File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg/Archive 1

Colors
The fewer the colors the better. Inserting colors for "thinking about it" seems a bit pov. How about for Arab countries: "People always stoned to death" for SSM, "People often stoned to death..", "People shunned but not stoned to death.."? Anyway, you get the picture. The fewer the colors the faster and better the information is conveyed. Student7 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there is no "thinking about it" color on this map, how is you objection relevant? — kwami (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Changes to geographical mapping of laws that are in effect is being discussed at Talk:Same-sex_marriage. For the US, at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg. Student7 (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Could we have a better color for the civil unions? The ultra-light blue is indistinguishable from white or the light gray on some monitors. Thanks.Frimmin (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Bahia
Same-sex marriage is legal statewide since November 26, 2012 in the state of Bahia and the marriage is legally recognized without the approval of a judge, so it should be blue on the map, it needs to be corrected.

Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Delaware intention to legalize?
Should these jurisdictions be colored in for intention to legalize, or should we wait until they take their legislative votes? (Tigerghost (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC))


 * If the ruling party can pass the legislation against united opposition, and they have stated they intend to push it through, then yes, we should color them in. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * All of these places should be coloured green or beige by now, as well so should Nevada. — Chadillaccc (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidence? — kwami (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: Rhode Island legalised gay marriage today May 3rd 2013  --Aqualith (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Update: Minnesota and Delaware legalized gay marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.198.63.61 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand
New Zealand should not be yellow. The bill legalizing same-sex mariage was introduced by opposition MP. Both the government and governing party (National Party) haven't position on this.

PS: Finland also should be changed. See, Ron 1987 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as "Government announced intention to legalize" goes, are we interpreting "government" to mean strictly the executive? At this point, the bill in NZ passed second reading 77-40. That's a pretty clear intention to legalize on the part of the legislative branch of government. - htonl (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the vote of the 17th March, it seems New Zealand should now be yellow (announced intention but not yet in force) and will then need to be changed to blue when it becomes law in August. 203.97.134.50 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Spanish and Portuguese territories
The following territories are integral part of Spain and Portugal and fully implement their legislation on same sex marriage. Could someone please add a dark blue dot to change the status accordingly and make them visible on the map? J2V (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Canary Islands
 * The Spanish autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla in Northen Africa. See
 * Madeira Island
 * The Azores


 * The islands already are blue. The autonomous cities are not included in the map. — kwami (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Something must've happened. Currently, the Azores (due west of Portugal) are gray, as are the Canaries and Madeira (off the coast of Morocco). The Balearic islands are blue, but the others should be as well. Frimmin (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)frimmin


 * All blue on my screen. Technical error? CMD (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Dang. On closer inspection, there IS some blue there. Some of the islands look gray or indeterminate, even in the 2000px-wide PDF, but that may be due to their tiny size. Makes me wish they were all as big as and clear as Mallorca, but with geography, you gotta work with what you have! 174.66.0.252 (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

France
I would like to note that the proposed bill, if passed, will cover New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia and French Southern and Antarctic Lands. See last article of the bill. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. — kwami (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

UK
UK proposed marriage legislaton will only cover England and Wales. Scottish government prepared their own bill. Northern Ireland, overseas territories and Crown dependencies should be grey. See Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see this implemented. Only England, Wales and Scotland are currently considering their laws. The others may be a bit further afield.  Del ♉ sion  23  (talk)  02:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, though I may not have gotten all the small islands. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the House of Commons has passed the bill, shouldn't we color England and Wales dark blue on the map? 69.73.47.181 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see this has been done, but the answer is no we shouldn't, since those parts of the legislation that actually allow same sex marriages to take place are not in force yet. They require something known as a statutory instrument to say when they will come into effect, which is not expected until some time in 2014. 81.178.207.21 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Denmark
Same sex marriage is legal in Denmark since 2012 but this map doesn't show it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Denmark 89.74.153.100 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My fault, now fixed. CMD (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Dark Blue in the Brazilian States of Mato Grosso do Sul (Center-West) and Paraná (South)
Dark blue in the states of Mato Grosso do Sul and Paraná in Brazil. The state courts of this states approved the same-sex marriage in April 2013.         — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.234.140 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't France, New Zealand, and Uruguay all be coloured green now?
I believe these countries should be coloured green now, as the high courts of all three have ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, it is just not yet implemented. If I'm wrong, sorry for cluttering up this page! But I think I might be right. -- Chadillaccc (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand legalized same-sex marriage on April the 17th. Links to the evidence: New Zealand becomes 13th country to legalize same-sex marriage New Zealand Lawmakers Pass Same-Sex Marriage Law New Zealand becomes first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage

Uruguay also passed the same-sex marriage bill to become the 12th country to legalize gay mariage Links to the evidence: Uruguay approves same-sex marriage Uruguay legalises same-sex marriage Uruguay's senate approves same-sex marriage bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.165.79 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither law appears to have taken effect yet. NZ still waiting for royal assent, uruguay has a 90 day waiting period. CMD (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The NZ law also has a four month waiting period. That being said, I believe the general principle is that we wait until the process of law-making is entirely complete - including Presidential signature, Royal Assent, mandatory referendums, etc. - but not until the law is actually in force. - htonl (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case we can change NZ as soon as there is Royal Assent. I am not familiar with what the final step in Uruguay is, or whether or not it has taken place. CMD (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So then back to my original point, all three nations should be coloured green then, as all three governments have approved same sex marriage, the laws are just not yet ratified. -- Chadillaccc (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * SSM was given royal assent, New Zealand should be blue: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/133170/marriage-legislation-becomes-law Hihellowhatsup (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Colombia
Colombia should be grey. The Constitutional Court just obliged the Congress to pass the legislation giving same-sex couples similar rights to marriage. See, Ron 1987 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Also removed Cuba - I can't even see how that got added. — kwami (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Marked the section in the WP-en article as dubious. You might want to change it, since you have the refs. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've put Colombia back to light green. The relevant section on wikipedia, the references in it, and the rest of the internet indicate the court has stated gay marriage must become legal. The subject is under debate in the Colombian Congress this week. CMD (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That relevant section reads: "The Constitutional Court of Colombia further ruled on July 26, 2011 to order the Colombian Congress to pass the legislation giving same-sex couples similar rights to marriage in two years (by June 20, 2013). If such a law is not passed until then, same-sex couples will be granted these rights automatically." Name under which these rights should be granted was not specified in the ruling. You should read the summary of the sentence published on the Constitutional Court's website. See . Ron 1987 (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Secondary sources seem to treat it as gay marriage. Anyway, I suppose we'll get a clearer indication after this round of discussions. CMD (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro
Brazilian Rio de Janeiro state legalized same-sex marriage. See,. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we should wait. Situation is unclear. See Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Caribbean Netherlands
Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba should be dark blue. Dutch law was implemented by these municipalities last year. See. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, also coloured Sint Maarten aqua because of the same source. Aruba and Curacao were already coloured aqua. CMD (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

French territories
I note that in the French bill it only applies certain sections to various French territories. It also doesn't mention Saint Martin, however, this article says "the new law that will affect everyone living in France and its overseas territories." Perhaps Saint Martin didn't have to be mentioned because of its unusual closeness to France proper, for example it's in the EU. I've coloured Saint Martin yellow, like the other territories. The article also says however there's a motion to be excluded, so it's worth watching the territories once the French law comes into force. CMD (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

France Legalises Gay Marriage
Half an hour ago, France announced that gay marriage had been legalised. --82.34.243.21 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It still has to pass the constitutional court and be signed by Hollande. CMD (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Should be June per Le Monde. — kwami (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Santa Catarina, Brazil
Add the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina. http://g1.globo.com/sc/santa-catarina/noticia/2013/04/cgj-autoriza-casamento-entre-pessoas-do-mesmo-sexo-em-sc.htmlThevastdarkness (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay signed today the law, time to change the colour
http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g365/rodrigorodriko/ssc/Sintiacutetulo-1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.55.7.123 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical error?
For some reason, Uruguay is not showing up in dark blue on the preview of File:World marriage-equality laws.svg.

