Just a heads up, there could be movement in Hawaii as early as this week. [1] Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply

What's going on? -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 22:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply

See the link and Recognition of same-sex unions in Hawaii. Hawaii will likely have legalized same-sex marriage in a few days. It just passed second reading in the Senate. SPQRobin ( talk) 22:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply

There's a link to the story in my above post. Basically, the Hawaii legislature is having a special session to discuss legalizing same-sex marriage this week. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but the Senate was the easy one, something like 21 out of 25 senators have come out in support. While that doesn't include the Majority Leader, there was an agreement that the Majority Leader wouldn't get in the way. The single Republican in the Senate also opposes it. The House will be the one that we'll have to see if the governor had the 25 votes (out of 49) needed to get this through. Naraht ( talk) 01:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Indeed. And the House will probably pass it with 27 votes or more. FWIW, Monday was Senate committee, Tuesday was Senate second reading, Wednesday is Senate final vote, Thursday is House committee. SPQRobin ( talk) 02:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Sorry, I was mistaken. There are 51 seats in the Hawaii lower house (so 26 for a majority), according to that article it is 27 definite yes votes,17 definite no votes and 7 undecided. And according to numerous sources, including AP [2] , if it passes this week, SSM can start November 18th. I'd be very surprised if any other state changed before then. Naraht ( talk) 14:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply

If Hawai'i does legalize same-sex marriage please do NOT put it on the map until November 18th.-- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The convention is to update maps once it is definitive (the law is signed), regardless of effective date. SPQRobin ( talk) 02:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Suppose if it were the other way around though and we updated once the law took effect, would this have a huge impact on how the map is now? Given that anything can happen between now and the date the law goes into effect I feel it is a good idea. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Once it is signed, I don't see anything that could realistically happen until it takes effect. And doing it the other way around would have a big impact on the worldwide map, since the legislation for England and Wales only takes effect mid next year. SPQRobin ( talk) 02:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

So you are telling me that once a law is signed In any country around the world that it is absolute and nothing can be done to challenge or overturn it before it goes into effect? I feel it makes sense to go by when it goes into effect because then the record can be put down that yes SSM has gone into effect and not be bound by any What ifs anywhere in the world. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Knowledgekid87, The presumption that a law (i.e., a signed bill) is going to be overturned before it goes into effect is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

We go by the signing date rather than the effective date for several reasons. The main reason is that the signing date is when most reliable sources refer to same-sex marriage being legalized. And if people see this map on Wikipedia after reading in reliable sources that Hawaii has legalized same-sex marriage, yet the map remains un-updated, it will lead to confusion. And there really isn't any good reason not to update Hawaii on the signing date. Once signed into law, there won't be any realistic scenario in which same-sex marriages won't start on the effective date. Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Even when the "reliable sources" say that same-sex marriage has been legalized, technically it wouldn't have gone into effect yet and most people would probably be aware of that. It isn't "legal" until the day it goes into effect- so painting it blue seems kind of inaccurate. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

That is your opinion, but on Wikipedia we follow the lead of reliable sources. Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

@Knowledgekid87: I was talking about this particular case, Hawaii, where I haven't seen anything that could block it once signed. Obviously for e.g. France we waited until the Constitutional Council ruled in favor. SPQRobin ( talk) 11:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

This is exactly right. If there is an appeal pending, waiting to see what happens is sometimes the prudent action. But in the Hawaii case, once the law is signed by the governor, there will be no possible legal mechanism for stopping it before marriages begin. Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I think the most reliable source is the law itself which says it isn't effective until November 18, 2013 http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indivSS.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=1&year=2013b -- Prcc27 ( talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Whichever we choose, we need to be consistent. This should be discussed in conjunction with the world map. Otherwise Hawaii will be shown as legal there but not here. I suppose too that we could add another color for legalized but not yet in effect. — kwami ( talk) 20:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Adding a new color just for a few days seems silly to me. We have had multiple discussions about this over the years and have always updated the map when a law is signed (or a court ruling is given) not at the effective date. We can always throw the footnote back on the map that used to be there regarding this issue if it still bothers people. Rreagan007 ( talk) 21:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Adding a footnote sounds like a great idea. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 22:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I have no problem with someone restoring the old footnote if/when Hawaii is changed. The footnote text should be available in the page history for all the different languages. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

[3] The bill is slated to reach the Senate on Tuesday. In theory the bill can reach Gov. Abercrombie's before the 20th, and if it is signed quickly can steal #15 from Illinois. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hawaii should now be dark blue. It was signed. Naraht ( talk) 21:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Already done - see the most recent upload. - htonl ( talk) 21:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Had to force a refresh. Thx Naraht ( talk) 21:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It seems that the current situation in New Mexico has the state legally recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

kunm.org "Couples can go to states that grant such marriages and then enjoy all of the rights and privileges that come with marriage upon their return to New Mexico." 74.71.129.126 ( talk) 04:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Not only that, but New Mexico also recognizes Same-sex marriages performed in the New Mexican counties that perform it. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The Supreme Court of New Mexico hasn't made a ruling on Same-sex marriage yet. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

So we should have had it green up to this point, and it should currently be striped blue/green, right? — kwami ( talk) 05:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Based on the judges' comments in the audio clip following the quote I just posted, a dark gray stripe definitely needs to be added to New Mexico. They quote a New Mexico statute which states that all out-of-state marriages are recognized as valid in New Mexico, and even the opponent of same-sex marriage concedes that the current legal situation is such that out-of-state same-sex marriages are valid under New Mexico law. — 74.71.129.126 ( talk) 06:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Sorry, that's what I meant. Though I still think we should change the grey to green. — kwami ( talk) 17:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I support using dark grey (it's not really green :p). Back when I added the striping for NM, the dark grey was not used and not in the legend. SPQRobin ( talk) 17:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Changed the map. SPQRobin ( talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

