File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg/Archive 2

New Jersey
Gay marriage just legalized, Christie vows to appeal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/nyregion/new-jersey-judge-rules-state-must-allow-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

Please update relevant charts/graphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.242.61 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We could maybe update to green, like Nepal, but until the appeal clears we cannot be certain that this will be the law. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, updating it to green sounds like a good idea. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Same sex marriage to begin on Monday. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/nyregion/same-sex-marriages-in-new-jersey-can-begin-court-rules.html?_r=0 --Prcc27 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oregon
Oregon will now recognize equal marriages performed out of state and Oregon should now fall under the category "Same-sex marriage recognized when performed in certain jurisdictions". http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30815-oregon_to_recognize_.html --Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The blog is not a reliable source. Do you have reliable sources? Ron 1987 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Oregon-to-recognize-out-of-state-gay-marriages-4903957.php --Prcc27 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Malta
Civil union bill was not yet approved by the parliament. Debate is expected to begin on 21 October. The vote is likely in November. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops. Corrected Chihuahua at the same time, though. Still not entirely sure about Chihuahua, Oaxaca, etc.  — kwami (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Chihuahua IS performing marriages to same sex couples. http://purpleunions.com/blog/tag/chihuahua --Prcc27 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just one marriage was performed under the court order. There is no yet a state-wide precedent giving all same-sex couples in the state the right to marry. Dark blue ring is better solution. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like that. Where would we have them?  Chihuahua, Oaxaca, also Yucatan, right?  And elsewhere, we have Cambodia on the main map.  Philippines?  — kwami (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All of these except the Philippines. There is no news about legally performed marriages there. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They also added a ring to Colombia, but it doesn't look as though that was justified? — kwami (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall a user or two linking to articles about two couples getting permission to marry in Colombia. Since I don't really see the point of the rings (in Mexico they'll eventually lead to marriage equality, elsewhere they seem to be the whims of individual judges), I'm not going to dig through all the talk pages for articles and files here and on the Commons to find them. I do recall that they were in Spanish though. —Quintucket (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, here's an English source for Colombia. I'm still not sure I see the point of the rings. —Quintucket (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened in Cambodia? I can't seem to find a source for it, nor do we appear to discuss it in the article. —Quintucket (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the Cambodia article. — kwami (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't even realized we had a Cambodia article. —Quintucket (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes
The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes have no law prohibiting same-sex marriage; the tribal law code pertaining to marriage "does not specify gender". The tribal court has issued a marriage license to a same-sex couple. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/gay-couple-married-in-oklahoma-jason-pickel-darren-black-bear_n_4142700.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics --Prcc27 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Buncombe County
I noticed a blue ring with a gray center in Pennsylvania. I'm assuming it's there because of the licenses that were issued in Montgomery County despite the state's ban on same-sex marriage. If this is the case, Buncombe County should have a blue ring with a gray center as well. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-north-carolina-same-sex-marriage-license-to-samesex-couples-20131015,0,7869644.story#axzz2iW5SKi00 --Prcc27 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not yet: Not happening.  — kwami (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Africa
