File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg/Archive 3

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21432884 --Prcc27 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriages are currently at a halt in Utah.. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me translate you because it might interests you for your map with ring cases. These two men performed a "mariage coutumier" (with no state agent), hoping it would make their union legal because of a new law about the power of these "mariages coutumiers". It would be interesting to see what it will give next... although the Justice Minister said "homosexuality is a sin which does not enter in the moeurs of our society". Have a nice day! Titanicophile (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd need judicial recognition or s.t. before adding that. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original thread

The colours are too similar. Could someone please change them to things like red and blue and green and different colours that are different and easy to distinguish from each other rather than different shades of blue? Malcolmmwa (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Smjg (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, there's an edit war going on. The people who have reverted have given these comments:

"Get consensus for color change."

Nonsense – WP:BOLD, WP:DRNC. OK, so the file is on Commons, but I somehow doubt that they have completely different rules there. But if they do, please give me a link to the Commons policy saying that a consensus must be obtained for every change to a file. Besides, where is the consensus for all the other updates to this file that have taken place up to this point?

"Free to edit does not mean free to impose possibly controversial changes; "improvements" is subjective"

How can the simple act of making an unusable image usable possibly be controversial?

"Hard to see? Let's check the privilege. Color-blindness simulators indicated your new color scheme to be majorly flawed for protanopics and minorly so for deuteranopics."

So in the old colour scheme (A), colourblind people can tell all the colours apart with no difficulty? I very much doubt it. But regardless of this, we need to consider accessibility for all our users, not only the colourblind ones. It makes absolutely no sense to revert a change on the grounds of problems with the new version (B) if A was just as bad or worse. The appropriate way to deal with it is for somebody to come up with a colour scheme (C) that avoids these problems, and leave B in place until C has been created.

— Smjg (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thread started by Titanicophile

What happened to this map?! The new colors are... making me blind? The blue shades were more convenient... Titanicophile (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised as well. See the latest changes to File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#filehistory. I reverted it now again, for now. SPQRobin (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thread started by Srtª PiriLimPomPom

Kwami's consensus map did not fail the color-blindness accessibility test, unlike the attempted new version, but I'd recommend United States' shade of green to be darker and Mexico's to be lighter. The first one might be easily confused with non-recognition grey and the latter with full-marriage-equality and SSM judicial case marine for both protanopic and deuteranopic people.

Nevertheless, I recommend someone other than the new editor to try it, because last time they tried, the neon-like colors were burning everybody's retinae. Here is the simulator I used: http://aspnetresources.com/tools/colorBlindness Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What is a "consensus map"?
• By "did not fail the color-blindness accessibility test" do you mean that the only colours colourblind people can't tell apart in that version are the ones that none of us could tell apart anyway? Moreover, as I look at my version in that simulation, the three simulated images all look usable to me, though admittedly the purple and blue and the yellow and green could be made more easily distinguishable for protanopics.
• "someone other than the new editor"? Why? Just because you think someone's first attempt at something wasn't good enough, that doesn't mean it's no use that person having another stab at it. Though if anyone feels able to come up with an even better colour scheme, by all means do.