It passed the State House today, but because of couple of small changes, it needs to go back to the State Senate for repassage (which is expected) and then on to the governor. In order to have it pass with only 60 votes, it had to be changed from going into effect on January 1 to going into effect on June 1. See [4]. So based on what was done for Delaware and Maryland, once it gets the Governor's signature, the state is colored blue, with a number and a note in the various color explanations, right? Naraht ( talk) 22:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Agreed. This should go quickly probably, as the session ends in two days. SPQRobin ( talk) 22:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The Senate just passed it already. Maybe the Governor will sign it right away :) SPQRobin ( talk) 23:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think we stopped the tradition of overlaying the state with the footnote number once there was no longer more than one footnote for the map. Rreagan007 ( talk) 02:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

He hasn't signed it yet, so it shouldn't be dark blue. Saying he is going to sign it isn't the same thing. Could someone please revert? Bennetto ( talk) 14:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Agreed it should be reverted, but I don't understand how to revert, and even if I did, I'd want someone who understood what was fixed for Oklahoma in order not to screw that up. As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter when Quinn signs it, the date in which it comes into effect is the same (as long as he doesn't pocket veto it, which he won't, he *spent* considerable political capital getting this passed). There will probably be a public signing ceremony with lots of people who worked to get it passed sometime in the next month. I'm not sure whether there have been any Marriage Equality laws in the US whose date of implementation was tied to the date on which the executive signed it. Naraht ( talk) 14:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I used to be quite strongly in the camp of "change it only when the legislative process is totally complete". But actually, now I'm not so sure. When every reliable media source is saying things like "Illinois legalizes marriage equality", isn't it kind of WP:OR to say otherwise? Still, if there's a consensus to revert Illinois for now, I'm willing to reapply the Oklahoma fix to the earlier version. - htonl ( talk) 15:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It should be reverted until it actually becomes legal in the state, or at least until the legislative process is actually done. I'm all for it, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be some kind of political disaster or sudden lawsuit that stops it. 206.207.240.149 ( talk) 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

There may be headlines saying it's been legalized, but I haven't found any full articles to that effect. The question is, what standard do we use on the map? What if the legislature has scheduled a vote that everyone knows will pass? What if it's 20 points up the day before the election? Bennetto ( talk) 16:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think what we are getting now is mostly is to use the new york times as an example "Illinois Sends Bill Allowing Gay Marriage to Governor". And even in the ones that talk about "Illinois legalizes marrage equality", that's the headline, and the fact that it is being sent to the governor is mentioned in the article. In this case, those most likely to benefit from a Political disaster to Governor Quinn (the Madigans) are also in favor of it. As I said above, please revert. Naraht ( talk) 17:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Reverting this would simply cause an edit war, but it shouldn't be changed until it's official. Gov. Quinn has said he will sign the bill, but until that happens, IL does not legally recognize gay marriage. DB ( talk) 17:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

OK, I've reverted Illinois without affecting any of the other changes. As usual, Mediawiki is being temperamental and not updating the rendered images and thumbnails. - htonl ( talk) 17:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Apparently the Governor will sign it later this month. One the one hand, I'd love to see Illinois as blue; on the other hand, it's simply not law yet as long as the Governor hasn't signed it. Alternatively we could apply a standard along the lines of "Based on the facts at this moment, including what is scheduled to happen (e.g. signature), will the law take effect on the day it is scheduled to be?" This implies that currently there is no foreseeable blockage, and in the unlikely event there would be, we could still change it. SPQRobin ( talk) 18:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Per WP:CRYSTAL I oppose the idea "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place" What if god forbid the governor passes away from natural causes? I know a handful of editors would love to see Illinois go blue but I do not want the map to be misleading. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't think WP:CRYSTAL really supports your position. The governor says he will sign the law and that is overwhelmingly likely to happen. Can one conceive of highly unlikely scenarios in which the passed bill might not become law? Of course, but it is still overwhelmingly likely to become law. And per WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Since the event is almost certain to take place, I think we should just go by whatever reliable sources are saying. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply

From the SSM USA article talkpage: "The governor has said he will sign it on November 20, and we should wait until then to add Illinois to the list. The Hawaii legislature is also debating a marriage bill, and if it passes and is signed before November 20, that would technically make Hawaii the 15th state to legalize same-sex marriage. There is also the pending decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court. Adding Illinois now could cause an edit war later on over numbering should Hawaii and/or New Mexico decide on same-sex marriage before the 20th. For now, Illinois is the 15th state in waiting." I agree 100% with this statement. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Diff map, but maybe the knowledgeable people here could take a look at File:Same-sex adoption in the US.svg? I removed AR & FL from the legal states, because we're not listing states which simply don't have a ban, though FAIK the court's striking down of those bans might be equivalent to overt legalization (the sources we have don't say that that I can see). And the source for Guam did not seem reliable, so removed it. Also removed LA from illegal, and joint from illegal in OH.