Is this a technical error, or does it take time to update? (I updated another map, and the changes showed up immediately on the preview.) When you click on the map, however, Uruguay does show up in dark blue.Thevastdarkness (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a problem with Mediawiki, that for some reason some previews of SVG images just don't update. The map itself has definitely been updated, and the view of it in the Wikipedia article is correct. - htonl (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Delaware
The Delaware legislature has passed a marriage equality bill and the Governor will be signing it imminently (he may already have done so by the time you read this). - htonl (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota
The same for Minnesota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.133.231.26 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Senate still has to vote on the bill, which will apparently happen on Monday. - htonl (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just happened. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Signed by Gov. Dayton. Minnesota should be blue now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.244.209 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So, is anyone gonna update the map with this info? - Chadillaccc (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it. - htonl (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. You may need to clear your cache and so on to see the update. - htonl (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazil
Brazil apparently just legalized same-sex marriage by default. A ruling by the National Council of Justice (which oversees the Brazilian judicial system) just legalized gay marriage nation-wide. -- Chadillaccc (talk) 7:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Government annonced intention to legalize
Hello from France! I'm an user who is interested in the same-sex mariage legislation, and I wanted to tell you that some other countries announced their intention to legalize this mariage : Congratulations for your picture : keep working and good luck! Titanicophile (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Chile
 * Taiwan
 * Vietnam
 * Slovenia
 * Finland
 * China (but in a long time)
 * Turkey (will be long too)
 * some Australian territories


 * Vietnam? Do you have any refs? — kwami (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Taiwan Finland http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2013/04/23/mariage-gay-la-france-a-vote-la-loi_n_3137709.html
 * Vietnam http://www.tetu.com/actualites/international/le-vietnam-envisage-douvrir-le-mariage-aux-homos-21990
 * Slovenia http://www.za-gay.org/actu/2791/slovenie-mariage-et-adoption/
 * Chile http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/chiles-ex-president-promises-gay-marriage-again-re-election-race160413
 * China http://www.policymic.com/articles/36313/will-china-legalize-gay-marriage-before-the-united-states
 * couldn't find for Turkey, I had seen that on Wikipedia... sorry
 * Territories of Australia : http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/gay-marriage-hope-for-act/story-fndo3ewo-1226444316307 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tasmania-sa-to-allow-gay-marriage/story-fn59niix-1226448236343 http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/09/11/3587448.htm
 * Titanicophile (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.
 * France: a mistake. passage apr 23, but not final.
 * Vietnam: talking openly about it. (a notable change, but no change to map.)
 * Slovenia: equal to marriage. (no change to map.)
 * Chile: a campaign promise.
 * China: open discussion in media.
 * Taiwan: legislative hearings
 * Oz: bills or proposed

None of these warrant a change to our map at this time (we're already expecting France in June), but they're worth watching. — kwami (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, euh, ok, sorry for all my mistakes. And I know for France (I am French) : a rumor says that the Constitutionnal Council will give its decision today, so the promulgation by President could be done in a few days. :) Titanicophile (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We've been marking states like France and the UK where the govt has announced they will pass a law, and they control the number of votes necessary to do it even against united opposition. Last I heard, the French law was expected to take effect in June, but that could easily have changed.  If you have any concrete reports, I'm sure we would appreciate them.  It also looks like things might move quickly in Australia, in case you find more reports on that.  — kwami (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand better when the color is needed, now. Ok! :) And good new : in France the Constitutionnal Council said yes, so our President will promulgue the bill into law really fast, now. Titanicophile (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Saturday apparently CMD (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * He did it! That's done now. Titanicophile (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Long Island
Long Island is part of the state of New York, yet it is grey instead of navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.90.36 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops! Thanks for catching that. — kwami (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a few loose islands around there, and the borders don't exactly match. Where are the state images being taken from? CMD (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The "islands" are mismatched borders. I don't know where the US states came from; I've only done Brazilian and Mexican.  But like Brazil, they're probably from a map with a different projection, and tweaked to fit ours.  I think they're close enough for our purposes.  — kwami (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are definitely some islands there that are part of Maryland which aren't coloured, but like you say, it's quite irrelevant for our purposes. They actually fit quite well for a map from a different projection. CMD (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually have an SVG map with US states in Robinson projection, which is where I got Minnesota from yesterday. I'm working on producing a complete Robinson blank world map with level-1 administrative divisions for all countries, which will make this map much easier to maintain. - htonl (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel like I've seen one of those somewhere before, although perhaps it was a different projection. I think there'd still be odd islands though, depending on the scale used for the borders and land, but that's a point of interest rather than something that greatly affects this map. If you're happy to give more detail on the process of making this map, I wouldn't mind a conversation on my talkpage. CMD (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Long island was actually included with the New York object, but was covered over by a separate long island object, which existed as an addition to the one included in the US mainland behind the new york object. I've changed it so the one there is the one that's part of the New York object. CMD (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