— Smjg (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The older color scheme that was previously open to discussion (and various suggestions were made), of course.
• 1) I'm sure I can tell apart light blue from light green, and light green from lilac, and lilac from light blue, there are no challenges besides that. If they show as all blue to you, it's an issue of your computer.
  2) ...No. Look Mexico's inner cases (and if I'm not wrong the United States). I couldn't tell them apart from the general background at all for protanopics in your map's case. The older color scheme is a lot more accessible giving them consideration, even if it might arguably be indifferent or an improvement for us non-visually-disabled.
• Look, I know it could have been easily interpreted the wrong way... I'm sorry for that. My point is rather that people respected the original author's opinions about this map before... Even people who disagreed with certain things about it. I understand that the space is free, but I predicted you rushing to do a better version and again we wouldn't get the opinion of people who worked into this for some time. I totally feel like we who didn't participate in it also should have voice, but I prefer to prioritize them, even because they're good authors in other areas of our LGBT project in general. Not that we're bad Wikipedia editors. It's just that, hey, let's wait sometime to give them voice here. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Court’s order reinstates the state ban and will keep it intact until after a federal appeals court has ruled on it." And Utah doesn't recognize the marriages that were performed. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-stops-utah-gay-marriages/ The marriages are only recognized by the federal government which is why Utah should be "Federal recognition of marriages at the state level" not "Marriage open to same-sex couples" because currently- marriages are closed for same-sex couples. --Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Source... http://www.utah.gov/governor/news_media/article.html?article=9617 --Prcc27 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland should not be blue-colored on the map, 'cause the royal assent was not given yet. We still have to wait a few days. :) (hours?) Titanicophile (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, it was only a day after the final vote, so I guess it's not really worth to remove it now and re-add it afterwards. SPQRobin (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of the Scottish Parliament have a four-week delay period before they can be submitted for assent, so it's not going to be that quick in this case. I'm not necessarily saying we should remove it, though, since the assent is purely a formality. - htonl (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that, so maybe we should wait the month it will last to wait for the assent? Without assent, SSM are not legaly possible, making the map false... Titanicophile (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we should probably remove it, since the consensus was to consider it legal after the legislation is signed into law (cfr. Illinois, ...). SPQRobin (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. If it was like the English Parliament and there was a day or two before assent, I'd be inclined to leave it, but since there's a month to wait for Royal Assent, I'll roll it back. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a really good idea to write these two American States as "Court intention to legalize", congratulations! By the way, how are going the constitutionnal ban reverts in these two states? Was a decision given? Thank you! Titanicophile (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be several more months before the 10th Circuit Court rules, and if they uphold the bans being overturned, Utah and Oklahoma will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court, which takes about a year to 18 months to work its way through a case it takes up. The legal system is intentionally ponderous in order to fully examine the facts and precedents of a case.

But adding Utah and Oklahoma to the map was a good call. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer! it's going to take a looong time... Titanicophile (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was off a bit on the Supreme Court pacing; most cases are appealed to SCOTUS over summer and in the fall, and then decisions on major cases (which the Utah/Oklahoma rulings would fit, given the public controversy) are given by June. So if you'll let me go into crystal ball mode here, the 10th Circuit rules on OK/UT sometime around April, and if the decisions to strike the bans down are affirmed, the states would likely do a summer appeal to the Supreme Court, which could easily pass on the cases and avoid a ruling, if they desire. If the Supremes take the cases, they would likely be set up for a June 2015 decision. But that's a lot of "ifs".

