an article in itself. If you go to the articles which use it and say "let's stop using it because it's silly", then by all means, that makes perfect sense. Or you can propose that the map file be deleted/archived... also time for that. But as for the map as it stands, yes, it has become a de facto table as the map itself is pointless. The USVI color is outdated also as SSM is fully legal there now (I personally am unable to upload a file where it's dark blue), so it's really just a map of the US with a NMI color and a AS color that are different, though unidentifiable and too small to see anyway. Njsustain (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The ultimate fate of this map is (likely) to be removed from all articles and archived on the Commons for historical purposes. But I really don't see a need to rush it. The process will play out naturally over the next few weeks as the rest of the territories come on board (sans possible American Samoa). Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I did go ahead and update it, with the two blues inline. There was no need to wait; SSM *is* legal in VI. If "you know who" has a conniption about this, I suppose we can add a footnote saying "Acknowledgement of the US VI Governor's order by the Lt. Gov. is unconfirmed", but as it's a clerical step, it is definitely OR to speculate that the VI Lt. Gov. has not completed acknowledgement of the order, nor that anyone would stand in the way of any same sex couples (whose final licenses will be available tomorrow) receiving the civil rights which the territorial governor ordered weeks ago. Njsustain (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Again, if you don't want to change VI to dark blue, it's your choice to refrain from doing so, but you can't claim the VI governor's order is "pending" without any evidence, as that is OR. However, a footnote in the legend that you feel the order's implementation is "unconfirmed" would be a reasonable compromise. I don't believe that is true so will not make such an edit myself. Njsustain (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can't change the map because my computer doesn't have wifi at the moment so I'm stuck on a mobile device. Furthermore, I already provided a source that the executive order doesn't go into effect until the Lt. Gov signs it! If I were you I'd stop reverting because you're about to violate WP:3RR. Prcc27 (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You are violating WP:CIVIL with your shouting and snarky lecturing, and are also about to violate 3rr. Your point is also invalid. That order was some time ago and you have no proof the Lt Gov didn't acknowledge the signature, a clerical step done as a matter of course. ~~

• And you have no proof that they did acknowledge it and/or sign it. And even if they did acknowledge it, it still doesn't go into effect until it's signed by them. And your claim that using an exclamation point is "shouting" hasn't even gotten consensus yet. It takes 4 reverts within 24 hours to violate WP:3RR so it looks like you violated it... Prcc27 (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I count one more for you than for me. An edit isn't a revert. Why don't you follow through on your childish threats then? Njsustain (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". I didn't threaten to report you to an admin for violating it. All I said is what I'd do if I was you (but I'm not you). Prcc27 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new legend

I'm proposing a radically new legend which I hope can be all things to all people and avoid any future edit wars. It's also in my sandbox. I'm asking for input before making edits to the files.

[deleted... obsolete]

Njsustain (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ideally, this map would be history and we could all stop fighting over it. But this proposal seems to resolve all of the concerns and niggles I have seen expressed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm okay with the current status of the map, and won't edit it further for now since there doesn't seem to be much interest one way or t'other.

New colors

So.... I realize not many people care anymore, but the remaining colors really should be updated.

• VI should be dark blue. Accept it.
• NMI is welcoming SSM and intends to fully legalize. I suppose they're taking their time because, well, that's probably just how they do things there, but it should be light blue.
• Now AS... The problem with the purple is that even if you blow up the map it really is hard to distinguish the color from the dark blue. Should be orange or magenta or something. I don't think red is appropriate because it's not "illegal" there by code... and grey is odd because there is still is the question of whether the SCOTUS decision applies. The territory does seem to be resisting according to news reports, so I don't think "complicated' quite fits the bill. It's a unique situation and should have a unique color. But it's not "complicated"... SSM is just NOT legal there right now, and it's not been decided that it's going to be any time in the near future, period.

Now, I can create the file with whatever colors, but can only update it to another filename, not this one. If anyone can offer me any advice on how to make this happen I will do it. Njsustain (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So, it is getting quite silly now, but the whole country should be dark blue, except Samoa which should be a clearly different color... anything... yellow, orange, mauve, chartreuse, melon, magenta, periwinkle, eggshell white, cafe au lait, burnt umbra, seafoam green... Njsustain (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD...

...and removed the map from the two en.wp articles where it was still present, for the reasons discussed in several of the sections above. Let's see if it sticks. - htonl (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Htoni: I fully support this move, although you removed the wrong template from Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state (I corrected it). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a  Self-trout for me. Thanks for picking up my mistake. - htonl (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Just be on the lookout for IP editors reverting you. I've had one doing so doggedly .. Shereth 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree, but if it isn't in use shouldn't thw file be nominated for deletion/archiving? Re: Reverts... break out the popcorn. Njsustain (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a Commons file (although this talk page is at en.wp) and it's still in use in non-mainspace pages here as well as articles on other-language wikis. - htonl (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, but this template should probably be marked for deletion. (And while you non-retired folks are at it, how about proposing Same-sex marriage in New England for deletion? Njsustain (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that even if the map was no longer used in a template you'd be stridently opposed in any attempt to delete it. There is no formal process for "archiving" a file; as it is no longer actively used in article space, it is effectively "archived". There's nothing to keep editors from continuing to quibble over things like the colors or the like as long as it exists. Shereth 20:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Shereth, It's unclear who you're referring to, but if it's me you're very mistaken. I would support the deletion of this file. Forgive my ignorance regarding archiving. Njsustain (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are misreading my statement. I am saying that you'd be stridently opposed (by others) in any (your) attempt to delete it. Shereth 02:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Well, after a few days it seems there has been no opposition to the bold moves. I'm going to call a spade a spade, and say that with Prcc27's absence there is clear consensus that the map is no longer useful in any context. I'm about ready to slip back into retirement as there are just a handful of counties, NMI and Am Samoa not complying with the SCOTUS ruling .. none of which anyone gives a flip about in reality, and they may take 20 years of legal proceedings to resolve.Njsustain (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The map shouldn't be archived until the entire map is blue. Just because it doesn't appear on any of the articles doesn't mean it needs to be archived. There are many maps on Commons not on any Wikipedia article! I'll be more active on Wikipedia when my laptop has internet access again. Prcc27 (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point in having a US map that is all blue except for NMI and AS (and eventually, possibly just AS) AS, but personally don't object to the unused template hanging around if it is accurately updated and does not have an "owner" who inexplicably resists making zones blue when there is clear consensus that it is time to move on. Good luck with your internet access issues. Njsustain (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands

