File talk:SSM litigation.svg

Arkansas

@Kwamikagami: Arkansas has a state court challenge too. Also, Georgia might have a challenge [1] --Prcc27 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. User:MarkGT is notifying me as states need to be added. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Arkansas should probably be marked as ssm being legal; it might eventually have to be changed to "Circuit-court ruling against a SSM ban stayed pending appeal." --Prcc27 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hey, can you think of a way to indicate that the state attorney-general is refusing to defend a ban? The AP story on AR says that's the case for PA, VA, KY, NV, and OR. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what it should be marked as now.. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't fit into any of our pigeonholes, does it? We can just wait and see what happens. Or half blue, half grey, and let the reader figure out what we mean. Though if it's really being appealed, it would presumably be the next color up in the hierarchy, rather than grey. — kwami (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Why is Puerto Rico the only US territory in this map..? --Prcc27 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Because there weren't any until I added it. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Idaho

Idaho needs to be updated.. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Idaho needs to be updated again. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Oregon

@Kwamikagami: Why does the map say SSM is partially legal in Oregon? (I don't get it) And what did you mean by OoS legal? - Elahi Ryan (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OoS: "Out of State". SSM is legal in Oregon, you just have to get married somewhere else. So blue is correct, but only partially. Thus the split. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Kansas

There's a state court lawsuit in Kansas too. - Elahi Ryan (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That's for taxes. Divorce cases have resulted in recognition of SSM, but so far not tax cases, so we decided not to include KS. (I think there's another one too.) — kwami (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Are you sure you don't want to add the state court case in the map? I mean even if it fails or succeeds, it's still a same-sex marriage recognition case. So,it should be on the map... - Elahi Ryan (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

People who know more about this stuff than I do didn't recommend adding it. If the case develops enough for them to change their mind, I will. Forget where the discussion was; maybe in the litigation article. — kwami (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Many news I am reading and watching say now all the states ban are being challenge as ND ban was challege today. Here is more information of the Kansas litigation. http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/kansas --Allan120102 (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I support coloring Kansas. Even if the ban does not directly challenge the Kansas law, it still involves it and with reliable sources considering North Dakota to be the last remaining ban (Washington Post: "The last state with an unchallenged gay marriage ban lost that status on Friday afternoon;" ABC News: "making [North Dakota] the last state in the country to be sued by couples seeking the right to marry in their home state.") our leaving Kansas uncolored seems counter-factual. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and colored Kansas to make our map match news sources. Our Same-sex marriage in the United States article lists the Kansas case, so Kansas ought to be colored on this map. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Kansas is a tax case, and per WP:CRYSTAL we can't assume it will be anything more than that. The fact that newspapers don't know the difference doesn't mean anything - I'm sure we could cite all sorts of idiotic claims about SSM if that's all the evidence we needed. Rv'd the map as I don't currently have a way to edit it. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Kansas is a tax case, and thus entails a challenge to the state's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages; I'm not assuming anything more. To insert a rather arbitrary distinction based on "people who know more not recommending adding it" in the face of media coverage is WP:OR, and language like "idiotic claims" and "last good version" also skirts the edge of WP:CIVIL (as does Elahi's nuts comment). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil to who, a newspaper? That's silly.

We have not been marking tax cases, because states have allowed joint filing w/o recognizing SSM. There's therefore no reason to think that KS allowing joint filing will have any effect on recognizing SSM. It might, but we can't predict that. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thumbnail not updating

I uploaded the latest version with the correct colour for Florida, but the thumbnail in the main article (Same-sex marriage in the United States) refuses to update, still showing Florida as green instead of blue. Can this be fixed, and if yes, can someone tell me how? Kumorifox (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thumbnail has updated, not sure if this was internal or if someone else corrected this, so thank you in the latter case. Kumorifox (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kumorifox: That probably had to due with your browser cache trying to use the old file. It was probably fixed by you reloading the page. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Striping of "stay" states?

Should the states with stayed rulings be striped in the colour of the level of appeals the litigation process is currently in? Texas and Arkansas are still at the circuit of appeals level, for example, whereas Utah and Oklahoma are at the supreme court level. Would adding stripes of the relevant colour (and adding a supreme court level colour) clarify what state of litigation these states are at? I'd be willing to change the map myself if this thought is approved. Kumorifox (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Kansas confusion

Kansas appears to have a preliminary injunction only, not a permanent one just yet. Is a new colour required for Kansas, such as an even lighter tint of blue? There is no stay, and people are getting married, but the case is still ongoing, and many counties are refusing to issue licenses. Kumorifox (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Color for "Litigation to reinstate SSM ban"

The legend has a line: "Litigation to reinstate SSM ban continues in several states." If these states are litigiously different from the states that don't have ongoing litigation, why is this not represented on the map that's supposed to represent litigation?? I move to represent these states (NC, SC, KS, ID, AK, MT) on the map with a slightly lighter/greyer blue (perhaps   to fit between the current   and  ). 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I put that line in after a private message suggestion by another user, but I wasn't sure what to do with the colour, so I left it for the time being. I second your idea.
On a side note, could you think of in-between colours for stay states as well? Some were state court stays, others were federal court, and I think that should be noted. Kumorifox (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the stays, but my map idea is here. Do you know which states are differentiated by state vs federal stays? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I basically realized that the color scheme I was advocating for the main map is basically this exact map XD. Although that shouldn't be surprising given that all SSM developments have become litigious SSM developments. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe use a different shade of blue for the continuing litigation? I'm not colour blind, but I find it difficult to differentiate your stay v. ongoing blue colours. As for which stay is which, let me have a quick look and I'll get back to you on that. Maybe it's no longer necessary, I remember bringing up this point when there were stays in state court and some in the CoA, and the blue did not differentiate them. Kumorifox (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@0nlyth3truth: The only of the stay states (staytes?) where there is currently an appeal at state level is Arkansas; the rest are all appeals to their respective CoA, and Arkansas will likely join them soon. Therefore, different stay colours are redundant as of this time, unless MI is going to appeal to SCOTUS directly instead of the 5th, as was originally planned. Kumorifox (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Missouri

Missouri should be dark blue to match the main map. Prcc27 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Recognition

We should add a recognition color too; I suggest using the medium blue we use on the main map. Prcc27 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Which states currently need a recognition colour? Kumorifox (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• None currently, but what happens if a state goes from litigation to recognition..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. But I would use a much less green-tinted blue than for the main map in that case. It would look out of place in this particular map, what with the colours we have already. Kumorifox (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama

Alabama not stayed pending appeal, at least not at the time it was added to this map. — kwami (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Changed to dark blue. Thanks for the reminder. Kumorifox (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage isn't legal in Alabama... [2] Prcc27 (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)