Image talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the colors of same sex marriage and domestic partnerships should be switched to show a better distinction. Same sex marriage should be the darkest to show it as the furthest progress.

Contents 1 Statue or STATE? 2 California 3 accuracy disputed 4 Civil Unions - Domestic Partnerships - Legal Equivalents 5 Connecticut

[edit] Statue or STATE?

it says Statue bans same sex marriage... does it mean state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.53.69 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It means that it's banned by law, not in the state constitution. Kairos (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Be precise... State, Statue, or Statute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.8.5 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California

California does not yet have same-sex marriage. The ruling legalizing same-sex marriage does not take effect for another month. NoIdeaNick (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it is now legal, so time for a map change. And i'll be sure to do it right now. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't legal yet. The ruling doesn't take effect until the middle of June. To quote this [1] LA Times article, "Paul Drugan, a spokesman for the office of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, said the county was not immediately granting same-sex marriage licenses, noting that the court's decision doesn't take effect for 30 days." NoIdeaNick (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the map also needs to be changed so that Hawaii is the same as Oregon, since Hawaii also constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. 96.224.135.66 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Hawaii's constitution permits the legislature to ban same-sex marriage; it does not ban same-sex marriage.

California's color should be changed. Yes, California legalized same sex marriage (yay!) but domestic partnerships are still legal in the state. It should be striped to reflect this (like New York and Oregon are). Hihellowhatsup (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Marriage will not be "opened to same-sex couples" until 6/14/08. But it is still legal. "Legal without access" is still legal, it doesn't mean that it is illegal until that date, it just means it is legal but the ability to commence those legal rights are not offered till that date. And i really do want to understand what the effects of same-sex marriage will have on domestic partnership.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The California Supreme Court decision is not final yet. It is not the law of the land until it is final. The distinction between a decision being published (or something being ordered) and becoming final is an important one in the law. -Rrius (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But, as discussed above, it IS legal. The court's decision was final and binding. The court has the authority to stay, or delay, the enacting of that ruling, but it is nonetheless legal until overturned by a higher court (in this case, only the US Supreme Court), or an amendment to the California constitution (but even that is unclear since the ruling states that the body of the constitution prohibits such discrimination as would be written into the potential proposed amendment).Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, sir, you are wrong. The court's decision is not final and binding until 30 days after it is announced. That is not my opinion, it is the in the court's own rules. The court had the power when it announced the decision to make it effective immediately, but it did not. I can't imagine what bias you think I have, but all I am concerned about is accuracy. If you want, go look at the Cal. Supreme Court's rules. For extra credit, look up what it means for a judgment to be final. In any event, if you had read further, you would have seen that we reached a consensus to have the image (which already shows marriage) show both marriage and domestic partnership. Therefore, your rationale for taking up this argument (especially without informing yourself) eludes me. -Rrius (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

California still has domestic partnerships. There's nothing in the court brief that indicates that domestic partnerships were unconstitutional. So that would mean that both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships are legal in California. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be an * by California and put something like "Effective 6/14/08." Although same-sex marriage is not legal there yet, it's almost certain to happen, and it's a major enough change in the topic of "Same-sex Marriage in the United States" do at least deserve a footnote on the map. Benrw 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But, as discussed above, it IS legal. The court's decision was final and binding. The court has the authority to stay, or delay, the enacting of that ruling, but it is nonetheless legal until overturned by a higher court (in this case, only the US Supreme Court), or an amendment to the California constitution (but even that is unclear since the ruling states that the body of the constitution prohibits such discrimination as would be written into the potential proposed amendment).Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] accuracy disputed

California has same sex marriage and domestic partnership, In needs to be stripped with both colors.      Same-sex domestic partnerships      Same-sex marriages --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The decision is not truly final until 17 June 2008. The Supreme Court can rule on a petition to rehear the case up until the 30th day after the original decision. That would be the 14th, but it is a Saturday, so the last day is the 16th. Therefore there won't really be same-sex marriage in California until the 17th. This has been widely reported in the media with varying levels of specificity as to why 17 June is the day. -Rrius (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage will be OFFERED at that date. It is, at status-quo, legal. But regardless, the colors are wrong, it needs to be stripped. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