We might want to consider a color for adoption requiring that you be married, and marriage illegal, in contrast to a specific ban on LGBT adoption. 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I found the image for this page used on a page on Daily Kos altered, http://i.imgur.com/IFjo3nL.png . Is this OK? Naraht ( talk) 18:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it is OK as long as it is properly attributed and similarly licensed. SPQRobin ( talk) 18:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It may fall under whatever rules govern spoofs. The edges of the states that have SSM are turned into teeth as if they are eating the other states. Rather odd really. Naraht ( talk) 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Missouri will recognize same sex marriages for tax purposes. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/11/14/2946441/missouri-recognize-sex-marriages-tax-purposes/ -- Prcc27 ( talk) 07:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Very interesting. I think this might be worthy of striping Missouri with the "limited/enumerated privileges" color. Being able to file a joint tax return certainly is a privilege granted only to married couples. Rreagan007 ( talk) 02:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't know, it would seem to be a rather bold move hence the plural of the word privileges. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

That's easily solved by changing the footnote wording from "privileges" to "privilege(s)" Rreagan007 ( talk) 04:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It's not recognition of marriage per se, but only of the discrepancy in fed and state tax returns. It's really a minor change. None of the normal benefits of filing jointly accrue to gay couples who do this: The don't get any of the tax breaks that married couples do. Legally and even just for tax purposes, they're not married. All this is saying is that you can file at the state level the same way you do at the fed level. (The gov favors recognizing SSM, but it would violate CRYSTAL for us to suppose this is going anywhere.) — kwami ( talk) 08:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think the footnote is fine. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 08:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It seems like that's why the light blue stripe would make sense. That category currently only applies to WI, but it could be used in general for states that have some recognition greater than 0% yet less than a civil union (and obviously less than full same-sex marriage). DB ( talk) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Given the massive GOP majority in both houses of the Missouri legislature, there is no reason to think their will be any legislative movement on SSM/CU/DPs. I don't think there should be stripe, as they are not really getting any of the rights of marriage, just the ability to make filing state taxes a little less confusing. I also think the footnote should be removed as it is too much detail for too minor a situation. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC) - rescinding opposition Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Filing a joint tax return is a right/privilege of marriage. Only married people get to file jointly, and being able to do so helps reduce their overall income tax burden. Rreagan007 ( talk) 23:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

No longer true. Now people who file jointly to the IRS can file jointly in MO, even if they're not married. — kwami ( talk) 06:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

And the IRS requires that you be married to file jointly. So in essence, Missouri is recognizing same-sex marriage for tax purposes. Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

But the IRS will regard you as married whether or not your state does, if you got married somewhere where it's legal. So what the IRS says means nothing about Missouri. - htonl ( talk) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Apparently it does mean something to Missouri when it comes to filing a Missouri state tax return. Rreagan007 ( talk) 23:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, it means "something", but it doesn't mean married. Unless you can demonstrate that when they say you don't get "other" benefits, they mean that you do get the tax breaks? — kwami ( talk) 02:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

But we aren't talking about marriage. We are discussing whether this constitutes "limited/enumerated privilege(s)". Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

If we do add a stripe for "limited/enumerated privilege(s) would we also add a stripe for "Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized". Just because you aren't legally considered married in Missouri doesn't mean that the state of Missouri doesn't recognize that the marriages are valid in some way or form. If the state of Missouri doesn't recognize that the marriages are valid then why would they let same sex couples file joint tax returns..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 06:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

You're arguing that ignorance is evidence? Sorry, we base our edits on sources. — kwami ( talk) 07:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Not only did I read the source. I provided the source. I based what I said from the source. I find this interesting because you have yet to provide a source that Igboland still performs ssm. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 07:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

If that's all you have, then we can't very well add MO. — kwami ( talk) 09:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think that this is an interesting discussion! Given this article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/15/missouri-governor-allows-same-sex-couples-to-file-joint-tax-returns/), it is clear that MO is providing limited/enumerated rights (i.e., the right to file a joint state tax return). The "light blue" stripe currently indicates *legislation* providing limited/enumerated rights, which is not the case here; instead, it is an executive order specifying those rights. Since none of the other "striping categories" specify the specific branch of government which has created the legal status in that state, I believe that we should remove the word "Legislation" from the definition of the light blue category, and stripe MO in the same manner as WI. Thoughts? Alataristarion ( talk) 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

As a comparison, discrimination protections (such as File:LGBT employment discrimination law in the United States.svg) include protections by executive order as well. I think it makes sense to make executive orders qualify as well, since the effect is the same as if it were through legislation, though EO are more easily changed/repealed. SPQRobin ( talk) 23:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

We actually have used executive action on this map before as well for the color indicating "Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized". I recall that back before Connecticut legalized same-sex marriage, the governor of Connecticut by executive order required the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Rreagan007 ( talk) 23:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's right, and e.g. Rhode Island too iirc. SPQRobin ( talk) 00:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

You're right, it was Rhode Island I was thinking about. At least I was close. Rreagan007 ( talk) 00:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It appears enough people here agree putting a lblue stripe. If I had more free time (grad school can be a ... at times), I would do the update. That said, one of you all should update it. I think the legislation vs. executive order matter is way too semantic (and would involve translating multiple languages) and should be left alone. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Consensus is measured by the strength of the arguments and not the amount of people say yes to it, the issue above has never been addressed therefore the blue stripe should remain off. Namely that "people who file jointly to the IRS can file jointly in MO, even if they're not married." - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

http://dor.mo.gov/forms/MO-1040A_Print_Only_2012.pdf Prcc27 ( talk) 03:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

What "issue above"? The bulk of arguments here are in favor of striping it. DB ( talk) 02:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Also, is there any evidence that in Missouri "people who file jointly to the IRS can file jointly.. even if they're not married?" My source says otherwise... http://dor.mo.gov/forms/MO-1040A_Print_Only_2012.pdf Prcc27 ( talk) 03:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

That's a primary source. Interpreting primary sources is OR.