For comparison, United States v. Windsor (which struck down DOMA) was appealed to the court in September 2012, and Hollingsworth v. Perry (California's ban) was appealed in July 2012; both cases were decided in June 2013. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Ireland will recognize ssm performed in other jurisdictions... http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ireland-recognize-foreign-gay-marriages100214 --Prcc27 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although The Irish Independent is reporting that full recognition is dependent on the referendum next year passing and until then, foreign marriages will be recognized as civil unions. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing actually "new". It's just saying (in light of SSM in Britain) that foreign SSM are recognized as civil partnerships (as explained here), and that once SSM is legal they will be recognized as such. SPQRobin (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky recognizes ssm performed in other jurisdictions. It doesn't appear to have a stay... http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-ky-must-recognize-same-sex-marriages/2014/02/12/562d0516-940b-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html --Prcc27 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, It appears that it is not in effect yet. http://wfpl.org/post/kentucky-must-recognize-out-state-same-sex-marriages-federal-judge-rules --Prcc27 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it falls under "Government/court announced intention to recognize" yet.. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stay has been lifted as of today 50.79.188.187 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should Virginia (along with Kentucky) be colored as "Government/court announced intention to recognize"..? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/virginia-gay-marriage_n_4785530.html --Prcc27 (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia should definitely be at least, as it is in the same boat as Utah/Oklahoma, with the court rulings being clear intention to recognize once the appeals are sorted through. But I would hold off on Kentucky, since it isn't considering full marriage rights, just recognition of other states' marriages. Once Kentucky goes through I'd do the Oregon color, but I'd hold off on the Oklahoma color. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find any source anywhere that says Vitnam has any kind of partnership and yet it's been on the map forever like that i don't understand why ? Bleach143 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam has been rolled back to the neutral gray, unless someone can find a source. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref at talk for the main map. — kwami (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get the importance of showing reservations with same-sex marriage in non-marriage states, but do we still need to show full marriage reservations in full marriage states? With the map not showing marriage-neutral and marriage-ban reservations (such as the portion of the Navajo Nation in New Mexico, ref) in these states by gray circles, showing full marriage reservations in full-marriage states with blue circles seems unbalanced, and having blue on blue is redundant; despite the differing laws. As well, if the US were to fully allow same-sex marriage, would we continue to add reservation dots to the map? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do the laws line up priority wise? Would a state acceptance of same-sex marriage overrule an Indian tribe prohibition of such a marriage? CMD (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, although a native couple could get married at the county courthouse and have the Federal and state government recognize their marriage, but not the tribal government. But what I'm objecting to is showing same-sex marriage tribes in same-sex marriage states separately; i.e. if the reservation and state laws align on allowing same-sex marriage, why show the reservation dots separately? I'm thinking the two in Washington, for example. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blue-on-blue is there because the res legalized before the state, and we never had a discussion of whether we should remove them. I suspect that once the state legalizes, a res won't bother, or at least there won't be a press release to let us know about it. I agree that it makes sense only to indicate them when they differ from their state. I don't know about grey for Navaho in NM, though, as I don't know what the legalities are. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we'd need to indicate reservation bans for marriage states, as a couple could have the state (and Feds) recognize them if they went to a courthouse, so same-sex marriage is de facto in effect on these reservations if the state recognizes it (afaik). If no one else objects, I'll wait 24 hours and then take off the marriage reservations in marriage states, like the one in California. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what if your marriage status determines residency rights on the res? I have no idea how such things work. — kwami (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that, either. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just found that : Nevada won't defend its constitutionnal marriage ban after have seen that on the EN Wikipedia! So it seems, in a few time, the Nevada on the map will have a new color... (but not now, if I well understood).Titanicophile (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is correct; there will still need to be a judicial decision before Nevada goes blue, and the state legislature might try an appeal anyways, although Hollingsworth v. Perry implies only the governor and/or AG can defend a ban. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

btw, it seems something is happening in Michigan about the constitutional ban? I read something about in a newspaper and the Wiki article didn't help me to understand the thing... Titanicophile (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Michigan, the state ban is in a trial, similar to Texas a few weeks ago. So Michigan could be in Texas' situation (struck down with a stay) in another week or two. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanicophile (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A final order has been issued with no stay and same-sex marriage is now recognized in Kentucky. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ky-seeks-delay-recognizing-sex-marriage-22698884 --Prcc27 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado recognizes ssm for tax purposes (and allows same-sex couples to file jointly). A (green) ring should be added for Colorado since it is in a similar situation as Ohio. http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2014A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/480C36805CEC7DA187257C300005E032?Open&file=019_ren.pdf --Prcc27 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chile should be yellow [1]. 187.34.251.153 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't have any standard for what can be yellow, but as long as we aren't sure it would pass parliament, I would not mark it as such. SPQRobin (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a green ring for Tennessee. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-tenn-recognize-sex-marriages-22919788 --Prcc27 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a ring was forgotten for the Mexican State of Colima? Titanicophile (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico's getting quite complex. I'll hold off another update for a few hours and see what happens with Michigan, but I'll try to get the Colima ring in the next update. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be nice if the courts and parliaments of these states could go faster! By the way, I found this link on WP:Recognito of SSM in Mexico, and I've a question : see below. Titanicophile (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 article from WP:Recognition of SSM in Mexico says that Colima, Jalisco, Veracruz, Puebla, Guerrero, Michoacan were going to legalize civil union. Five years later, only Colima and Jalisco did it (in 2013, so very late), so how is it going to the 4 others states? Should we color them as "governement has intention to legalize"? Titanicophile (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? Titanicophile (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A short mention in one article is not sufficient. This is most likely not an important issue for Mexican state governments; we'll see when it actually happens or when it gets serious consideration. The situation in Mexico is not as clear as in most Western countries anyway. SPQRobin (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's a bad thing but.. is there a reason Utah's ring isn't in the middle of the state while all the other rings are located in the middle of their respective state? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Utah's ring is trying to be on Salt Lake City since that was where the vast majority of marriages were. Since it's not too out of place I haven't bothered to move it. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was added there so then it would be directly across from Ohio. But since Colorado was added, I just thought it looked weird defeated the purpose. --Prcc27 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan should have a blue ring like Utah because marriages were performed in both places before a stay was granted. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-strikes-michigans-ban-gay-marriage-23012280