We've long had a note that female husbands are accepted among the Igbo. It's not just the Igbo, though. It used to be the Yoruba as well, though I can't find any contemporary account. There are contemporary accounts for the Fon and Nandi, though, so I've added those three as special cases. I'm sure there are plenty of others, but attestation may be a problem. There are, of course, similar situations in the Americas, but given native land loss and the recent number of polities issuing SSM licenses, I suggest we restrict the Americas to actual LGBT and not just same-sex marriage. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If the sovereign government doesn't recognize or perform them then it shouldn't be listed. This map should only apply to present-day sovereign states which is why the Americas isn't shaded blue; only the sovereign native tribes are shaded if they perform same sex marriages. --Prcc27 (talk) :30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? — kwami (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Because this map is about legal recognition of same-sex marriages, not cultural practises unrecognized by civil authority. Nigerian ethnic groups do not have sovereignty in the way that Native American groups do. - htonl (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's simply about laws around the world. We don't mention any restrictions on whose laws.  Certainly the imposition of the death penalty in Iraq under local sharia is not recognized by a sovereign state, but there have been no objections to marking that on the parent map.  — kwami (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually no it is marked as a ring. A ring specifies case by case application or a judge making a decision in a specific case. Pug6666 22:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are same sex marriages still performed in theses African countries today? --Prcc27 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Historically they've occurred among the Yoruba (and presumably many other peoples in the region), but I've not been able to find a current account.  I suspect this may have s.t. to do with the fact that in Nigeria only male homosexuality is illegal.  — kwami (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, if same sex marriages aren't currently occurring then there shouldn't be a blue ring. (Unless you want to a add a blue ring to the following places that have performed same sex marriages in the past: Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Egypt and the Fujian province of China --Prcc27 (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So we agree, then. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If and only if you add Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Egypt and the Fujian province of China to the map for performing same-sex marriages in the past. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you misread my comment. I agree with you that we shouldn't indicate areas where there is now no SSM.  We should indicate areas where there is SSM. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh okay... --Prcc27 (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Then yeah, only areas where it is currently performed. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So... does that mean Africa will be removed now...? --Prcc27 (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No. As I answered above, these are areas where they are currently performed, where in, say, a family with seven daughters, one daughter will take a wife in order to have a son to carry on the family name. There are many other areas where they are recorded, and quite likely still occur (Yoruba, Edo, etc.), but these three (Igbo, Fon, and Nandi) are the only ones I could confirm with recent accounts. (I suspect they occur across the area from Fon to Igbo, and probably beyond (at least in the east), and I doubt Nandi is isolated either, but we can only go by sources.) — kwami (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, not isolated in Kenya. Also practiced currently by the Kikuyu, the largest nation in the country.  — kwami (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't find any evidence that the Igbo people currently practice it. Also, some say the Igbo have practiced it in the past and then there's others that say it didn't happen... http://www.blackacademypress.com/articles/28-nonfiction/6-gender-marriage. Haven't yet looked into the other tribes. Also, should another color be added for the Igbo IF they perform same-sex marriage since they never performed male on male marriages, only female on female same sex marriages..? --Prcc27 (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There are several recent anthropological accounts. I don't know how common it is, though.  Among the Nandi, it's supposedly 5–10%.  As for the blog, the fact that the author goes on and on about how there's no male–male marriage, when no-one said there was, does not make him sound very credible.  — kwami (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Egypt and the Fujian province of China
Same sex marriage took place in these places as well. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If Africa isn't removed then these places should be added. (Unless Africa performs ssm to date which I don't think they do)--Prcc27 (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The Nation (Kenya), 2010-7-11, featured an interview with a Nandi woman, Elizabeth Chemasunde, who had married five wives. Cited in Gender and Language in Sub-Saharan Africa (2013:35). This in a section on how this practice of iweto marriage is still considered normal in parts of Kenya, with 5–10% of marriages female–female. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that all areas that perform female on female marriages but not male on male marriages should be colored a different color. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Female Same-sex marriage only
For places that only perform female same-sex marriages and not male same sex marriage; This is what I propose the summary to look like.