France signs gay marriage into law
http://www.france24.com/en/20130518-france-gay-marriage-law-adoption

France and all of its overseas territories should be dark blue. Hihellowhatsup (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * They are.
 * Do you have a ref that it applies to all territories? — kwami (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This new law certainly does not apply in the whole France. It's apply probably only in metropolitan France and five overseas departments, as it was the case for PACS. In 2006, the French Parliament extended the right to PACS for Mayotte and in 2009 to Wallis and Futuna and New Caledonia. There is no such law in any other territory of the France Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.185.74 (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * from before indicates it applies to territories, and has New Caledonia clearly highlighted. Further sourcing either way, especially with French Polynesia, which never had civil partnerships, would still be good to see though. CMD (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It applies to Wallis and Futuna, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Mayotte, Saint Martin, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and French Southern and Antarctic Lands. See articles 14 and 22 of the law. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to know that gay penguins can now get married in their native land. Probably not necessary to add to the map, though. — kwami (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But, CMD, the highlighting of New Caledonia on the BBC is not likely to be meaningful. They may not know any more about this than we do, and their map may be a one-click-per-country format like ours.  We need specific mention of the territories.  Article 14 seems to do that, though I'm not confident of my ability to wade through the legalese.  But Art. 22 (Articles 1 to 13 and 21 of this Act are applicable in New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna and French Polynesia) is pretty clear.  — kwami (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a French person I know translate the law for me, and it does seem clear. However, a secondary source highlighting New Caledonia is likely very meaningful. Most maps by news agencies don't even tend to highlight French Guiana. CMD (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All that means is that the folks at the BBC know that French Guiana and NC are part of France, whereas the folks at AP or wherever are clueless. It doesn't mean that they've confirmed that the law actually applies there, just as if AP left them out it wouldn't mean they confirmed that the law doesn't apply there.
 * The other source, about territories trying to opt out, is more suggestive, but it's still OR to conclude that what they were objecting to eventually occurred. We don't have a 2ary RS that the territories are affected.  — kwami (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but I haven't seen one noting they aren't affected either. I assume there's some in French; I'll ask around. CMD (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Same-sex marriage in France. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The borders
After Info por favor' edit, the borders are thicker. It don't help anything and look ugly. Could someone fix that? Ron 1987 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not an improvement. The circles now demand my attention, rather than just allowing simple visual note of the countries beneath them. CMD (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I attempted to get the borders back to where they had been by setting them to 0.3pt, but I can see that they are still SLIGHTLY thicker than earlier ; they are MUCH less thick than in my earlier edits. The thickness I added was an accident on my part, as I did not notice the vector editor on my computer was introducing the change inadvertently during file importation.


 * If my edits are not going to work, please upload a version of this map with the US state of Illinois included as ‘Government has announced intention’, per my rational in this file’s upload log on commons. Also, possibly delete the Kerguelen Islands from the map, as Kwamikagami (talk) suggested diff. My opinion, is that either England & Wales and Illinois should be yellow, or neither Illinois nor England & Wales should be Yellow.
 * Info por favor (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The dot on the Kerguelens is removed as Kwami suggested. I've restored the Illinois object you placed per your argument. CMD (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ― Info por favor (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Archipelagos and Islands
I guess there should be some highlight (or a single point) in archipelagos belonging to countries which approved same sex marriage. Madeira Islands, Azores (Portugal) and Canary Islands (Spain) have no highlight whatsoever. Could anyone change this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogo sfreitas (talk • contribs)
 * There's no reason to highlight every archipelago. They're coloured in like the rest of the countries they're part of. CMD (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriage Bans
Should those countries, states or jurisdictions that explicitly ban gay marriage by constitution or statute be given a red colour? I think it would add more information to the map, without cluttering it too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.19.77 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * File:World homosexuality laws.svg would be more appropriate. --108.48.23.190 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that, AFAICT, the lack of a law is equivalent to a ban, I don't see what that would add. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

