Japan should be grey on this map. Japan not recognize foreign same-sex marriage. See . Colorado also should be change. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Japan fixed (reverted to earlier version)... Japan recently began to allow its nationals to marry foreigners abroad, but does not recognize the unions at home (hence the mistaken update). Colorado not fixed yet. Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Chile should be yellow on this map. See Ron 1987 10:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Done - South America's yellows should now be synced with - Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My little mistake. Designated Beneficiary Agreements is similar to Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii. Colorado should be change on this mape. I'm sorry for that mistake. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed....thanks for catching it, I didn't read the article very closely when I was confirming it. :-) Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you change Colorado on this map? Ron 1987 (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how to do stripes... since SSM is still banned, it would be orange striped with whatever the new color is. Since this WikiProject is so new, you might have quicker luck there w/ the file talk page (or WT:LGBT if all else fails) Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
These benefits will not be taking place until July of 2009; as such, I believe we should leave it out until that time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It unimportant. Colorado should be blue. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a legitimate issue... I was coloring stuff ahead of time following the example of Iowa (and to avoid constant requests for the same update), but if it is not being "recognized" yet, maybe we should wait? Template:SSM is able to use effective dates, but the maps can't (text would not be legible at thumbnail size, and many maps -- though not this one yet --- are also used on non-English Wikipedias). Maybe we could just leave them the old colors until "effective", with a note in the legend text of the thumbnail box saying "Colorado, effective (date)" or something similar? thoughts? Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Because no one striped CO, I just made it solid blue-grey for the time being. Also I created a new grey category for NM, as NM does not have any marriage laws nor does it acknowledge foreign marriages. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone striped Colorado, but that was as a png, so i reverted the edit 00:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Rhode Island should be yellow on this map. Recognition of same-sex unions is debate in these states. See: , , , ,  and . Rhode Island and New Mexico not recognize foreign same-sex marriage, well should be grey on this map. Ron 1987 (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Done -- went ahead and colored all states listed in en:Template:SSM, except for Colorado, will work on syncing the other maps' yellows -- Wikignome0529 (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2009(UTC)
I think yellow should be only states, which not recognize same-sex unions currently, but question is debate. I think Hawaii, California, Washington, Maryland, New Jersey, Hew Hampshire, Maine and DC should be stay blue. Ron 1987 (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
hmm.. that could work, the legend will just have to specify that it is only for states/countries with no other recognition. Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Done (North America map) -- should be fixed now, both North & South Am. maps now have yellow for "No recognition, issue under consideration". The USA map change is under discussion @ the file talk page. -- Wikignome0529 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Colorado needs to be given a "civil union legalized" stripe. --Haha169 (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Maryland (USA map)
I think Maryland has to be made blue. They have domestic partnerships.
Maryland is blue on both maps, though I can see where it could be hard to see... USA map's Maryland is striped yellow/blue, and North America map is "Other type of partnership" blue. Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Really? Because to me I see the dot where D.C. has domestic partnerships legalized (soon to be made into a ligher shade of blue for foreign same-sex marriages recognized) and just gray around it. If Maryland is indeed shaded in I should see more blue around it. If there is any way to blow up the map so it's easier to look at that would be great.
I guess it can be hard to see at smaller sizes... the state is more yellow than blue, though it does have 1 blue stripe (and a very small 2nd blue stripe in the western part). Here is the map at 500px... Most of the talk about that map happens at its (and there actually is 1 proposed image on there to replace the striped version, but not sure that will ever go anywhere). btw, if you are going to be a regular on the talk pages, you might want to create an account -- then you can sign your posts without your IP address showing, and people can send messages to your user talk page. Signing helps other readers know when your message stops & what time you posted it. Whether you make an account or not though, welcome to Commons. :-) Wikignome0529 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you add Cuba on this map? Should be yellow. See . Ron 1987 (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Will see about adding more countries to it ... the base map used for it only went as far south as Mexico, but there is another I could possibly use. Wikignome0529 (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a blank first-level political divisions world map I ran across somewhere on Commons, but haven't been able to find it again. (was going to crop to North America and use that). Unless I run across it again or someone else wants to add the countries, am going to leave as-is for now. (didn't want to just add Cuba without adding Central America as well). The map this map is based on was the only North America map with state/province political divisions, and stops at Mexico (which is why this map stops at Mexico). Wikignome0529 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Nepal should be made dark blue. The courts declared it unconstitutional, and they will have it as soon as a new constitution is drafted in 2010. They are currently performing same-sex marriages, but will recognize them at that time.