Option A

Option B

--Prcc27 (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But they're not really open to female same-sex couples. This is almost always because a family has no sons, or because the woman is establishing herself as a social power in the community.  I think just the ring for not being fully open marriage, with a note for the case in Africa, is probably good enough.  With a separate color I would want to be able to note all cases where this occurs, just as we do for the other colors, and I seriously doubt we can do that.  The ring looks much more provisional, effectively saying, "here are some sporadic cases of SSM which don't constitute full marriage equality".  BTW, although the cases we have so far are female only, the Dinka practice male–male marriage, or at least they did.  I suspect they still do (in many areas the Dinka are extremely traditional), but so far I haven't been able to confirm.  I don't know if there are any nations which practice both, but the Dinka and Nandi are both Nilotic.
 * This is not a case where the government (or society) sees homosexuality as acceptable for women, and I think that's the idea our readers would take away from the map if we had this extra color. We'd need to go into much more detail to give an extra color adequate weight so people are not mislead, and that's really a topic for a separate article.  — kwami (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wisconsin
Wisconsin currently appears as gray. Because "colors higher in the list override those lower down," shouldn't Wisconsin appear as the federal recognition color? --Philpill691 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If we don't want to show CU's in the US. I'd rather move the fed coloring down.  — kwami (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Because this is a map of marriage laws, I think that the federal recognition coloring should override the CU coloring. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair point. What do others think?  The benefit of having the CUs is that it gives the reader some idea where the next marriage laws might be passed.  We could also remove it and color Illinois and Hawaii tan.  — kwami (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody else seems to be participating in this discussion, I request that the map be changed to make Wisconsin the federal recognition color. In my opinion, anything relating to marriage should override civil union legislation. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Jalisco
Jalisco should be added to the civil union column. I think. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Western-Mexico-state-approves-gay-civil-unions --Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that the other color overrides civil unions... --Prcc27 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we need to update the Mexico map. — kwami (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Impracticality of tiny maps and maps without legend
This map is highly impractical as you can see the legend only if you observe it within a small window that has a legend underneath, separate from the picture file, and thus most small jurusdictions are unidentifiable. For example, what is that circle there on Phnom Penh or somewhere thereabouts?

But, if you open the picture file in a bigger window, you are no longer on the same page and the legend is gone. Such maps are impractical and stupid. Legend should be incorporated into the map, somehwere between Africa and Asutralia or Australia and South America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthShallSetTheeFree (talk • contribs) 05:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to act. — kwami (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One problem, though: As it is, the maps are language-neutral, and they're used on several pedias.  If we added a legend in the map, then we'd need a new map for every pedia, and maintaining consistency would be a real problem.  It's not exactly difficult to flip between two windows, esp. when there are only a few colors and the shading is intuitive.  — kwami (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Illinois
Please don't add Illinois to the map until the bill is actually signed into law.(If it does actually get signed into law). --Prcc27 (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should be tan. The governor isn't expected to sign until the end of the month. The SSM article is holding off on IL.Frimmin (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Frimmin
 * Illinois still needs to be removed! --Prcc27 (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

CPP in the Philippines
there is at least one case of a same-sex marriage on territory controlled by the Communist Party of the Philippines, see http://www.gmax.co.za/look05/02/08-phillipines.html and http://manilatimes.net/lgbt-rights-battles-in-us-ph/14416/ ... probably a small dot could be added in Mindanao, the southernmost island of the country? ... 155.245.69.178 (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We add rings for individual cases. Do we accord a local rebel movement the same recognition as a local judge or county clerk?  I suppose they're a local govt, even if they're not recognized, not dissimilar form the local courts that issue death sentences in Iraq.  Added a ring.  — kwami (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii + idea for the UK
Okay, I realize Hawaii is a few hours early. Revert me if the gov gets raptured before he can sign.

I thought I'd try s.t. new for the UK: Coloring the border rather than filling in the country if the law isn't going to take effect any time soon. We've had concerns that we're misleading people into thinking SSM is recognized in England/Wales when it is not, but also that adding colors for passed-but-not-yet-in-effect would make the map too busy. (There are similar problems with adoption, in one case a country that's legalized it but where the law won't go into effect until 2016!) Does this work for people?

Also, we might want to be consistent on how soon is "soon". If we do this every time a law is passed w/o immediate effect, we're going to have a lot of busy work. In the case of Hawaii, the lag time is a few weeks – hardly enough time to plan a wedding anyway. But in England & Wales it was a year, and I agree with the folks that objected to showing that as currently legal. Thoughts?