Yes, I do: The previous sources you supplied that said same-sex couples, who are not married in MO, can now file jointly in MO. — kwami ( talk) 10:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think the question is whether or not unmarried opposite-sex couples can file jointly. And the answer to that question is no. So Missouri is letting same-sex couples married in other states file jointly the same way opposite-sex couples married in Missouri are allowed to. So Missouri has granted a right/privilege to same-sex couples married in other states that the only other people it grants this to is opposite-sex married couples. Rreagan007 ( talk) 21:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Exactly. Since Knowledgekid87's claim that "people who file jointly to the IRS can file jointly in MO, even if they're not married." is inaccurate does that mean we have reached a consensus? Prcc27 ( talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Except they're still not married as far as MO is concerned, and by MO law. Also, the "right" we're talking about is the right to use form A rather than form B. There's no actual benefit apart from a slight saving of time. What of all the states apart from Texas who allow same-sex couples in the National Guard access to state offices? They're granting a right that the state otherwise only grants to opposite-sex couples. Should they all be striped azure? Let's suppose that Texas is the only holdout. That would mean that every state on the map will be either blue or striped blue, with the single exception of Texas, and if Texas finally relents, they entire country will be (striped) blue. How does that convey anything useful to our readership? — kwami ( talk) 00:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The Federal government is in charge of the National Guard. Thus the asterisk "Same-sex marriages are recognized for federal purposes (by place-of-celebration or place-of-domicile) per United States v. Windsor." The National Guard is a federal purpose. State taxes are NOT a federal purpose. Section 2 of The Defense of Marriage Act states that "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." Missouri is not required by federal law to let same-sex couples file their tax returns jointly. Also, you state that "There's no actual benefit apart from a slight saving of time." A slight saving of time qualifies as a "limited/enumerated privilege." Prcc27 ( talk) 03:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

And most people who file taxes jointly will experience a tax savings over what they would have to pay if both people filed individually, so there is a tangible monetary benefit to it as well. Rreagan007 ( talk) 05:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

But that's just the point! They don't get the tax benefits! They only get to save filling out an extra tax form. — kwami ( talk) 10:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

(Just to be clear, if I misunderstood the sources and couples do get the state tax benefits of being married, then I'd agree that is a significant recognition (even though it's probably not much money), and I would support adding azure stripes to MO. — kwami ( talk) 13:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)) reply

Quote from http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/missouri-to-allow-joint-tax-returns-for-legally-married-same/article_0f654615-7491-5dcf-9d72-e0576b182c81.html

(Governor) Nixon said at the news conference that legally married same-sex couples would be able to use any state tax breaks that are reserved for married couples. But his office later retracted that statement, saying that while federal exemptions for couples would be reflected in their federal adjusted gross income, state-level exemptions, deductions and credits would not apply.

IF same-sex couples don't get the same state income tax breaks as married couples, then I agree it's not really a tangible benefit. BUT if you know anything about how taxes work, it's almost impossible that allowing same-sex couples filing jointly would not provide a tangible tax savings to them. Rreagan007 ( talk) 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Oregon is triple-striped, but it seems that the grey used in Oregon is the light grey of "No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions in state law" rather than the correct dark grey indicating "Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized". (See, e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/18/oregon-will-recognize-out-of-state-same-sex-marriages/) Unless this is an artifact of my browser or a Josef-Albers-context problem, can someone who knows how to edit these graphics please check the colors used in the map and make any necessary corrections. Thank you. 216.164.57.21 ( talk) 06:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)cb in md reply

Oregon's gray looks like it's the right gray (New Mexico) to me, and is definitely darker than the no stance gray of Guam, etc. I think it's just an optical illusion from having the gray next to sky blue and scarlet. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 16:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The illusion is fairy strong for me. Perhaps a grimy color like #897 would work better. Whatever new palette is used, it helps to check it for accessibility to red-green colorblind people in Photoshop's Lab mode with the "a" channel knocked out. (The current one is fairly good.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SexyGoat ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I've created a super-tidy, compact, human-readable and somewhat more flexible version of this image, suitable for editing in a basic text editor such as Notepad, gedit or Geany. Of particular interest is the use of local coordinates for Alaska and the territories within the insets and the decoupling of the clipping path transformations and the pattern transformations. This means that it is easy to alter the scale and alignment of the stripes to suit small regions. If the viewbox needs to be changed from 959x583 to 960x594, say, the insets can be moved without much trouble. The diamond-shaped area of Washington DC is now within the viewbox and the islands no longer require the white background. All areas, including Washington DC as land or as an enlarged spot, are now easy to pattern.

I’ve had a bit of a flag day, though, with the SSM legal status class names ("mar", "sim", "lim", "for", "bst", "bco", "bcu", "nsl") and their compund forms such as "sim-for-bco" for Oregon.

Here's a preview of the code.

With that in mind, shall I update the image and the style names described on this Talk page? SexyGoat ( talk) 14:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I'd say your version is an improvement, especially in editability, so I support. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 16:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Cheers! Wikimedia Commons informs me I cannot overwrite the image (and I guess uploading a parallel image would be disruptive). Assuming that you or someone else can upload the nice new SVG file for me, I will update the instructions on this page now. SexyGoat ( talk) 11:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Whee! Instructions updated. SexyGoat ( talk) 12:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I support the tidying, but I firmly oppose the abbreviation of the class names. I don't see any good the abbreviations do other than shorten strings, and they are liable to confuse editors. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

 Done, I have uploaded your script after reverting the abbreviations. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

All good! The effect of the nice syntax-highlighted code examples displayed in the instructions reinforces the benefit of the longer class names. SexyGoat ( talk) 03:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Extras

To tidy the coodinates of the US states in the SVG, I wrote a dirty wee Python script and used it on whichever version of the SVG I could find which seemed regular enough to me (I happened to pick marriage in the United States.svg 2012-07-21T20:46). Others may wish to adapt and use the script for other SVG images or to modify the way in which this one was tidied. SexyGoat ( talk) 05:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The Preview code has been modified to include an example of a triangular and a hexagnal fill pattern, each good for a radius of 150 units. I have no idea if they would be favoured over stripes but they are available anyway. (The triple-point of the hex pattern may be useful for small areas.) SexyGoat ( talk) 13:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Ohio recognizes same-sex marriage (on an individual case basis). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/ohio-must-recognize-marriage_n_3863068.html Should we add a footnote? Prcc27 ( talk) 23:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