The various marriage/partnership maps illustrate where unions are being recognized in practice, not just where courts have ruled they should be recognized. For example, New Mexico USA by theory should recognize foreign same-sex marriages, but does not in practice. (though it is currently marked foreign, in error, on 1 of the maps (Same-sex marriage in USA map)).
Unless you have reliable sources that it is being recognized in Nepal currently, I would follow the example of en:Template talk:SSM#Nepal & wait for the government to implement the court decision ... the court did rule it should be recognized, but it doesn't look like it has been implemented yet. Wikignome0529 (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's been declared though that they will be recognized as soon as the new constitution is ratified in 2010. Iowa and Vermont were immediately shaded dark blue after the rulings/votes and they haven't officially implemented it yet, so I don't really see the difference.
Is difference. Same-sex marriage in Vermont and Iowa is finally approved, in Nepal no.
Same-sex marriage bill in Nepal must be approved in parliament. Legalize same-sex marriage is possible, but not clear. 2010 it only speculations
Washington's purple stripe should be green on this map, per its article and . It passed a new legislation that expands its domestic partnership to every right that marriage has excluding the name and DOMA.--Haha169 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems I was rushing ahead a bit there. It will likely pass, but not yet. Sorry. --Haha169 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Now it seems that the governor has indeed signed the bill into law. Washington's purple stripe needs to be turned green. --Haha169 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Done Nvm, did it by myself again... --Haha169 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Per it's article and the template, Maryland allows civil unions. this map needs to be updated to reflect that. --Haha169 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Done fixed (though it is not very visible) - Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify MD does not offer civil unions ----- it grants limited rights to legally defined domestic partners but it doesn't even have a state domestic partnership registry. This doesn't make a difference for the color scheme on the map discussed though....at least I don't think. MD should be the same color on maps that Hawaii is.188.8.131.52 23:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the Montana article, the legislature killed it -- are there still any efforts to legalize it past that? ...
You are right about Guam, but currently the only non-mainland US region included on the North America map is Hawaii (which was included in the blank map it was based on, as one of the 50 states). Guam and the other territories probably should be added to File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg, but I wouldn't be able to do that without Inkscape (and they try to keep that map human-editable by plain text editing programs, which Inkscape messes up.) Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused because on the "same-sex marriage united states" article map there is discussion about VA, SD, NE, and MI being the only U.S. states that ban ALL forms of same-sex relationship recognitions. This map indicates a lot more. I think there is a discrepancy in U.S. bans of "marriage" versus "marriage and civil unions" and "marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships" Is there a way to account for this?184.108.40.206 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The US data for the North America map was derived directly from the US map, so dark-red on the North America map is the same as red on the US map (and orange on US map is same as lighter-red on North America map). Was not aware that some states ban civil unions but not "domestic partnerships", will correct the map legend to reflect this. Thanks for catching this -- Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Am checking up on it... not sure that the Advocate got it right, as everywhere else i have heard/read (including the news agency that the Advocate cites in its 2nd sentence) states that Japan will now give out the credentials (proof of age, etc) to allow Japanese nationals to marry abroad (but not necessarily recognize the marriages in Japan). They might have just interpreted the news wrong like many of us did upon first hearing of it?......or maybe they are right. Will see if anyone else has info on it. Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Not done -- haven't found anything else to back-up foreign SSM being recognized within Japan (& neither has anyone at en:Template talk:SSM, the template listing current status of SSM, on English Wikipedia). Since the news article The Advocate cites does not support it either, maybe they just misinterpreted the news. Leaving unchanged for now, unless/until someone finds differing info. Wikignome0529 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no text in the graphic so I am assuming you mean the file name... not sure what the procedure would be for changing file names on Commons, but an "amendment" by definition would already only refer to constitutional amendments (as opposed to a defense of marriage "act"). If you think the legend is not clear enough about it, it could be edited to read "constitutional amendment" instead of "amendment" though... (it is only in use on English Wikipedia at this point, so translations would not be an issue) Wikignome0529 (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually think your suggestion is a really good one. Just putting the word constitutional in front of amendment in each legend box would make it much clearer. please do this.