California & U.S. Federal Government
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, so the color of the U.S. (besides the states that have legalized same-sex marriage) should be the same color as Mexico and Israel. In addition, Prop. 8 was also declared unconstitutional so same-sex marriage is legal in California again, so change it to dark blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermiand. (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Same-Sex Marriage will not be implemented in California for some time, according to the Lt. Governor. It should be marked the same color as the UK, where "high court ruled in favor, not yet implemented. --24.87.81.186 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the UK the High Court ruled that parliament had the authority to implement marriage equality. High court ruling is light green, like Nepal, and formerly Colombia (until Colombia instituted Civil Unions, which most observers take as fulfilling the Court's demands). —Quintucket (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No. The US is nothing like Mexico. US states should have been striped blue with DOMA, as marriage had only partial recognition.  Now they should be solid blue.  — kwami (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify, Nevermiand: the ruling overturned the federal non-recognition of state marriages; it didn't address the recognition of state marriages by other states. For now, we'll have to wait until someone who married in a state with marriage equality tries to get their marriage recognized in a state without it and brings it to the Supreme Court.  That may well take another five years.  While it would seem obvious that if the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to the feds it should also apply to states, four justices dissented in Windsor, and there's no guarantee that there won't be yet another such justice sitting in Kennedy, Ginsburg, or Breyer's seat by the time it does.  History is full of nearly-identical cases where a change in the composition of the Court lead to drastically different rulings. —Quintucket (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * But the map itself says simply that "Same-sex marriage recognized when performed in certain jurisdictions." Since this recognition is true for the federal government (which the map itself implies), then the entire US should be the green color, no? Even if not, it should be striped green, since at least the federal government recognizes it. I assume the ruling also applies to same-sex rulings overseas, which puts the US in the exact same situation as Israel, and thus it should be the same green color.173.72.122.244 (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Except the federal government's recognition is conditional upon recognition by the State. For many if not most federal purposes (depending on exactly how the DOMA decision gets implemented), this will be the State of residence. So even if one gets married in Iowa, upon crossing the border into Illinois, the federal benefits may disappear. Only certain federal benefits (e.g. immigration) follow a "place of celebration" rule. So given that the State doesn't have to recognize an out-of-state marriage and for many if not most purposes, the federal government doesn't have to either, green shading would seem quite the stretch. Not to mention that the federal government is not involved in the recognition or nonrecognition of marriage qua marriage, that is exclusively the role of the States. Bomewrlhr (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Almost equal
I'm not sure I like the addition of the "almost equal civil unions." Either anyone can marry one other person of legal age, or they can't, and the "almost equal" civil unions are covered in World Homosexuality Laws. Yes, these unions may extend all the practical rights of marriage, but the lack the symbolic aspect, which I thought was what this file was about. Per Commons policy I'll respect kwami's judgment as the creator of the file (even if we seem to be discussing the file here), but I just wanted to note that it seems a bit odd to me.

Also, I notice that the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, as well as the Faroe Islands are in light blue. I wasn't aware that Denmark ever extended its civil unions law to the Faroes as it did to Greenland, and I definitely didn't know that Britain extended its laws to any territories outside the UK. I'm assuming that this was an error owing to object grouping, yes? —Quintucket (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong about dependencies, but my understanding was that the UK has civil unions, as do Greenland and the Faroes. Is that not the case?
 * I made them a very light blue for the very reasons you raised: these aren't marriages. However, states with marrigage-in-all-but-name have a history of going on to full open marriage, so I thought they were of interest the same way that govt announcements as in England and court decisions as in Nepal are of interest, with those on the map even though in neither case can you actually get married.  — kwami (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Greenland and the UK have civil unions. So far as I'm aware, the Faroes, Crown Dependencies, and British Overseas territories do not.  In 1996 Denmark's civil unions law was extended to Greenland, but not, so far as I can tell, the Faroes (though there've been calls to pass full marriage equality in the Faroes).  As far as I know none of the Crown Dependencies/BOTs have civil unions (the ILGA map doesn't bother to show them); but if they do this is relevant to the same-sex unions in North Ameria, South America, and Europe articles, and should be noted on those articles.  As for the color I hadn't considered the antechamber argument; I agree now that the light blue is indeed a very good idea. —Quintucket (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no civil unions in Faroe Islands, Crown Dependencies, and British Overseas territories. This categoty is completely useless. This map should be about marriage only. The term almost equal is not a clear term. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, "almost equal" as defined by ILGA means all the rights of marriage, but not the name. —Quintucket (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So there aren't really civil unions for the UK, just for parts of the UK. Which parts, just the big four?
 * Ron, your version is not just about marriage either, so that's not much of an argument.
 * I agree "(almost) equal" is not the best wording. What about something like "all the rights of marriage without the name"?  — kwami (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. Same-sex couples in many of these countries and territories have most, but not all rights. Only UK civil partnerships and civil unions in US states have the same rights. BTW: ILGA report have some errors. Ecuador grants same-sex couples all the rights, except adoption. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's certainly s.t. we can discuss.
 * Colombia also needs to be legally equivalent.
 * Portugal has marriage but not adoption, so the two are separate elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed that wasn't an error. I figured that the absence of Ecuador was specifically due to the lack of adoption rights. What rights don't gay couples have in Colombia, Germany, or Finland?  Or really any of the areas that ILGA denotes as "almost equal"?  I know Germany's law initially excluded adoption rights; I know this because the high court recently ruled that that exclusion was unacceptable, that gay couples in civil unions had to be have all the rights of marriage, and it was in the news. —Quintucket (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no full adoption rights in these countries. The recent ruling in Germany was about the right to adopt partner's adoptive child. Same-sex couples still don't have the same rights regarding taxes. The bill about it will be voted by the parliament this week. In Austria and Finland, there is a possibility to adopt partner's child only, and there is no possibility to take partner's surname and to participate in artificial insemination. In Colombia, adoption issue is unclear. Also in Hungary and Switzerland registered partners don't have the right to take a common surname, the right to adopt and to participate in artificial insemination. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. I forgot about that Isle of Man and Jersey have civil partnerships. These laws were approved by the local parliaments in 2011 and 2012, respectively. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the ILGA map, it would seem that Portugal, Canada, and Uruguay don't have joint adoption, though in the latter two cases they got their facts wrong, and in the former Portugal's law is set to change. Any rate, I see your point.  More importantly, ILGA clearly is not very good at making accurate graphics.  I really hope it's an issue with their graphic design team, not their fact-checkers. I'm going to flip-flop again, this time to having no opinion on the issue and letting you and kwami talk it out.