— kwami (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not an expert with regards to UK law, but it seems that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 is implemented gradually, with several commencement orders and no real "effective date". Secondly, the UK (England & Wales) seems to take exceptionally long compared to most other jurisdictions, i.e. a comparable situation will probably be rare. For those two reasons I would prefer to treat it as usual and fill it dark blue, but I'm fine with the border solution too. SPQRobin (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There will still be one particular "effective date" when marriages can start being celebrated. - htonl (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally think that the border looks kind of ungainly on the smaller scale. (It looks fine on the larger map, but I have other issues with the large map that I'll bring up momentarily.) It is odd that it will take so long to take effect, but I believe our sources have been treating England and Wales as having marriage equality, and we do have the dagger on the table.  Also, while adding color leads to feature creep, you've already been using outlines for traditional cultures that allow female-female non-sexual marriage. —Quintucket (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd try it out to see how it works. There's a similar problem with Switz in the adoption map, and I figure we should use similar conventions on the two maps.  Yes, we have a dagger on the table, but not on the map.  Suggestions for other ways of dealing with this are welcome – the outline doesn't work all that well with Switz either.  — kwami (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I say don't worry about it and leave England and Wales solid dark blue. I'd say that the point of having a map map is for people to see at a glance: this is where the people, politicians, or courts have decided to allow any two consenting adults to marry. Details belong in the articles. —Quintucket (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We'd want to change the labeling, then. We currently say dk blue is where marriage is open, but it's not open in the UK.  Should we change the wording, or maybe add (pending in Eng/Wales) to the legend?  — kwami (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How about: "Performs or scheduled to perform same-sex marriage"? —Quintucket (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't count states just for performing SSM, but for marriage being open to everyone. If you have to go to a judge to convert your CU to marriage, then that doesn't count.  — kwami (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Didn't we count Brazilian states that allowed civil unions to be converted into marriage? Any rate, in that case, how about: "laws allow marriage between same-sex couples"? —Quintucket (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, we didn't. And because sometimes they aren't laws, but judicial decisions.  05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't judicial decisions be taken as part of the body of Common Law? —Quintucket (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Feature creep
As always kwami, I appreciate the work you do here and elsewhere, and I'm rather amazed at how much you manage to do. That said, I'm worried that some of your recent additions over the past few months amount to feature creep, and are potentially confusing. In particular: My biggest issue is with point #2 (in fact I think I'll raise it on the article too, where we treat Kenya as having a national debate), but I do feel like #1 and #3 clutter the map a bit as well. —Quintucket (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) You add substandard unions, which is pretty much indiscernable on the small map on my laptop, and for some reason looks stronger than almost-equal unions on my tablet (using Linux/Firefox and Android/Opera Mobile respectively).  And when you think about it, there's no reason that purple-gray shouldn't be stronger than green-gray.  Your argument for including almost-equal unions made some sense (though I wouldn't mind removing even them), but some recognition seems to be pushing it, both with numbers of colors, and the colors themselves.
 * 2) The title is World marriage-equality laws, and yet you recently added outlines for areas in Africa which have customary non-sexual woman-woman marriage, where the younger woman has a man's baby and inherits the older woman's property.  Though you can argue it's a "law," it's not marriage equality, and certainly not "gay marriage."  Wikipedia's choice of title "same-sex marriage" as a politically neutral alternative to "gay marriage" or "marriage equality," shouldn't obscure the fact that we're talking about gay marriage/marriage equality, not all cases of marriage between two people of the same sex (even if we discuss that in the history section).  It's even more of an issue when the image title is "marriage-equality."
 * 3) The title is World-marriage equality laws, but you include individual cases which aren't really laws, and even cases where there's no likelihood of repeat.  Mexican states are arguably one thing, because it's a judicial ruling that might set a precedent.  You make make the case more tenuously for Cambodia.  But at the small level, they look just marriage equality in small jurisdictions like Canberra, Mexico City or a lot of French territories.