Done legend updated on map's file page & on both English Wikipedia articles, feel free to tweak the wording if needed - Wikignome0529 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Vietnam. There was a confusing write-up on the status under LGBT rights in Vietnam, but it has since been removed by editors as inaccurate. The page was heavily outdated. Anyway, Vietnam should be gray on this map. VoodooIsland (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Done - confirmed with article, map fixed. thx, Wikignome0529 (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
US Hate Crimes Map
Why are Kentucky and Tennessee listed as blue? I'm not sure about Kentucky, but Tennessee has no such laws. A man was recently fired for being gay in Tennessee and based on several google searches, the sources explicitly stated that there is no protection based on sexual orientation. VoodooIsland (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
While the WA legislature has passed a bill to fully expand the DP in the state the Governor has not signed it yet. While she is expected to sign it and has stated she will sing it she has 20 days excluding sundays from the date the legislature adjourns to sign the bill. I'm just as excited as the next person but for pete's sake the bill hasn't even been signed yet so why do maps indicate it is law already? See http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009. When the Governor signs it that will be listed on the provided link.
I know people are excited but this isn't even a signed bill yet and as we all know anything can happen in the world of politics up to and including a governor's signature.DaveIseminger (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2009
The governor has already signed it. It is rather odd that the state government website is not up-to-date with that fact, but the governor has already signed it, April 16.--Haha169 (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The Governor has not signed it yet. I work directly with the legislators who passed the bill, live in Washington State, and work in Olympia. She has not signed it yet. I challenge you to provide a cite or source for Governor Gregoire's signature. It has not happened and you won't be able to find a cite or newspaper article even that states anything other than "expected to sign it" or "indicates she will sign it"....but she has not actually signed it yet. The government website is updated within 24 hours of the Governor's actions so it isn't a delay there.
Your April 16 date is the day after the Legislature passed it and cannot be right because the bill report previously cited has actions taken on it after that date.....how could the Governor have signed it on that date when she didn't get it until April 23? Your information about the Governor's signature is incorrect and you shouldn't blindly assert a claim without a source when someone disagrees with you on here----don't rely on the HRC website as I've actually contacted them to asking why they have jumped the gun. You won't find your proof on the state's LGBT advocacy group (Equal Rights Washington) as I just checked there too. The following is simply a press release indicating support on the day the legislature passed it but it is not a signature statement http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=1202&newsType=1.
That's certainly odd, then, since I remember reading articles that indicate the governor has signed it. Or its just me being crazy... --Haha169 (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It's ok, I didn't mean to sound so angry or frustrated in my message but even the HRC director agreed with me and is having their maps updated to the current status to not mislead people. AS soon as she signs it I will post back on here. I'm actually going to be going to the bill signing when it does happen.DaveI (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone stripe Ecuador here? It bans same-sex marriage. Also, if it can't be striped, perhaps we could simply make it red for the time being since the civil unions have not been implanted yet, despite the fact that they are guaranteed by the constitution. It's confusing, but you can find some explanations here. 220.127.116.11 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Changed it to yellow (under political consideration) for now to match classification on en:Template:SSM... could not find any news in English more recent than the constitution's passing, and the country's same-sex unions article mentions delays but does not cite a source. Thx for catching it, Wikignome0529 (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Washington State: UPDATE
According to The Seattle Times, Gregorie has yet to sign the bill, therefore Washington should be striped green and yellow. Additionally, the legislation might be delayed according to the same article. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, fixed. (btw, for future reference, most talk on this map takes place on the English Wikpedia file talk page, which is pretty active). thx, Wikignome0529 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
How come when I said this a couple of weeks ago and provided cites it wasn't believed. Gregoire is set to sign the bill on 5.18.09 and referendum 71 is the filed referendum. On May 4, 2009 Referendum 71 was filed in the Washington Secretary of State's Office to attempt to prevent the 2009 Domestic Partnership Legislation from becoming Law. Opponents have until July 25, 2009 to gather 120,577 signatures to force a November 2009 ballot vote. http://heraldnet.com/article/20090505/NEWS01/705059848DaveI (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I made a userpage at haha169/LGBT maps - since I noticed that this WikiProject about maps doesn't even have a category or gallery dedicated solely to these maps. Perhaps I'm wrong? But I think a gallery should be somewhere on the Wikiproject. --Haha169 (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