If nobody opposes.. I'm doing it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcc27 ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I changed the wording, as I wasn't sure what yours meant. Also noticed that we claimed MO recs OOS marriages for tax purposes, which it does not. — kwami ( talk) 08:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

My understanding of the article was that it was the same federal judge but two different cases... Prcc27 ( talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

My bad. The original wording seemed overly broad, though. — kwami ( talk) 22:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Should the footnote go to "State constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other kinds of same-sex unions" which is what Ohio currently has. OR, should it go to "Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized" because the federal judge required the state of Ohio to recognize those marriages? Prcc27 ( talk) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The former. The footnote should be appended to the color we use for Ohio, since we're saying Ohio is an exception among states with that color. — kwami ( talk) 06:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

What should be done about the cities that passed Civil Union Ordinances...? http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_northern_az/other/cottonwood-latest-to-approve-civil-unions Prcc27 ( talk) 04:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Nothing as this map covers state laws only, unless you want to fill the map full of many confusing dots. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 05:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Then explain New Mexico. Same-sex marriage isn't administrated at the state level. Thus the footnote "same-sex marriage in New Mexico is administered at the county level." A similar footnote could be added stating "civil unions in Arizona are administered at the city level." I'm not sure if this map only covers state laws, as it was suggested (by me) that we add Native American Tribal Jurisdictions to the map as well. The title of this map is "Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg" not "Same-sex marriage state laws." Prcc27 ( talk) 05:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

There's a fundamental difference between Arizona and New Mexico: New Mexico counties don't have different laws, they just interpret the state law differently (awaiting the Supreme Court ruling); whereas in Arizona, local jurisdictions (cities) have their own ordinances in the absence of state recognition. I would be in favor of adding these to the map, but I don't see any clean way to do this. SPQRobin ( talk) 14:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Can't we just stripe it? People can always go to the article if they want details. Either that or we could add dots the way we do for reservations in other maps (and presumably add the rez to this one too). — kwami ( talk) 04:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't know if we could add dots for Arizona because if that were the case, why did we stripe New Mexico instead of only adding the New Mexican counties that performed same-sex marriage? Native American Reservations on the other hand, actually have the right to issue same-sex marriage licenses without the state stepping in and telling them that they can or can't. So adding a dot for Native American Reservations wouldn't be a problem. It might be a problem for Arizona however. I think stripping it would be better than adding dots because of how we handled New Mexico, and because it looks neater (cleaner). Prcc27 ( talk) 06:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I actually don't think dots should be added for municipalities or Indian tribes. This map reflects laws at the state level. In the New Mexico case, the counties were issuing marriage licenses based on a judge's legal interpretation of New Mexico state law on marriages. That's why striping the entire state of New Mexico was appropriate, because different counties were merely following 2 different interpretations of state law. Local tribal or municipal ordinances really don't belong on this map, in my opinion. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Why don't Native Tribes belong on this map? Native American Tribes have the legal jurisdiction to decide whether or not they want or don't want to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A portion of the Navajo Nation is located in New Mexico and stated they will not perform same-sex marriage even though New Mexico does. And that is perfectly legal! Native American Tribes aren't just "local" governments like you indicated. They are tribal governments and are recognized by the federal government as "domestic dependent nations". Also, in what way has it been indicated that the map reflects laws at state level and state level only? Prcc27 ( talk) 05:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

This map has always reflected laws at the state level. In the U.S., marriage laws have traditionally been regulated at the state level, and from a practical standpoint it makes sense to keep this map at the state level. The Indian tribe recognitions are interesting, but are of little consequence in terms of the number of people they impact. A footnote on them would be much more appropriate than trying to put little dots all over the map. Rreagan007 ( talk) 06:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

But marriages are performed at the tribal level as well. Also, the largest tribe has over 300,000 and has a significant amount of land (more than just a dot). Prcc27 ( talk) 04:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Nothing is stopping anyone from making a separate map or two showing what native American tribes on the map allow SSM or what cities/counties allow SSM or Civil Unions. We just cant cram everything into one here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

That is a wonderful idea! (In fact, A map was recently made dividing the country into counties: Why was that done after the fact that New Mexico legalized SSM statewide? Idk.) Prcc27 ( talk) 04:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

While looking I already found one: File:Same-sex unions by US counties and cities.svg in the civil unions article. So yeah go ahead and make one for the Indian tribes if you want. Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's the file I was talking about.. I could try to make one but it would NOT be perfect. I would need some outside help. Plus, all I have is Paint! Prcc27 ( talk) 06:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

New Mexico should be solid blue. Prcc27 ( talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply

It already is. Tinmanic ( talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

It was NOT blue until AFTER I suggested it be shaded blue. Prcc27 ( talk) 03:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Actually, I updated it around 18:22 UTC (13:22 East Coast time, as shown in the file history). Maybe the old version was still in your cache before? Not a big deal, just pointing it out... Tinmanic ( talk) 03:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Please remember to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

That was probably the case then. That happens to me all the time. Prcc27 ( talk) 05:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

A federal judge struck down Utah's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage today. From what I can tell, the judge did not issue a stay on the ruling pending an appeal and marriage licenses are already being issued. We should keep an eye on this though, because if/when the case is appealed to the 10th circuit, the court of appeals could issue a stay and we would need to change Utah back pending the appeals court ruling. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Utah looks like there is some strange color right along the border — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach143 ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I see that too. It's not there when you click on the larger version. Maybe it depends on screen resolution? Tinmanic ( talk) 14:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The encoding is wrong in the SVG. Right now, Utah is encoded with the full constitutional ban, with a dark blue color manually overlaid on top of that. Someone needs to go in and edit the SVG to make Utah the marriage formatting.