 * For the record: policy Commons is theoretically that the original creator of a file has final say. So if kwami insists on keeping the light blue and you remain opposed; Commons policy would dictate making a new file. It's probably my least favorite Commons policy for many reasons, and in this case it would be difficult to keep two versions of a rapidly-changing file in sync. We've seen the consequences with a file-version proliferation recently, with the users who keep misinterpreting the Colombia ruling and incessantly changing it to dark blue on every map they can get their mitts on. —Quintucket (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the map should include all countries legally recognizing same-sex relationships. Then we can avoid using the unclear terms such as almost equal. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with that. Given legislative history of countries that passed marriage equality, it seems more likely that a country with limited recognition will go straight to marriage than to a stronger form of recognition. Things seem to go no rights --> (limited rights --> (some form of adoption)) --> marriage with the third step depending on the second step, and the second step often, but not always, leapfrogged.  The important thing is that governments often seem to introduce civil unions/domestic partnerships as a way of showing a skeptical public that gays are people too. What do you think kwami? —Quintucket (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The main legal argument in the case against DOMA, the harm the party suffered, was taxation. AFAICT, in these "almost equal" jurisdictions that would not have been a problem.  Inheritance, visitation rights, and taxation are huge deals for a lot of people.  You may be correct, though, that seriously substandard civil union laws are more likely to be replaced with marriage rights.  I wonder if we'd want to conflate them, though, or keep them distinct.
 * However, I don't think avoiding unclear wording is a valid reason for the change. If the wording is unclear (and I agree it is), then we should come up with something clearer. Dodging the problem is seldom a good solution.  — kwami (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @kwami way above: The overseas territories and Crown dependencies aren't part of the UK, which is specifically the parts incorporated by the various Acts of Union, but they are part of the British Crown, much as the Cook Islands and Tokelau are part of the Crown for New Zealand (via the Realm of New Zealand).
 * Thanks. — kwami (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a greyer light blue for unions the ILGA judges to be substandard. I haven't changed the legend pending comment here. I know the color is difficult to see: That's the point. I didn't want a reader to be misled by a quick glance suggesting there's marriage in those areas. Rather, if a reader is interested, a closer look will show where there has been some progress toward recognition. — kwami (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)t
 * This colour is not a good idea. I also don't like the distinction between almost equal and substandard civil unions. What exactly means almost equal? Where is exactly the line between those two? As I wrote above, ILGA jugdement is not perfect. I think that all countries with civil unions/registered partnerships should be medium blue, countries with unregistered cohabitation should be light blue. See this map as an example. It would be clearer. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is perhaps a good idea. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And? I think it's much better solution than current situation. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Some union laws are little more than cohabitation, others are practically marriage, which makes a big difference for civil rights, which is what this is about.  Do you have reason to think ILGA judgement is flawed in this instance?  — kwami (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The map should be clear. The terms used here are not clear. Where is exactly the line between "almost equal" and "some rights"? ILGA judgement have obvious errors (Ecuador). And no, laws, like this in the Czech Republic or Ireland are not something little more than cohabitation. Map should not be based almost entirely on one, questionable judgment. Other maps and Template:Same-sex unions makes distinction between registered and unregistered unions. This criterion is clearer than the one in ILGA report. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which countries would remain with cohabitation? Are they even worth including?  — kwami (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some rights with no possibility of registration are offered by Australia (nation-wide level), Croatia and Israel. Croatia will likely adopt the law establishing civil union by 2014. Similar proposal is considered by the government's committee in Israel. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So only two countries would remain: Croatia and Australia. Ecuador, Wisconsin, Slovenia, Czechia, Man, Jersey, Andorra, Merida (Ven.) would change?
 * What do others think of this? — kwami (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Mexican states update