there is a cat (Category:LGBT-related maps and child cats), but the link is only on the main project page... will try to add a link to the talk page (would save time getting to the maps, having a link here anyway...). if you want to add galleries as sub-pages to the project, feel free to (just add a link somewhere on the main page)... tho another idea might be to add new (or overhaul existing) Commons gallery pages for specific LGBT topics, to show up when users type in things into the search/go box (a lot more people would benefit from them that way, and links to them could still be added to the project main page, or even added to a project sub-page listing/keeping track of the various public gallery pages). Wikignome0529 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, though i am sure that carolina will be dark-red again before long. Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! And I'm sure it will only take a couple of weeks for SC to go back to dark red...sigh. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Rhode Island should be yellow on this map. Recognition of foreign same-sex marriage is unclear. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, added yellows for all US states & DC listed as "debated" on en:Template:SSM, except for California (not sure if qualifies for "under political consideration" since prop 8 is under judicial consideration?) Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You forgot? Yellow should be only states, where same-sex unions are not recognize, but issue is debate. We fixed that in earlier discussion. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
my bad -- fixed it, only RI is changed to yellow now. Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Your own link says "The law is to take effect in mid-September". It's not mid-September yet. I suggest changing the image back in the mean time. The same could be said for Vermont too, right? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Does this have to be clarified every time? Our maps are updated the minute the law is signed, not when they come into effect. We had a consensus on that. --Haha169 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed! Which again is why WA State needed to be changed back to limited rights because the Governor has yet to sign it even though a referendum signature gathering has already started. But the signature is what matters. May 18th is that rumored date! New Hampshire might need updating soon......bill on the Governor's desk and he only has 5 days to make a decision!DaveI (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been changed back...perhaps you have to purge your cache? --Haha169 (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That is why I said needed not needs :) We are the same page now HaHa.DaveI (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: maps being changed before laws come into effect -- I'm not sure if it was as much consensus as status quo... I actually agreed with the wait-until-it-is-effective people, but for practical behind-the-scenes reasons the update-now approach works better..... 1 major issue with updating the maps immediately was that the maps said "Same-sex marriage recognized", "_____ recognized", etc., even including places which had laws which were not effective yet. I have attempted to clarify the map legends (on Commons & en.wiki) to try to make this issue moot though... (removing "recognized" wording (if it is not effective yet, it is not "recognized"), and also adding a footnote regarding this issue). Wikignome0529 (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure - it is rather confusing. I think there should be subnotes as well... --Haha169 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
not sure i understand, you mean listing the country/states in the footnote as well? that could work for en.wiki, but for other wikis we'd probably have to use a static note (assuming they wouldn't get updated as much). Am going to try to move the en.wiki world map (and legend) into a template (saw this on another-language wiki & it makes legend changes easier since all articles can be updated at once) Wikignome0529 (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedNorthern states colored death, rest of country colored for large penalty. Wikignome0529 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's a discussion about what to do with several countries from the map talk page, two of which being resolved, with Nigeria being in a confusing position. Since the map talk receives less attention, I thought I'd resurface this here..
The death penalty is no longer in effect in Afghanistan since the US/NATO invasion, which completely removed homosexuality as a reason for capital punishment which was placed in by the Taliban. In Somalia, the death penalty is no longer in effect due to the collapse of the government, though regions under Sharia prescribe the death penalty. As for Nigeria, the Northern part has the death penalty (as they are under Sharia Law), but the southern only has prison time up to 14 years. VoodooIsland (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any url's for the Afghanistan & Somalia info? I checked the latest ILGA report (is from May 2008, so the information might be dated). Its listing for Nigeria matches your info. Afghanistan and Somalia below:
Afghanistan, page 7: "Islamic Sharia law, criminalizing homosexual acts with a maximum of death penalty, is applied together with the codified Penal law. However, no known cases of death sentences have been handed out for homosexual acts after the end of Taliban rule.". If the post-Taliban Afghan government is still applying Sharia, wouldn't the country still qualify for death coloring?
*For Somalia it cites a law from 1964 (not sure if the current government uses this penal code?) with up to 3 years as a penalty. According to this news article from 26 April 2009 though, the Somali government is implementing Sharia.
Somalia: We might as well leave Somalia in dark red, as the soon-to-be (unless it's already happened; if not, shortly) implanting of Sharia Law will bring the death penalty for homosexuality.
Afghanistan: Thanks for the link :), I did not know that. Afghanistan does seem to be a confusing case, as the government has ordered (?) (more so "announced") that homosexuality will not result in the death penalty, but as your link provides, it is still "legally in the books." Akin to how homosexuality is technically still illegal in Fiji, despite the fact that the police have been specifically ordered not to arrest Fijians for consensual homosexual activity.