This is the SVG right now for Utah:

   <g
      style="fill:#00ffff;fill-opacity:1"
      clip-path="url(#clipPathUT)"
      id="g3923">
     <use
        style="fill:#00ffff;fill-opacity:1"
        xlink:href="#constitutionbanmore"
        transform="translate(218,250)"
        id="use3925"
        x="0"
        y="0"
        width="959"
        height="593" />
   </g>

It needs to be:

   <g
      clip-path="url(#clipPathUT)"
      id="g3923">
     <use
        xlink:href="#marriage"
        transform="translate(218,250)"
        id="use3925"
        x="0"
        y="0"
        width="959"
        height="593" />
   </g>

If I could figure out how to edit the file on Commons, I'd do it myself. File:Recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States.svg has the same improper overlay. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 23:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I just fixed it. Thanks Dralwik! Tinmanic ( talk) 23:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for being so quick! I figured out the Commons process right as you fixed it, so now I can fix the image next time. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 23:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I see there’s a fair bit of Inkscape damage creeping in already, causing the image to become increasing brittle, overloaded with accidentals and difficult to edit, ultimately tending towards a WYSIWYG Macdinking Hell. The last undamaged version was uploaded by Tinmanic at 2013-12-19T18:22Z and is trivial to bring up to date. I'd fix it myself but Wikimedia Commons still doesn't permit me to change the file. Could someone please fix it for me? (Remember to use a text editor, not a WYSIWYG editor like Inkscape.) SexyGoat ( talk) 00:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ah, is that the reason for the file size increasing? I'll try my hand at it. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 00:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Done. I'll go patch up the other file I mentioned. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 00:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Nice work! It’s good to see that the compound anti-aliasing artefact has been fixed as a result, too. C.A.A. occurs when two anti-aliased shapes share an edge or curve, something to keep in mind in case a radical edit is required. If the thumbnail is generated by rendering the SVG on a smaller canvas, the antialiasing and its compounding is more pronounced. That would explain Tinmanic's observation. SexyGoat ( talk) 08:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Is it possible to add Ohio to the "Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized" column? Of course if this is done, a footnote would have to be added specifying that it is only recognized for death certificate purposes. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ap-narrow-ruling-rejects-ohio-gay-marriage-ban-21311365 Prcc27 ( talk) 21:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Since it's not recognized until you're no longer married, I think it would be misleading to add it. — kwami ( talk) 21:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hmm... good point. Prcc27 ( talk) 21:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Does that mean Ohio should be removed from the "Template:Same-sex unions"? Prcc27 ( talk) 21:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I would. Maybe move the OH footnote up to the header for the US. — kwami ( talk) 21:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC) reply

There is a discussion going on over what to do with Utah at Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States#Banned again in Utah. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 19:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC) reply

WikiLove is important. ― Info por favor ( talk) 23:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Info por favor ( talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{ Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I updated the template in this diff with these footnotes to reflect Utah’s current marking as striped. ― Info por favor ( talk) 00:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

*Same-sex marriages are recognized for federal purposes (by place-of-celebration or place-of-domicile) per United States v. Windsor.
¹Law in Illinois takes effect June 1, 2014. Eight Native American tribal jurisdictions also allow same-sex marriage.
²Applies only to state-level benefits, federal benefits are excluded.
³ Civil unions are administered at the city level in Arizona. Missouri allows same-sex couples to file state taxes jointly, but does not recognize them as married.
⁴In Ohio, a federal judge has recognized out-of-state marriages.
⁵Utah's ban has been overturned in US District Court. The ruling is stayed while under appeal.

I updated the template again in this diff to reflect Utah’s current marking as solid‐red. ― Info por favor ( talk) 02:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Should the red colour in all US states with constitutional‐bans be the same as that seen in independent countries with constitutional‐bans elsewhere on this pedia?

― Info por favor ( talk) 05:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Survey 2

Please do not nest comments in this section. A threaded discussion may‐be‐had bellow.

• Support When I look at the map File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg, my brain thinks Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, e.g., have less‐involved to change their marriage laws. This is not the case. All states with a constitutional amendment have a constitutional amendment. A state not‐having included the ‘substantially similar’ provision in its amendment is too small a distinction to have such a high colour‐contrast, in my opinion, between two shades of red, i.e.
  
  I would like all states with a constitutional amendment to appear as a solid‐block‐of‐colour, as this would make more sense to my eye/brain. My alternative is to have states including ‘substantially similar’ provisions marked with a subtle pinstripe. The shade of blue in this map has already been replaced — with some noted opposition — with the shade used in the map of Europe and other international regions. I agree with this change. I think that the situation in Poland and the situation in Kentucky, e.g., should be represented by the same colour across the English Wikipedia.
  ― Info por favor ( talk) 05:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose There is an important difference between the dark red and red states: civil unions are not constitutionally banned. I understand your point that other maps do not use this distinction, but "marriage vs. civil union" is an important debate in the USA and merits inclusion on the map. The dark red states are legally more hostile toward same-sex unions. While you may feel the difference is "too small a distinction", it has been a major focus of anti-same-sex union legislators and a huge point of discussion in the civil rights and politics spheres. So long as accessibility is not an issue, I see no sufficient reason to change decrease the amount of information in the map. EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Support First of all, this map deals mainly with same-sex marriage not civil unions. Second of all, civil unions are usually created to give same-sex couples equal or lesser rights without calling it "marriage". Every state has marriage- but not every state has civil unions. It's not that significant whether or not states ban them because in the end, none of the red states have civil unions anyways. I suggest adding a footnote instead. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This map is about SSM as well as CU/DPs. The file title may say marriage, but the legend title is "Laws regarding same-sex partnership in the United States" Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Clarification I am for the color change, against the pinstripe. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 03:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose If we got rid of the light red we would have to get rid of the light blue as well and seeing this map is used in the civil union articles I feel this is a bad idea even if it means adding more footnotes (which can become confusing if used in excess). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Who said we had to get rid of the light blue? The reason why there shouldn't be light red is because there's no difference between those states; all red states don't perform civil unions unless they are striped. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• There is a difference when it comes to the state constitutions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per EvergreenFir and Knoledgekid87-- Found5dollar ( talk) 00:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per above. We do not need more striping on the map. Additionally, as noted above, knowing where CU/DPs are banned is important information. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 02:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Maintaining the distinction between states that ban only same-sex marriage and states that also ban civil unions by constitutional amendment is important, as the former can legalize civil unions much more easily than the latter can. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • So are we going to color Hawaii and Illinois a different color since Civil Unions AND Same-sex Marriage are legal..? In fact- if not, I will add a footnote. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Threaded discussion 2

This is my proposal for coding the SVG. An overlay of pinstripes could be coded for every state with a yes/no function.

• Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, and North and South Carolina have constitutional amendments with ‘substantially similar’ provisions. Tennessee has an amendment without such a provision. Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia define marriage in state statute.
  ― Info por favor ( talk) 05:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't think the pinstripes would pass WP:ACCESSIBLE. I have difficulty seeing the difference myself. EvergreenFir ( talk) 06:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Rhetorical question: would “ .I Iow. ” versus “ .How. ” pass WP:ACCESSIBLE? I think we should consider whether having the same colour as other maps is preferable, before considering in what accessible way Ohio can be the same colour as Belarus, or how to accomplish said accessibility in SVG code.
Mississippi and Tennessee, et alii, probably do not explicitly ban giraffe‐racing in their constitutions, but that does not make them giraffe‐racing‐friendly states. Likewise, I would not call these states civil‐union‐friendly (or less civil‐union‐hostile). This is not a map of the history of US state law regarding recognition of same‐gender partnerships, this is a map of current marriage law. I disagree that Mississippi is less hostile to gender‐neutral marriage than Alabama, or that Tennessee is less hostile than Kentucky. I would also suggest it counterfactual that Ohio be more hostile than Belarus. ― Info por favor ( talk) 07:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It’s an accessibility issue the‐way‐it‐is‐now because I cannot intuitively see where states ban marriage constitutionally (and not because this map uses a different colour to others, but because it has internally different colours). I cannot intuitively tell that Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee ban marriage constitutionally: looking at the map, my brain tells me that they have some‐type of more‐severe statute than Indiana, Penn., Wyoming, and West Virginia, even‐though I know this is untrue. ― Info por favor ( talk) 07:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I appreciate that ““marriage vs. civil union” is an important debate in the US…” and that “it has been a major focus of anti‐same‐sex union legislators and a huge point of discussion in the civil rights and politics spheres.” Maybe I am biased because I am from a state where the constitutional amendment was put‐to a plebiscite by voter referral, but I don’t see how legislators have a lot to‐do with the content of these 28 constitutional amendments. I think it was a minor detail which state‐plebiscite‐initiators included a ‘substantially similar’ provision. I don’t think there was a single initiating group that wouldn’t have banned all legal recognition of partnerships in the constitution if their state’s initiative process would‐have allowed it. The one exception is possibly Arizona. If a state’s initiative process did not allow initiators to include a ‘substantially similar’ provision, that is a less noteworthy fact than that the voters amended the constitution; I don’t think it merrits such a prominent distinction in this map. (or, alternatively, a distinction whose prominence is visually distracting to me) ― Info por favor ( talk) 10:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC) reply

The discussion can be found here: Template talk:Same-sex unions#Utah Again the issue being that currently the federal government recognizes the 1,300 marriages preformed but the state of Utah does not. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Since the distinction is made between states where their "State constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other same-sex unions" and states where their "State constitution bans same-sex marriage"- their should be a distinction on the map made between states that allow same-sex marriage and states that allow same-sex marriage and civil unions (Hawaii; Illinois). I suggest possibly striping these states dark blue (same-sex marriage) and light blue (civil unions). Once Hawaii and Illinois are added to the map I will remove the footnote that I added. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

But this is a map of SSM, not CU's. The only reason CU's are included is that they're a substitute for marriage where it isn't available. Once marriage is available, they're no longer relevant. — kwami ( talk) 01:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Once full marriage rights are extended, civil unions are irrelevant. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

True when it comes to civil unions versus amendments the amendments are more binding and tend to last longer. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

This isn't just of map of SSM. The title of the map is "State laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States." -- Prcc27 ( talk) 04:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Why are civil unions suddenly rendered irrelevant? Some people may still want to get a Civil Union. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 04:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I am saying once states attain Same-sex marriage, civil unions tend to disappear as redundant. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Civil Unions become irrelevant because they are being used as a "separate-but-equal" tool by those who do not want to extend the word "marriage" and the full rights that entails upon same-sex couples. It's insulting. I'm sure there are people who would still prefer that over a marriage for whatever circumstances fit them personally, but what is being fought for is full equality and that's what matters here. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Civil Unions are still available to both same sex and opposite sex couples in Hawaii. I believe the same is true of Illinois. Connecticut's court abolished their civil unions law. The original point that there are still laws that allow alternate relationships for same sex couples is a valid one worth discussing. 75.179.42.181 ( talk) 22:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I feel adding that though is kinda pointless and being nit picky about every tiny possible thing. And it would make the map more complicated for the average user unions will aways be a weaker level of marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach14435 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Bleach14435, you know what else is "nit picky"? Making a distinction between states that ban same-sex marriage and states that ban both same-sex marriage AND civil unions. If THAT is going to be reflected on the map then so should states that allow same-sex marriage AND civil unions. I'd actually prefer that none of them be added to the map. However, if the distinction is made between states that ban both then there has to be a distinction made between states that allow both. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