Unless the ring in Utah is there because Utah conditionally recognizes same-sex marriage for 2013 taxes. If that is the case, then the ring in Utah should probably be green (as well as in the center of the state) and there should be no ring in Michigan. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the ring is for pre-stay marriages and Michigan gets one. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this before, but I think the outlined regions in Africa with the customary female-female marriages need to be removed. This map is titled "World marriage-equality laws" and the description is "Laws establishing marriage equality for homosexual couples around the world." Now the African female-female marriages have nothing to do with "marriage equality" and the couples in question are not homosexual (or not generally regarded as such, anyway). - htonl (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder if there are any actual laws about this set up or if it's just a cultural tradition? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and booted the traditional regions off the map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I argued against the African outlines here [2] --Prcc27 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/04/299072507/federal-judge-says-hell-strike-down-ohios-same-sex-marriage-ban --Prcc27 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio should be yellow. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems all that would do would allow the recognising of external marriages, which is not the same as permitting them in your state. CMD (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same situation as Kentucky: a currently not in effect order to recognize out of state marriages. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/first-overseas-same-sex-marriage-legally-recognized-italy100414 --Prcc27 (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. The ring is put on the town where the marriage was recognized. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just recognition, would it be a green ring? --Prcc27 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana needs a green ring. [3] --Prcc27 (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are rings going to go in the middle of the state/jurisdiction or where the ruling is issued; or both? --Prcc27 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's why the ring was put in Salt Lake City.. United States District Court for the District of Utah --Prcc27 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was originally why, but the rings are more visible centered in the jurisdiction (like today's Indiana ruling, where the couple lives literally a few blocks from Illinois). I'm guessing the Filipino and Cambodian rings are on the specific provinces. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All rings are at the capital of the jurisdiction where they apply. In some cases that's not the capital of the state or province. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said they were where the decisions were made.. And why the capital? If the ruling applies to the entire population of a jurisdiction why not put it in the middle? (Btw, I reverted your last edit before I saw your updated explanation). --Prcc27 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's scary is that Indiana's ring wasn't in either the capital or the location the decision was made! :Io --Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had it at where the couple lived. Kind of strange that the ruling was issued on the other end of the state. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fix the Indiana ring? Kwami, could you please clarify whether the ring goes on the capital or the location of the ruling..? --Prcc27 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that rings should be in the ruling location for individual cases and in the middle of the jurisdiction for cases that apply to a whole jurisdiction. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it's been entirely consistent. Where there was a state-wide ruling (even if made by a fed court out of state), I used the state capital. Where a local county official issued licenses, I centered it on that county. Indiana is a bit weird, but since it's not really a local ruling, perhaps we should use the capital? (I don't know, just someplace that's not arbitrary.) But Italy: I don't think putting it some random location just because there's room there is helpful. People will think there's some connection to that place. Of course, we might need to adjust so rings don't overlap, or aren't on a border where they'd be ambiguous, etc.