Nigeria: As for Nigeria, I'm not sure what we should do for this one. I know stripes can be a bit confusing, but I feel that it is important to make a distinction between the north (Sharia states) which applies the death penalty, and the south (non-Sharia), which only offers a large penalty, i.e., a lengthy imprisonment. I suppose we could cut Nigeria in two, coloring the top half dark red (death penalty) and coloring the bottom half orange (large penalty). You might have a better suggestion though, and I'd love to hear input for anyone else who has an idea for a clarification solution. VoodooIsland (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The most consistent way to do it would probably be to color the Sharia states for death (and leave the rest of the country the right color) -- this would match how the US has different colors for certain states. If there was an SVG Nigeria map with states, this would be easy -- it could just be pasted in. The only Nigeria map with states I know of on here is File:NG-Sharia.png, though. It could be recolored appropriately (including getting rid of the black borders) and pasted into Nigeria on the map... but this would be putting a PNG map into a SVG map (though only for 1 country). It might work as a temporary fix though. There is a world map somewhere on Commons that has state/province borders for all countries, but am not sure if it is SVG or PNG. If it is SVG, we could copy/paste Nigeria from there. Will look around & try to find it again... Wikignome0529 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Signed into law by governor (didn't take long)  -- updated the North America and World laws maps (SSM in USA map was already updated) Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Merida - Venezuela
Merida, Venezuela recognizes civil unions. Its a rather small state...would it be useful to include it? --Haha169 (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Would make sense, since that is how the US states are handled... luckily an SVG of the state already existed to copy/paste from. I updated world laws and South America, though on the world laws map it is pretty small. Wikignome0529 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Florida, South Carolina (update)
Can you please recolor South Carolina and Florida as red on this map please? According to new reports, the bills were never even considered. VoodooIsland (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Question: It only says that a matrimony is between an man and a woman, but does not explicitly state that only a marriage between a man and woman is recognized. So technically, it is not banned, but in a gray area. Right? --Haha169 (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(1) Matrimony shall be a free union between a man and a woman. Only a civil marriage shall be legal. (2) Spouses shall have equal rights and obligations in matrimony and the family. (3) The form of a marriage, the conditions and procedure for its conclusion and termination, and all private and material relations between the spouses shall be established by law.
Pretty much the same as Voodoo's quote except for the "shall"... not sure it would count as a "ban", but does seem to define it as man/woman. :-/ (whether the lack of an "only" would provide a constitutional loophole would be another issue though). Wikignome0529 (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Bulgaria is definitely a gray area; but interpreting the text alongside similar wordings found in the constitutions of Poland and Lithuania, where same-sex marriage is constitutionally banned; Bulgaria's article reads almost identically. It's always such a pain interpreting these bans; especially with cases like Cambodia, which has a similar wording, yet there have been reports of a few officially registered (and valid) same-sex marriages in the country; which is odd; considering that such an occurrence would be like obtaining a marriage license in Arizona or say Cuba. Then you have the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with a constitution that apparently states "Everyone is free to marry the person of their choice, of the opposite sex." It's a very different wording, though is even more explicit. However, as I can only find incomplete excerpts from the constitution and poorly-constructed Italian copy; I cannot say for sure whether or not the current constitution actually states this. VoodooIsland (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I would lean toward keeping it red (since it looks like a defined as man/woman), unless more info contradicts... though maybe the legend should be changed to read "Constitution defines marriage as man/woman" (see previous thread about coloring Poland as "ban" at File talk:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg#Poland should be reden:File talk:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg/Archive 1#Poland (2)) Bulgaria does not say "only" man/woman, but "marriage shall be..." seems to serve roughly the same purpose(?) If consensus is to keep Bulgaria grey, I don't object. But we should reach some sort of consensus in case of future requests to update Bulgaria to red. Wikignome0529 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I think a simple name change could be an easy solution; then we don't have to ponder over possible loopholes and if a court happens to rule that the "loophole" is in fact a loophole; then we can update the map accordingly. We could change "Same-sex marriage banned" to "Constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples," (I personally feel this option reads the smoothest) "Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman (same-sex marriage banned)," or "Constitution defines marriage as a heterosexual union." VoodooIsland (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
ALSO: Another notable reason for opting to one of the suggestions above is that the current wording does not specify that same-sex marriage is banned by the constitution; rather stating "same-sex marriage banned." This could be confusing for readers for a number of reasons. First of all, Portugal, which does not have a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, still has a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage; though on the current map; only countries with constitutional bans are included. This could be confusing for some, as Portugal effectively bans same-sex marriage, though it would be an overload to include statutory and other kinds of non-constitutional prohibitions to list. VoodooIsland (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Either man/woman or opposite-sex sounds good to me (the "heterosexual" one might have problems since the union might be heterosexual, but the people themselves may be bi or gay). I hadn't noticed above, but you are right that the legend does not list constitutional in the legend. I just noticed on the North America counterpart of this map (based on/shares its color scheme, though with an additional dark red for the US's SSM+civil union bans) lists both constituional/statutory as red, so if we were going to keep them semi-consistent that would mean not limiting Europe's red to constituional bans (though as you say, maybe the statutory ones haven't been colored red at all). Portugal has unregistered cohab, which maybe is why it wasn't colored red(?) -- similar to how only "No recognition" places get the yellow colors. On the Americas maps, the legend actually makes the red color clear with: "No recognition, only same-sex marriage officially banned" (only applying to No recognition places). Wikignome0529 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to include statutory restrictions on same-sex marriage. A state that has a statutory "ban" on same-sex marriage is the same as a state that doesn't allow same-sex marriage. Indeed, in nearly all states where same-sex marriage was legalised, this took place by replacing the "man/woman" definition in the statute with a gender-neutral definition. There is indeed another group of countries which have a genderless definition of marriage in the statute, but which do not allow same-sex marriage in practice. France and Greece are the two examples I can think of.