 * I was kind of opposed to the idea of having those African countries added to the map. You make a good point. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "stronger". If the colors need to be adjusted, we can certainly work on them, but that's independent of what we have on the map.  I'm also not opposed to coloring all CU's the same. (That has been requested before.)
 * The title of the file is just a label so we can link to it; it could be "12345.svg" for all that it matters. I think it's irrelevant, but if people feel it's misleading, we can always move it.
 * I included the traditional African marriages because they are (technically, at least) SSM, and because we cover them in the article. If they're in the article, it makes sense to me to have them on the map.  (And IMO they do need to be in the article because, just like with gay penguins, people are going to hear about them and come here for details.)  Using an outline was in part because I didn't want to suggest they were equivalent to marriage equality elsewhere.
 * Yes, having outlines for two different things is a conflict, but it's not clear an outline will work for UK & Swiz, so this may resolve itself.
 * — kwami (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with either coloring all civil unions the same, or removing inferior unions, but right now the map looks more like an Easter egg than anything that's really useful at a glance.


 * I brought up the issue of including African traditional female-female marriages on Talk:Same-sex marriage shortly after posting my comments here. I suspect the BBC, and other outlets who cover these marriages as same-sex marriage are doing so for the shock value.  I've never seen supporters of marriage equality suggest that these African jurisdictions are examples of marriage equality, and I doubt that opponents of marriage equality would be any more keen.  Certainly the culturally conservative practitioners of the African marriages vehemently deny that their marriages are homosexual in nature.
 * Articles about "same-sex marriage" in Africa are link-bait (and not particularly popular link bait at that, I never seem to see them except on the BBC) and have nothing to do with the modern debate. The average reader will recognize that they're not what most people mean when they talk about "same-sex marriage," and we should too, rather than letting the title we chose in the interest of NPOV tangle us up in semantics. These marriages are a curiosity in historical cultural marriage customs, and have nothing to do with marriage equality/gay marriage, other than providing yet another example that marriage has not always been between "one man and one woman." —Quintucket (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One way to reduce the feature creep a bit would be to merge Nepal in with 'intent to legalize'. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you've gone and done that. I must say I'm not sure it helps.  There's no recent indication in Nepal that the high court ruling will be implemented (unlike Scotland and Luxembourg, where their has been progress).  The lime green was clear in both scope and color.  My issue is with various other things which are either difficult to distinguish, potentially confusing, or both. —Quintucket (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I could really use help w the adoption map, which gets surprisingly little attention given how important this is to people. I removed a dozen states from the map as unref'd, including several in the US, but have put some back in as people have come up w refs for them. There are probably others which need to be restored, but I'm out of my depth here.

Our Texas article also claims that SS couples can adopt there, but I haven't seen any ref for this. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with adoption is that it gets a lot less news attention. A couple days ago I tried finding some sources for several US states, but couldn't find anything really useful.  I'm sure I could find the relevant legislation for all 50 state, but I'm not sure that would tell us what we want to know.  Other countries are often even harder. —Quintucket (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Another Tribal nation to add... http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/8th-us-native-american-tribe-allows-same-sex-couples-wed161113 --Prcc27 (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Missouri
Missouri will recognize same sex marriages for tax purposes. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/11/14/2946441/missouri-recognize-sex-marriages-tax-purposes/ --Prcc27 (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Does that have any effect other than normalizing joint fed and state tax returns? It says they won't be eligible for any of the tax benefits that married couples get.