As for centering on the state, how would we determine the center of an odd shape like Jalisco? The capital doesn't call for any interpretation. So I'd say place it at the cap of the jur as default, if we dn have reason to do otherwise. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Michigan? There was a statewide ruling, but only select counties performed ssm on the Saturday after the ruling. Right now the ring is on Detroit, the city where the ruling was issued. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably be agreeable to any consistent suggestion. So if the ruling in Detroit applied to the entire state, I don't have a problem w moving the ring to Lansing. I just don't want our choices to suggest one convention, and then have jur. like Italy which violate it. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC

I support the ring being moved to Lansing. Indiana's ruling was an individual ruling rather than statewide, but the ruling was directed towards the state of Indiana so... idk. But the ring is defiantly in the wrong place as it is right now. I totally agree with you about Italy. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ring already looked close to Lansing; I tweaked it a bit farther west but if it was on Detroit, it'd be half in Canada. I also put Indiana's ring on Indianapolis. The Italian ring is placed on the municipality that is recognizing the marriage. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 mexican states that should be outlined on the map. Those are Chihuahua, State of Mexico, Yucatán, Oaxaca, Jalisco and Guanajuato. Why? Because they all have rings that indicate that same-sex marriage has been performed in individual cases. This way, you can tell which are those states with the rings. Because if you are going to do that for the United States, the same same should apply for everywhere else that a political system of statehoods exist. Discover Earth Mysteries (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Knock yourself out. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know the outlines served a purpose. I just assumed they were there because they're hard to get rid off... --Prcc27 (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're easy to get rid of. I just haven't expended the effort to create state outlines for Mexico; for the US, they're sitting at the ready off the edge of the map. I made a request at the graphics dept to have quality state outlines added for the US, Mexico, and Australia, but I didn't get any takers (and have since forgotten to keep watching the page). — kwami (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template says that Malta recognizes ssm. [4] --Prcc27 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is our reading of the law adequate as a source? — kwami (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are looking for a problem where there is not necessarily one. Any jurisdiction recognises foreign same-sex unions to a status available in that country, be it marriage or a partnership. In most countries, partnerships give less rights than marriage so foreign same-sex marriages are recognised as partnerships (Germany, Ireland, ...). In the case of Malta, civil unions are identical to marriage in all but name, so foreign marriages are identical to both (Maltese) civil unions and (Maltese) marriages. This, in my opinion, doesn't require explicitly classifying Malta as recognising foreign marriages since it is equivalent to what other countries do. Other jurisdictions that we mark as recognising foreign SSM (Israel, Oregon, Mexico), do have a distinction: they do not grant unions with equal rights (Oregon does w.r.t. state law, but not federal law). So if we need to choose between the two colors, I would leave Malta as light blue. SPQRobin (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if Oaxaca suffer something similar as Quintana Roo and now ssm is legal but base on this news its supposedly is if you do it by amparos.[5].[6].--Allan120102 (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico is confusing, to say the least. This (English) article implies that it is not a binding ruling like the ones in the States but rather an order that the specific couples should be married; i.e. a ring like we currently have. I wish Mexico would have a national ruling or law passed to move past cases like this. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am really confuse because base on this paragraph "The implications of the ruling remain uncertain. That is, while officials may no longer use Article 143 to deny a marriage license to a gay couple, the state has not legalized such unions. But Alex Ali Mendez Diaz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the decision meant that gay couples in the state can marry through a court order" everyone can marry if they go to a court and ask for a marriage license, so its legal to marry but instead of going to a clerk you go to a court.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the current case in the other ringed Mexican states; the court process is longer and more expensive, thus not as accessible as where clerks issue licenses. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Oaxaca in the timeline if supposedly it was decide that it was still not legal there? I am confuse now. So its legal or not? So the map can be updated.--Allan120102 (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should Tennessee's ring be removed..? [7] --Prcc27 (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so.The case is being appeal so it depends on the ruling if its rule in their favor or against.--Allan120102 (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think @Dralwik:? --Prcc27 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if we made the ring beige? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dralwik:That'll work. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think beige is a good idea.. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ring on the other map should probably be removed though. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't these be baby green as well? Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close, they should be the pale blue for Federal recognition. They've been updated, and the World Homosexuality Laws map already had them. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, green, just like PR and VI. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those appear closer to sky blue on my monitor; by green I was thinking the OP meant the Mexico or Oregon color. I've got the confusion sorted out now. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 06:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that color's fine for the broad expanse of the US, but is really difficult to differentiate with dots. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way I sorted it out was to color India the Puerto Rico color and China the (then) Marianas color. Would it be worth the hassle to try a discussion to darken the federal recognition color so it's more in the middle of the civil union and foreign same-sex marriage color? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ring: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140512/couples-file-suit-overturn-alaskas-ban-same-sex-marriage . . . . . . Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, as it's a case to have those marriages recognized, and we use rings for cases where the marriages are recognized. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Last month, the state supreme court ruled that couples are entitled to the same property tax exemptions, despite the fact that they cannot legally marry in Alaska." So kinda like Colorado. Same-sex marriage in the United States also says so.