On a broader note, I'm definitely in favour in changing the language so that it says "constitution defines marriage as a heterosexual union". Unlike in the USA, Poland, Bulgaria and Serbia did not actually amended their Constitutions with the specific intent of banning same-sex marriage. Except Latvia and Lithuania, the countries which constitutionally limit marriage to opposite-sex couples do so virtually by coincidence. Indeed, I'd personally favour abolishing the constitutional-ban category for good. In some countries, including Latvia and Lithuania, constitutions are very flexible, meaning that they can be changed without a public referendum. This means that the definition of marriage can be changed quite easily by Parliament, in the same way that same-sex marriage has been legalised in other countries. We have to recognise that the categories used in the US template do not match the reality in Europe. In the US, it is very useful to know where a constitutional ban exists, for the simple reason that, in those states, SSM can only be legalised by public vote, rather than by legislative/court action. In Europe, the significance of such "constitutional bans" is reduced. Ronline (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Commons legend was already changed, I updated the map legends on en.wiki to match constitutional-specific wording. (this is what the map is de facto anyway, and consensus appears to support keeping it this way) Wikignome0529 (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Maine and New Hampshire
Maine and New Hampshire should be purple on this map. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
On the same-sex marriage in Europe map in particular, but on other maps including North America, (exempting the world map), why is a color on the legend "Unrecognized/Unknown"? Which jurisdictions have laws that are not known? You can get married under the law, or you can't. This should be very clear in secular states. It should be unrecognized. Or is there a justification for this that I don't know about? Fortuynist (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I think the "Unknown" was just put in there to cover countries where the situation may be unknown or uncertain. Nevertheless, I agree it's misleading and should be removed. There are indeed countries such as Greece where the status of same-sex marriage is quite disputed among gay rights groups and legal experts, but it is clear that same-sex marriage is not being performed in a regular, authorised fashion. Thus, it is "Unrecognised". Ronline (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone change Ukraine to red (banned) on this map? From the constitution:
Article 51 Marriage is based on the free consent of a woman and a man. Each of the spouses has equal rights and duties in the marriage and family.
Similar situation with Belarus, Montenegro and Moldova.
According to european law and social situation that means that same-sex marriage will be illegal for the next 50 years in these countries. UEK Jan Paweł II (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with chaning Ukraine to red, but I disagree with the other three being included. We should only include countries with explicit bans, which actually specify the requirements for gender as in Ukraine. The constitutions of the other three mention "husband and wife" or "bride and groom," but do not specify gender. While this wording would definitely be a roadblock for the establishment of same-sex marriage, I feel we should only include nations in this category that specify gender. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know which country do you come from, but in our slavic countries wording "husband and wife" or "bride and groom" does exactly mean the same as "man and woman". UEK Karol Wojtyła (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As I have outlined several times before, this seems to be opening a can of worms. I agree with VoodooIsland that we should only include states under "same-sex marriage constitutionally banned" in the following two conditions:
If there is an explicit ban on same-sex marriage, in the form "Same-sex marriage will not be recognised"
If there is a explicit definition of marriage which restricts it to opposite sex-spouses, such as "Marriage is a union between one man and one woman".