 * It still is some form of recognition of SSM. On the Same sex marriage USA map a footnote was added. Either a footnote should be added or Missouri be colored in because unlike most states in the USA, Missouri is recognizing the marriages in some form and treating the marriages as if they aren't completely invalid. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears to be extremely marginal, less recognition than states that have CUs. The only benefit is a bit less paperwork when filing your taxes.  But there's no benefit re. taxes, visitation, inheritance, custody, testifying in court, etc etc.  I don't see how it's even recognition of SSM.  Rather, it seems to be recognition that state tax filings are inconsistent with fed, and that that can be a bureaucratic inconvenience.  It's about as much recognition of SSM as giving an illegal alien a driver's license equals citizenship.
 * A footnote is inappropriate because we'd have to choose a language for it. Coloration is inappropriate IMO because it's too minor to bother with. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So we're not going to add it to the summary? Isn't the summary in English...? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would we have it in the summary, when the summary describes the map?
 * (As a state reflection of federal law, it's really just a minor variation of the nation-wide shading we already have.) — kwami (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * States aren't required to recognize ssm though. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse recognition with privilege. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam
Does this count as unregistered cohabitation? — kwami (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Source don't say anything about legal recognition, specific rights for same-sex couples. I think that it's about the government's decree to repeal the fines on same-sex weddings, issued in September, which took effect on November 11. I don't think that mere right to "live together" could count as a legal recognition/status. See this source. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's how I read it too. It's removing the penalties on same-sex cohabitation, not recognizing the couples or giving them any more rights than two roommates not in a relationship. —71.192.118.52 (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Govt officials though are treating it as a first baby step toward recognition. It sounds like they want to recognize SSM but are more concerned about any hint of social disruption than they are about individual rights, so they're taking it very slow.  — kwami (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Vietnam should be grey. I don't understand why so many insist to put it in a different colour as if it somehow provides something more to same-sex couples than any of its neighbouring countries. When I edited Vietnam back to grey, it was reverted with the reason that cohabitation is not a special right. That's true, but then isn't the purpose of that map to show which countries have laws about same-sex unions? If there are no legal rights for same-sex unions, then what's the difference with 'no recognition'? Repealing a ban on same-sex marriage doesn't mean any automatic legal recognition of same-sex couples. The neighbouring countries of Laos and China never had a ban on same-sex marriage and yet no one insist that the legal status for those countries is anything else other than 'no recognition'. Unregistered cohabitation exist also in parts of Australia and Croatia but in a form of de facto couples that can actually provide some limited rights to the couple. There is no such thing in Vietnam. Because if unregistered cohabitation simply means 'the right to live together in the same house', then pretty much the whole world falls under that category as two man/woman can live together almost everywhere regardless of the fact that they may have to present themselves to the neighbours as 'cousins'. But then again, this map has to do with laws that recognise same-sex couples. If there are no laws, there is no recognition. And the intentions of the goverment for possible future legislation of same-sex marriage are irrelavant to the laws that currently exist. This map is for laws and not government intentions. If we were to take government intentions into account, then Taiwan should be dark blue because a bill to legalise same-sex marriage have passed the first reading and the attitudes are way more supportive than in Vietnam. And in any case, if someone insists on the intentions so much, there is a yellow category on the map legend for that exact reason which would be a much more accurate category for Vietnam rather than 'unregistered cohabitation'. I would like to listen to some more in-depth reasoning as to why Vietnam should be in a different category from 'no recognition', if anyone disagrees. Discover Earth Mysteries (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The "baby step" though, is not a recognition of a relationship. I can't find any source showing Vietnam legally recognizing same-sex couples. Will be nice to turn it purple or blue at the right time, but that time isn't now.Frimmin (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)frimmin

Azores, Madeira, Canary Islands
French overseas departments have dark blue dots that make them easy to see. Can someone please put dark blue dots on the Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands? Right now, they cannot be easily seen and look gray as if they do not have marriage equality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.153.93 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's been requested before. Done.  — kwami (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