But a same-sex couple in a state that recognizes civil unions and not same-sex marriages might give them benefits if they got civilly united in Hawaii but might deny them benefits if they got married there. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I think we are getting a little off topic here, People can agree that civil unions have their advantages and disadvantages but the issue here is that should we include them with stripes on the map on SSM states. Seeing the trend with states that allow SSM has been states phasing out civil unions in favor of SSM I feel we should not add the stripes, either that or add a footnote saying something like: "Some states that allow same-sex marriage at the same time allow same-sex unions". - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't favor adding civil union stripes either, as in states where they have been used they have been merely a compromise on the way to full marriage recognition, and including them in full marriage states emphasizes a grandfathered-in retention at the cost of adding more stripes to an already busy map. D ralwi k| ^{Have a Chat} 00:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

The ban on Same sex marriage and civil union is the case in 29 states currently and the majority of the map witch I think would make that relevant but SSM and civil unions are only a situation in 2 states so we're complicating the map over a miner situation out of the majority. And by your logic we could add like 5 other things like Same Sex Adoption or other things. And it talks about if a state has SSM and civil unions in the wiki pages dedicated to the specific states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach14435 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC) \ reply

Bleasch14435, there are only 6 states that ban ssm and ssm only (not civil unions). A situation in 6 states- were only ssm is banned- over complicates the map over a minor situation out of the majority as well. What does same-sex adoption have to do with anything..? The name of the map is "State laws regarding same-sex partnerships in the United States." -- Prcc27 ( talk) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

True but they are there because it use to be much more then 6 it was in lots of other states before so that's why it's relevant. The map is already semi complicated it doesn't need to be any more and as I said before if someone is interested in the details of Hawaii or Illinois they can go to there pages. The way the map is set up is the way it's worked forever and it functions just find it's pointless to change it and if we where going by your example why don't we just go and mess up Europe's map and add marriage civil unions and unregistered cohabitation all on one country. This argument is ridicules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach14435 ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

This is an encyclopedia, not an equality progress tracker. If I wanted information on civil unions in the United States wikipedia at present makes it look like Colorado/nevada/oregon are the only state that grants civil unions and they aren't. 75.179.42.181 ( talk) 04:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Exactly; Thank you! -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

If you want info on CU's, go to the article on CU's. Much more complete info there than we could ever fit on this map. — kwami ( talk) 05:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Doesn't mean we can't try, within reason. EvergreenFir ( talk) 05:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok then why put limits ? Let's put stripes on states where some county's allow civil l unions or strips for states that have allowed marriages even though there banned in the state you could go on and on and on. And Prcc27 I've noticed after looking over your edit history you don't have a good track recored when It came to edits and looks like you tend to argue a lot Bleach14435 ( talk) 05:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach14435 ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

No personal attacks please. And don't assume ill intent. EvergreenFir ( talk) 05:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Kwami, the same could be argued for ssm. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 05:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't understand what that means. — kwami ( talk) 06:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Okay, this map's primary goal is to notate where SSM is performed/recognized. Its secondary goal is to notate where CU/DPs are performed/recognized. When the second goal does not get in the way of the first or over-complicate the map, we go with it. Having two colors of red to indicate what states ban CU/DPs and which don't does not get in anyone's way or over-complicate the map. Striping SSM states with CU/DP stripes does over-complicate the map. It is also important to note that these are institutions are often maintained because widows and widowers often may lose employer/military benefits by remarrying, which is a factor not relevant to either of the goals. Also, readers keep complaining about striping as it makes the map more confusing (=less accessible) (read the archives). It would be wrong to unnecessarily include more striping. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Also, California and DC seem to still have same-sex CU/DPs, if we are going to have a footnote (I don't think we should have a footnote either), it is going to be a fairly long one. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Would it perhaps be worthwhile adding some symbol – maybe a blue dot or a black diagonal bar – for states where SSM bans have been struck down in the courts, but where marriages are not taking place pending appeal? — kwami ( talk) 06:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

California was striped during its appeal, why not just bring that back? Oklahoma is complicated by the fact that no one actually got married, though, unlike California and Utah (though the state government doesn't recognize the marriages in UT, the feds do). Plumber ( talk) 07:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

California was different in that it recognized the marriages which had been performed. That strikes me as quite a difference: CA had grandfathered-in state-recognized SSM, Utah does not. As for fed rec, the same's true for Texas.

It's quite possible bans will be struck down in other states soon, as quite a few challenges are being heard, so it's probably a good idea to discuss this now. — kwami ( talk) 08:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I think in cases where a court has struck down the ban but the decision was immediately stayed (or stayed soon enough that no marriages took place) we shouldn't change anything, since there has not yet been any practical effect of the ruling. It would be a good idea, though, to create a separate map showing which district courts have struck down the SSM ban and which have upheld it. In the Utah case I'm not so sure; whatever we do has to reflect the fact that Utah does not currently perform or recognize same-sex marriages, but there might be some way to note the marriages that happened before the stay. But it is not the same as California for the reason that kwami has pointed out. - htonl ( talk) 12:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Cases being upheld would go on another map, I think, maybe w dates. But there aren't many that have been struck down but are still red, so I think they could go on both. — kwami ( talk) 18:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

http://www.scribd.com/doc/200169835/Utah-Tax-Commission-Notice-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Stripe Utah with light blue maybe..? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 22:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It looks like the same thing as Missouri. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

It looks like there will be states with joint tax filing allowed vs. states where it's not allowed. Colorado will likely make it possible as well. I don't think it's a good idea to mark it on the map; it's changing quickly anyway. SPQRobin ( talk) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Maybe, but same-sex couples might actually receive state benefits. Missouri same-sex couples will not. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Since Colorado already has everything-but-marriage, they might be able to treat SSM as "everything-but-marriage" CUs for state-level benefits. I think IL and NJ used to have something like that before the Windsor ruling and before they legalized SSM. I think if the only benefit is joint state taxes that isn't enough for more-than a footnote. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC) reply