I would argue that even formulations such as Article 51 of the Ukrainian Constitution are quite vague. Furthermore, if we are now going to include Ukraine, where the constitution is totally silent on same-sex marriage, we definitely need to change the wording of the caption from "Same-sex marriage banned" to "Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman". It is misleading to argue to argue that these countries contain a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, since this implies a conscious effort to ban same-sex marriage in the context of a public debate on this issue (Latvia and Lithunia are the only countries which have inserted these types of "conscious" anti-same-sex-marriage bans). Ronline (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Conversely, Article 32 of the Belarusian Constitution is not clear enough, merely stating that "On reaching the age of consent women and men shall have the right to enter into marriage on a voluntary basis and start a family". This is very similar to the wording of international human rights instruments dealing with the right to marry.
The Constitution of Moldova, like that of Ireland, contains a "family protection clause" in Article 48(1), which states that the family must be protected by the state. This is in itself not a barrier to same-sex marriage. However, in Article 48(2), there is quite a clear definition of marriage, which states "Familia se întemeiază pe căsătoria liber consimţită între bărbat şi femeie" ("The family is based on the free marriage between man and woman"). Note that these provisions may not be simply coincidental. The Romanian Constitution also contains an Article 48 on Marriage, except it states "Familia se întemeiază pe căsătoria liber consimţită între soţi" ("The family is based on the free marriage between spouses"), which is gender neutral. It is quite interesting that the Moldovan Constitution, inspired by the Romanian one, is identical to the Romanian wording but chooses to explicitly specify gender. I don't have any sources for this, but my gut feeling is that the framers of the constitutions, working mostly in the 1990s when same-sex marriage was just beginning to become a political issue, pre-empted the possibility of its legalisation in the future and chose to prevent it, but in a subtle way that would not immediately appear homophobic or infringing on equal rights. Ronline (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Just one more point to mention: I've implemented the updates, both to the map and to the caption. Nonetheless, it is still my view that depicting these countries in red places undue emphasis on them. In several countries (Latvia and Lithunia especially), it is my understanding that Constitutions are quite flexible, and can be changed without public referendum. Thus, aside from symbolic reasons, I fail to see why a constitutional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, in the absence of an explicit ban, is that so much more significant than a statute which does not permit same-sex marriage (coloured grey) that it requires its own category on the template. Ronline (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Montenegro should be red, because its constitution was in 2005 I guess and that's why they took under consideration this facts about possibility of same-sex marriage claims. 18.104.22.168 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
changed Montenegro to red per Article 71 of the constitution. Wikignome0529 (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the north american.svg image, but I have yet to figure out how to copy objects from one svg file to another, so I haven't touched the world image. --Haha169 (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Added in Wisconsin, though had to correct Iowa and Colorado some to make it match. For now, these band-aid fixes have been doing the job (they are not perfect, but at the zoom levels that regular viewers are viewing it at, it is passable). Eventually we will need to paste in the whole country, but don't know of any blank US maps with a flat line for a Canadian border (there is one, but the whole country is one shape (with border lines on top), so any changes to a color on 1 state change the whole country). Wikignome0529 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Should Illinois, Utah, Minnesota, or Pennsylvania choose to legalize so form of unions, the patchwork puzzle will no longer fit. Does anybody know where to find a World svg map that has political subdivisions? I know one particular map with a straight Canadian border, but I doubt it will work because that map is perfectly upright while this world map is slanted. (I'm looking at Iowa and New England - does anyone know who created those states because they seem to be perfectly in-sync with the map)--Haha169 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
US employment discrimination law- animated GIF (Delaware)
This animated GIF of state employment discrimination law needs to be updated with a new slide that has Delaware: sexual orientation for all employment in 2009. Fortuynist (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
How can gay adoption be banned in regions of Canada when Canada allows same-sex marriage at the federal level? Did the gender neutral law not include adoption rights on a federal level? VoodooIsland (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
According to the Christian Science Monitor, The ruling means that the government must now either repeal the law nationwide, or appeal against the judgment in the country's Supreme Court.VoodooIsland (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Both possible versions (India all grey, and only Delhi grey) are in the file uploads history, available for reverting to if needed. Current displayed version is India all-grey. Main discussion over India's status is @ en:Talk:Homosexuality in India. Wikignome0529 (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This map  should either be deleted or modified. AS it is, it shows a very limited area, much less than half of the middle east. It would be better to show the whole region. It's focus on Israel makes no sense, considering that most of the map shows countries that aren't Israel, and Israel itself is actually presented as one country among many.Bob bobato (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- I assume the focus on Israel is because of it being the most liberal country in the middle east regarding LGBT rights... agree that a map of the whole Middle East would make more sense, though Israel is probably the only country there where it is legal. As far as deletion goes, check usage shows that the map is in use on multiple Wikipedias (not just English). As Commons is primarily a provider of images for Wikipedias, being in-use on any Wikipedia is an automatic disqualifer for most deletions. The original uploader is still actively maintaining it (file history shows an edit to it within the past month), so you might try his/her user talk page to discuss expansions to its scope, since it was apparently designed to highlight Israel (given the file name) & not the whole region. Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is UAE grey? I thought in UAE being gay was a punishable crime.