 * June 14, 2013, a judge in the Mexican state of Colima ruled that the state's same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, and as a result will be issuing marriage licenses.
 * Oaxaca's same-sex marriage status is in legal limbo following the December 5th ruling. The state has been ordered to issue same-sex marriage licenses, however, it has not yet been implemented.

So, should the colors be changed for these Mexican states? (Tigerghost (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC))
 * It seems like Colima should indeed be dark blue; it's in the same situation as Quintana Roo and several Brazilian states before the national ruling there. My Spanish isn't quite good enough to fully understand what's happening in Oaxaca, although it sounds like cases are pending not only there but also in Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Sinaloa, and Yucatan. —Quintucket (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like Oaxaca. If I remember correctly, Mexico requires several (5?) such judgements for the law to change.  — kwami (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

South America map
Could someone fix map? Colombia should not be dark blue. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. It looks like the Falklands also need to be fixed.  What about Venezuela?  — kwami (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You "fixed" the Falklands to having civil unions they don't yet have, as we were just discussing above. You put Venezuela as having a constitutional ban, when the high court quite sensibly ruled that the constitutional protection of marriage between a man and a woman didn't inherently prohibit marriage between a man and a man or a woman or a woman, it just meant that the government can't do away with marriage altogether. Any rate, you were reverted and I uploaded a version with the reliable-source interpretation of Colombia's status, but the Falkands and Venezeula in gray. —Quintucket (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't fix, I reverted. I wanted to ask here before going to the effort of editing the file.
 * The color of Guyana is bizarre. Should be changed to agree w other maps.  — kwami (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, OK. As for Guyana, I like the current color better than what it is previously. Having it dark red or black was too easy to confuse with dark blue. (And frankly, lime green shows Guyana as the bizarre outlier that it is.) That's less of an issue in the man map, where no dark red (death penalty for homosexuality) country bordered a dark blue one.  I'm fine with making it orange to match the main map though (well, as long as it won't cause problems for people with colorblindness).  Is that what you mean?  Only then we have the issue of the constitutional ban being red, even though a constitutional ban is less egregious than a criminal penalty. —Quintucket (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that wouldn't be good either. — kwami (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Blue dots in Michigan and Indiana
What are the blue dots in Northern Michigan and in Indiana near Chicago? Are these island possessions of Canada or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB60:300:1:222:41FF:FEFC:5DD1 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe those are the Indian Tribal Reserves Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians that have allowed SSM. --108.48.23.190 (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Status of Costa Rica?
I was reading that Costa Rica 'accidentally' legalized same-sex marriage.


 * Independent (UK)
 * NBC News (USA)

How should we categorize this? What does it mean to legalize accidentally? (Tigerghost (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC))


 * Status is still ambiguous. It's not clear there will be actual marriage.  We should wait for clarification.  — kwami (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Gay Marriage Britain
The queen just signed it into law today, somebody update the image... RobColtsFan (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/17/britain-legalizes-gay-marriage/2524273/

Placement of a few US states are off, possibly
I suppose it isn't a major issue, but it is a minor mistake I seemed to have noticed. Most US states on this global map are correct, but as I was glancing at the space between Colorado and Iowa I noticed that if Nebraska were to legalize same-sex marriage [probably not likely anytime soon], the state would not fit unless its borders were seriously deformed. Is it just a trick of the mind, or am I correct that the gap between Colorado and Iowa [where Nebraska would be] is a bit excessive? (Tigerghost (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC))