Alright, Alaska is added. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.

Also this map needs update: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_in_the_United_States.svg Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've having issues with that map in Inkscape. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rewired a copy of the overall US map to make the recognition map text-editable. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably turn Arkansas from solid blue to having a blue ring. [8] --Prcc27 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since top colors override and since the ruling has a set date it will go into effect, Utah should be green for recognition. [9] --Prcc27 (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in state marriages though, not out-of-state. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this blue, or has it been stayed? — kwami (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no immediate stay. Here is The Patriot-News article, and I'm trying to get the actual ruling off the Middle PA District Court website. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japan has recognized same-sex couples who were married in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.38.149 (talk • contribs)

Can you please provide a source for this? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin needs a ring for previously performing marriages. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consent (given by the head of state, here Henri of Luxemburg) wasn't given yet : it's just the second vote which has been skipped. Titanicophile (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. But I don't see it as requiring a revert; consent will come in the next few days anyways. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[10] I don't know if this qualifies as a ring or if it the whole state should be shaded.. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking just a ring, to be safe. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its just for the couple right now but that may change as the SC of Mexico have decide similar case among many states Like Oaxaca,Colima,Leon and Campeche--Allan120102 (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado needs a blue ring because a rouge county is issuing licenses. This ring should be placed on boulder county not on the capital of Colorado. [11] --Prcc27 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette and Longmont counties should have yellow rings since they won't issue them until Friday. [12] --Prcc27 (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Although Boulder is only 25 miles from downtown Denver, so at the scale of the map there really won't be much of a difference. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We got another rogue one! [13] --Prcc27 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denver is now issuing. [14] --Prcc27 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado should be blue.. [15] --Prcc27 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, jurisdictions should be marked as "Government/court announced intention to legalize" or maybe change the wording to "Government/court legalized or announced intention to legalize" if they legalized same-sex marriage (or other same-sex unions if that is common practice for this map) but it hasn't gone into force yet. A similar change was down for the United States same-sex partnership map Prcc27 (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody update Florida..? Florida should be solid gold. Prcc★27 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florida needs a recognition ring [16], and so does Arizona [17]. Also, since Indiana's and Wisconsin's rulings aren't stayed, same-sex marriage is "legal" and they should probably be shaded blue. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana should have a yellow dot. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Missouri needs to be green for recognition (without its blue ring being removed)[18], Wyoming needs to have a green ring for recognizing same-sex marriages (for divorce purposes only) [19], and I'm pretty sure Italy should only have one ring (Individual case: Grosetto) and possibly one or several dots since there are many cities now recognizing same-sex marriage.[20] Arizona and Florida still need a green ring for recognition and Louisiana still needs a yellow dot since the same-sex marriage ban was struck down for three parishes. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made updates to the map but they were reverted because they "ruined" the vector. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]