UAE actually doesn't appear on the map (it is on the eastern border of Saudi, out of range of the map)
Florida (File:Gay Adoption Map North America.svg)
Though the law for FL banning gay adoption was struck down, during appeal it is still illegal. It should either be red or grey.
On June 26 2009 Ireland published it's civil partnership bill and will be introduced by Autumn 2009. This should be updated on World homosexuality laws.svg.
Going to wait for en:Template:SSM on this one (when Ireland is moved to Civil partnerships section and is not reverted). I am not familiar with the Irish leglislative process, but every news article I read made it sound like civil partnerships were being legalized -- but according to this Irish Times story mentioned at en:Template talk:SSM#Ireland, it still has to go through the legislature? From the Irish Times... (blink and you will miss it, it is buried near the bottom of article) "Once the Bill goes through the Oireachtas and becomes law, many people in loving relationships will have the option to have their commitment recognised by the State. It represents real and substantial progress,” said the party’s justice spokesman Ciarán Cuffe.Wikignome0529 (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Even if Kosovo may not be a UN member state or recognised by all European countries, it does function as a separate jurisdiction on the topic of LGBT rights. Serbian laws have no application in Kosovo, and Kosovo does have its own laws pertaining to LGBT rights (e.g. anti-discrimination laws, etc). On the topic of relationship recognition, the Serbian constitutional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman does not apply to Kosovo. How can it be added to an SVG map? Ronline (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with inclusion -- even if it is not universally recognized (en:International recognition of Kosovo#Positions taken by states), it appears to be de-facto self-governing (Including laws which would affect LGBT people), except for a couple of Serb areas which could be represented by dots (as we use for the capitals of US & Mexico) or their actual shapes. We include other regions which may not be sovereign states, but have power to make certain laws regarding LGBT people (On the world laws map: US/Mexican/Nigerian states are not sovereign, and Taiwan/ROC is colored but it is not universally-recognized). One possible way to carry it out on the Europe map would be to move the whole map to this base map: File:Blank map europe.svg (but cropping out Greenland and the Middle East), assuming the new map would not raise new issues? Wikignome0529 (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Tried to move the map to File:Blank map europe.svg to include Kosovo, but that map has transparent lighter areas over small parts of some of the countries, which I coudln't figure out how to select in order to remove. The lighter areas cause some medium blue (civil union) countries to look like they had parts which were light blue (unregistered cohab). Wikignome0529 (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please revert this map back to the old one. The new map looks horrible and cannot display nearly the amount of data as the prior; completely stripping regional laws and the death penalty section for Nigeria. VoodooIsland (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The Mexican (1 state plus federal district?), Venezuela (1 state), and Nigerian (Northern states) states would need to be added, but both versions of the map use the same projection, so this shouldn't be a problem to copy/paste.
Would look better (or appear less US-centric) with US states being in-line with the rest of the country instead of box? ... but having the box might serve as a temporary fix until someone who knew how to convert the US states to the right projection came along
If the "horrible" look you refer to is because of the world border on the map, that could easily be removed and replaced with a flat white background that viewers/maintainers of the map are used to. (the map could also be upped to 400px if needed? on en.wiki)
I am neutral on the change, but the new map is workable if consensus is there. Wikignome0529 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd support the new change as long as we somehow include the regions of Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, and any of the current regions that I might have forgotten. I think the map would also look better with the border removed, but it doesn't bother me as much as the exclusion of non-US regions. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I only changed the map because it was hard to make out the smaller states, and because none of the country data on this map is made out at all. If you take a close look at file:BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg, all the nations are easily marked (if you use Inkscape), where as the map of the current map is not classifiable and I can't find that map used anywhere else. I am currently working on a version that is both like the current one and my version. I hope that is OK. — NuclearVacuum 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great! With the two combined, it'll look just about perfect. I like how you made the islands (such as in the Caribbean) to be more visible in your version. They all seem to wash into one another on the current version. VoodooIsland (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great here too :-) Thanks for your work on this. Wikignome0529 (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)