How done? Please compare Bermuda - very visible dot, also North Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.153.93 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. Also thought: what about Ceuta and Melilla? Two places on the continent of Africa - other than SA - which have marriage equality. Two of those dark blue dots would look great under Gibraltar :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.153.93 (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.153.93 (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ohio
Ohio recognizes same-sex marriage (on an individual case basis). I suggest a ring..? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/ohio-must-recognize-marriage_n_3863068.html Prcc27 (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be a green ring. — kwami (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, That's what I had in mind anyways... Prcc27 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Australia Capital Territory
The Australia Capital Territory should be removed from the map! http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/australian-court-rejects-law-allowing-gay-marriage-21187213 Prcc27 (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jalisco Needs A Ring

 * UPDATE: It looks like Jalisco needs a ring. http://purpleunions.com/blog/2013/12/mexico-first-same-sex-couple-marries-in-jalisco.html
 * (It should probably also be added to the "World homosexuality laws map") Along with The Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes also] Prcc27 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It should probably also be added to the Mexico map. Prcc27 (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are Oaxaca and Chihuahua not blue-colored? In Brazil, when there was a decision in a state, the state was colored... why not Mexico? Titanicophile (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because blue would mean open marriage. For sporadic judgements we use a ring. — kwami (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But wasn't Brazil states colored and not ringed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanicophile (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because those states had marriage equality. The Mexican states do not.  — kwami (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that mean Jalisco will be added then? Prcc27 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been. Update your cache? — kwami (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry! (This always happens to me...) Prcc27 (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A ring should be on Colima too, doesn't it? Titanicophile (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Utah
Make the color of the state of Utah dark blue, a Federal Judge overturned the state's same-sex marriage ban today. Couples have already been issued marriage licenses. The governor voiced his attempt to bring the ban back, but it is not certain when that will happen. - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-gaymarriage-utah-20131220,0,4692192.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermiand. (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Civil Unions in US and Mexican States
No civil unions in US states are shown on the map, despite this being the case in Oregon, Nevada, and Colorado. The same is the case in Mexico with Coahuila, Colima, and Jalisco. Additionally, Quintana Roo and Mexico City have legalized equal marriage outright. Plumber (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the legend, colors higher up take precedence over those lower down. Marriage trumps CU's in a map of marriage.  (This has been discussed; we used to show CU's in these countries.) — kwami (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But should "Federal recognition of marriages at the state level" be higher than "Civil unions"? It's not the case on the World Homosexuality Map. I guess since this is a map of marriage maybe it shouldn't; but should the other map match up with this one (besides the lack of rings and inaccurate drawing of Utah in the other map)? Prcc27 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A little variety is a good thing. The other map covers all sorts of laws, this one specializes in marriage laws.  From that POV, the fact that you can be legally married in a state is IMO more relevant than whether you can get a CU.  — kwami (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Similarly, we color Scotland and Luxembourg as "Government announced intention to recognize" while these jurisdictions already have partnerships, which is consequently not marked on the map. SPQRobin (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ohio Death Certificates
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/federal-judge-orders-ohio-to-respect-all-marriages-on-death-certificates Now what? I believe this ruling means that it is not longer a "case by case approval". Does that mean the ring for Ohio has to be removed..? Prcc27 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Also, not sure if Ohio can be added to this map as "Same-sex marriage recognized when performed in certain other jurisdictions" unless it is specified some how that it's only recognized for death certificate purposes. Prcc27 (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The intent was full recognition as a married couple. This was the case in NJ, and is now the case in OR.  What Ohio has is at best "recognition light"; you're not recognized as married until you're no longer married because one of you has died.  It would seem to set a precedent for OR-type recognition, but we can't anticipate what might happen.  — kwami ([[User

talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 21:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But is the ring appropriate for this case? Does it qualify as "case by case approval"? Prcc27 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The ring is for the cases where a judge has recognized individual marriages of living couples. — kwami (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The judge recognized individual marriages of same-sex couples for death certificate purposes and now the judge recognized marriages of all same-sex couples for death certificate purposes. I guess the ring should stay though because it wouldn't really make since removing it... Prcc27 (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I get what you're saying though... the ring is for the past rulings and the current ruling doesn't affect the past ones. Sorry, I was confused. Prcc27 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)