First same-sex marriage took place in Northern Mariana Islands on July 22. See [14], [15]. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Like The map should be updated to make VI and MP dark blue. Njsustain (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Current Status - What's left.

OK. It has been basically a month since the Supreme Court Decision. As far as I know, the following statements are true

• All US State Governments are recognizing Same Sex Marriages
• A few County representatives are refusing to give Same Sex Licenses, some of those being legally simply no longer giving any licenses. Cases are ongoing. There are a few tiny counties in Texas that are still waiting on software as well.
• Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam and Northern Marianas are all more or less at the same status as the states.
• American Samoa isn't, but that's part of a larger issue (and court case) in regards to American Citizens vs. American Nationals that is currently in the courts. Obergefell still being evaluated in regards to this other case. (Note, this is the opinion of the Staff Atty for Lambda Legal)

If these four points are true, then as was noted elsewhere in the thread... Make everything that isn't American Samoa Blue, pick a color that isn't Blue (Pink???) for American Samoa and basically leave it alone....Naraht (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all true. The county issue is really quite minor at this point, and while not to be ignored, like native tribes, counties are not the point of this graphic. Regardless of a few non-compliant counties, SSM is available for people in every U.S. state, period. The problem with changing the colors (other than that certain people may keep reverting it and come up with completely specious reasons to not change the status quo) is that no one is both willing and able to do so. I can create the file right now, but when I try to upload it, I can't load it to the same filename. So in other words, I can create an actual file that's updated here on my computer, but can't actually do the update. Maybe I could upload it to a different filename ("...2") if someone could then change the name or something, but I'm at a technological wall of ignorance. Most people have stopped following this file since it's been (rightly) removed from WP: SSM in the US, and now that it's not used in any English file, and it's basically just creating a map of the US, so I don't blame people for not wanting to be involved in such an update. Personally I would like to see this to the end, or almost the end (not that I'm trying to do so prematurely), but it is basically just the custodians cleaning up the ticker tape after everyone has gone home from the parade. Njsustain (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have changed USVI and CNMI to marriage blue, and left American Samoa as "Complicated". - htonl (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

- Njsustain (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an order today (Wednesday 06 January 2016) stating the a March 2015 order by the Supreme Court was still in effect and that Probate Judges cannot issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/roy_moore_says_probate_judges.html Baltimatt (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Virgin Islands Update

http://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-virgin-islands-daily-news/20150727/281517929821418/TextView I think this should clear up any remaining conflict, if such still exists. 107.199.150.70 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever you are! Njsustain (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Islands defiantly qualifies as dark blue. Thanks for the update! Prcc27 (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Alabama back to purple?

Should Alabama be colored purple again due to the State Supreme Court going rogue again? It was purple back in 2015 when the State Supreme Court went against a Federal Court ruling (U.S. District Court) and it is once again going against a Federal Court ruling (SCOTUS). [16] Prcc27 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Counties not providing marriage now shown on map. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Scope of map changed to cover all polities

We weren't even bothering to use this map in the SSM in the US article any more, so I changed the scope to cover tribal govts, Alabaman counties, etc. and put it back in the article. My coding isn't as elegant as what it has for the states, but it's functional. The tribal govts are all the main ones (all the ones with populations > 5,000, plus some smaller), but even then some might should be changed from grey to purple or vice versa, due to poor coverage in RS's and uncertainty in some of the local laws (some of which have probably not yet been tried in court). Hopefully having them on the map will encourage ppl to find out more than what I was able to on my own, or even motivate the res to make statements. I also changed American Samoa to grey. There's nothing complicated about it -- there is no SSM there, Oberfell has never been applied. Unless things change ... — kwami (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Change key, add new color and description to key, and change color of Mississippi and North Carolina

Since the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges, Two states - Mississippi and North Carolina - have made it legal for State officials to decline to marry couples of whose marriage they disapprove of, if it conflicted with there religious beliefs. Although most of these laws do not explicitly state who they are targeting, it is obvious they were created to target the LGBT community. As a result of these laws being passed, I would like to recommend a change to the key of the map, and the map itself. Add a new designation of marriage legality reflecting the laws in these states in the key. The color for these states could be a lighter shade of blue, and maybe state as a description in the key; "State has a targeted religious exemption law that permits state and local officials to decline to marry couples of whose marriage they disapprove." Kansas does have a similar law in place, although this law only allows faith-based agencies to deny wedding services. Sources are linked right here: [17] [18] Religious Liberty Accommodations Act Senate Bill 2 (North Carolina General Assembly, 2015 Session) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AStupidZoomer,NowLeaveMeAlongStinkyBoomer (talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC) <

American Samoa RFMA

If the Respect for Marriage Act passes, American Samoa should be purple. Prcc27 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)