 * I did them myself rather than just copying them from the other map. They can be redone if need be.  — kwami (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want, File:Sexual orientation employment anti-discrimination map.svg has all 50 states as individual paths. Some of them are hidden by CSS on that map, but they're all there. - htonl (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I placed those off the edge of the map for future use.  — kwami (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Poland
Why Poland is not grey? There is no recognition of same-sex unions in my country. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The ILGA report says there is: "we have updated the legal situations in many countries ... Regarding same-sex couples offered some rights of marriage: ... Poland (2012)" (p. 9).  Did they make a mistake?  — kwami (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a mistake. There is no recognition in Poland and that situation is unlikely to change in the near future. Besides, Poland is not mentioned on page 31 of the report, where countries recognizing same-sex relationships are listed. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Australia color
Is it just me, or does Australia (excluding the blue portion in the southeast) have a unique color which is not represented in the key? I think it should be the usual gray. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is being discussed. There is a greyer light blue for unions with only partial rights, as in Australia and Ecuador.  Eventually we should either add it to the template or merge it with the other light blue.  — kwami (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no further discussion, I'm adding the new color to the legend. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

New South Wales, Australia intends to legalize
Should we change the color of New South Wales in Australia to 'intends to legalize' now that the government in that particular jurisdiction states to hold a conscious vote? The media seems to think same-sex marriage has a strong chance of passing in New South Wales.


 * Sydney Morning Herald
 * The Age
 * Radio New Zealand

(Tigerghost (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC))


 * Only if they've declared they *will* legalize, not that they'll vote to see *if* they'll legalize. — kwami (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Colour contrast
It may be just me, but the three lower-most colours (the two civil-union categories and the not-legal category) are very hard to distinguish from one another; the two shades of light blue are almost identical, and both light blues are also very close to the grey. This makes them very difficult to pick out on anything other than a very large screen, especially when - with a predominantly white background - the overall screen brightness is very high. Is there a different palette of colours that could be used that would be easier to distinguish, without being too garish? P M C 23:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we could do better, but they're intentionally muted because they aren't marriage. I picked the colors so that when you look at the map, what you see first is where marriage is legal, and you have to look more closely to see secondary things.  — kwami (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is good that the areas where marriage is legal stand out very clearly, but the light-blue and grey are too similar. I tried replacing the light-blue with 170-208-255 (RGB)on my desktop, and this was still muted but much easier to distinguish from the grey. Have a try and see what you think.


 * Also, I didn't realise that Israel had a colour until I looked at the map in a much larger scale, because the (grey) dot for Palestine almost completely covers it. Is there much that can be done about that? I think the scale is probably too small to colour Palestine separately, but can the dot be offset with a pointer, perhaps?  P M C  11:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Moving the dot would make little difference, as I've already moved it so it doesn't cover Israel. We could add a dot for Israel.  — kwami (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There's already a map used on Wikipedia with all the differents stances by countries on marriage, civil union, or on the contrary jails or death penalty. What would be the point of making this one such a map too ? We should keep this one map as one showing wether there's same sex marriage in a country or not. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aréat (talk • contribs) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting the scope of this map is changed or increased, merely that the colours used are differentiated enough that you can actually distinguish them from one another. At the moment, it's very difficult. A greyish blue and a bluish grey look very similar when viewed against a white background! P M C  18:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You probably won't like this, then: A lighter shade of the Mexico–Oregon blue-green for the US at the fed level. Iconically, it's "recognition-light" like the light blue is "marriage-light". Maybe a bit brighter? I find it easy to distinguish, though. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico
6 New Mexican counties issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Since the attorney general of New Mexico has stated that "Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction acts, a marriage license issued by a county clerk in New Mexico is preemptively valid" the 6 counties which perform same-sex marriage should be added to the map.--Prcc27 (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Easier just to add the state. Chihuahua too. — kwami (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It really ought not be shown completely as they're only issued in some counties and the New Mexico Supreme Court is set to take-up the issue in Ocoboer 2013. — Ikon 3:24pm, September 20th, 2013


 * Th no restrictions in which county you go to, so solid is fine . If things change with the court decision , then of course we'll change the map.  — kwami (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)