" California still has domestic partnerships. There's nothing in the court brief that indicates that domestic partnerships were unconstitutional. So that would mean that both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships are legal in California. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC) " --Cooljuno411 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other jurisdictions in the world with both SSM and domestic partnerships? I always thought stripes were supposed to be for varying legality in subdivisions of states. Also, the colors should be for the highest level of rights. If we had a similar abortion map, we would not stripe states with different colors for different restrictions on abortion. MantisEars (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the logic has been, but if California is to be striped instead of solid purple, New Jersey needs to be striped as well. New Jersey has civil unions and domestic partnerships. -Rrius (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the section above, the decision has no legal effect until it is final. You are trying to make a distinction without understanding the significance of the terms used. In re Marriage Cases will not be the law of the land until the decision is final. Period. -Rrius (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you need to stop complaining about "it not being legal yet" or whatever. If you bought a ticket for a concert that is a month from now, are you going to that concert? That is the same logic hear so stop saying it is not in effect yet. It will be happening soon and the state already has "plans to go to the concert" so try being productive and stop going in a direction that is leading you nowhere...--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The concert analogy is inapposite. Also, I am not complaining at all: I am pointing out facts. A court opinion has no meaning until it becomes final. Right now there is a petition for rehearing before the court. If granted, the court could change its mind. This is similar to any statute passed by a legislature that takes effect on some date after it becomes law: it has no force until the effective date. I am "being productive" here. On 17 June, assuming as is most likely that the court will deny the petition for rehearing, all these changes should be made. This sort of waiting is normal across wikipedia. When the next president is elected in November, the infobox at United States will continue to say "George W. Bush". It will only change around noon EST on 20 January 2009. You may be excited about the change in the law, but that is POV. Wikipedia should continue to reflect same-sex marriage in California as a future event until it becomes a present event. -Rrius (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a new color for "Domestic partnerships; Same-sex marriage pending"? MantisEars (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To what end? The issue will be cleared up for all on 17 June. -Rrius (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

To distinguish "marriage pending" from "marriage in consideration" or "marriage not on the table". MantisEars (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)The new color would only be in use for a few weeks. I think Cooljuno's idea, which I obviously disagree with, is better than the compromise. -Rrius (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have done it already if I knew how. Is there an organization or Wikiproject with SVG-savvy Wikipedians that can complete this task? MantisEars (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If so, New Jersey should be striped green and dark blue because it has civil unions and domestic partnerships. Also, New York's statute does not ban same-sex marriage, it just doesn't provide for it. There is a difference. If the statute banned same-sex marriage, it would say such marriages are void (or even prohibited). It doesn't, which is why foreign same-sex marriage are (in some instances) recognized. The situation is the same as New Mexico and Rhode Island. Neither of their statutes provides for same-sex marriage, but neither says they are void, either. Therefore New York should be solid light blue like New Mexico and Little Rhody.

To recap, California should be striped purple and dark blue, New Jersey should be striped green and dark blue, and New York should be solid light blue. Does anyone disagree?

-Rrius (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well someone needs to take action and make these changes... --Cooljuno411 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page of the editor who created the file. I don't know who else to ask, and I don't know how to do it myself. -Rrius (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted the image to the Wikipedia graphics lab/images to improve here. MantisEars (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Supreme Court of California has denied petitions for rehearing and for a stay pending the November election. Thus there can now be no question that the decision in In re Marriage Cases, S147999 will become final on 16 June 2008 at 5:00 p.m. PDT and same-sex marriages can take place in California at any time thereafter. See the court's Web site for further information. Charlie GALVIN (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Unions - Domestic Partnerships - Legal Equivalents

I would argue that civil unions in the Northeast and domestic partnerships in California and Oregon should be highlighted the same (in the case of CA, if same-sex marriage is shown to be legal there, it should also be striped over with the same thing): they all are functional equivalents of marriage at the state level, with VERY few exceptions. Moreover, I think a domestic partnership in Oregon is more like a Vermont civil union than a Maine or Washington state domestic partnership.

Perhaps a more reflective, combined title for equivalent unions could just be "Functionally Equivilant Legal Unions" while domestic partnerships with SOME of the rights of marriage could be labeled "Legal Unions with Some Rights" (like Washington and Maine). If someone would suggest more concise descriptions, that would be great.

Also, what about Maryland? A recent bill signed there grants limited domestic partnership rights to both gay and straight couples. I think that nomenclature aside, this law is more similar to the reciprocal benefits laws in Vermont and Hawai'i than it is to the more broad domestic partnerships in Washington State and Maine. Benrw 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I raised this issue at (I think) Template:Same-sex unions and gained no traction. I generally agree with the concept, but we would have to be very careful of the terminology. "Unions granting rights similar to marriage" versus "unions granting limited rights" or "enumerated rights" may be better. -Rrius (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connecticut

The image shows CT as allowing same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court in CT has yet to issue a ruling on the subject; same-sex marriage is not legal in CT at this time. -Jameth (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It shows statute bans same-sex marriage and has civil unions: marriage is purple, not green. -Rrius (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm an idiot and confused MA with CT. Thanks :) -Jameth (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)