Talk:Same-sex marriage in Alabama

not issuing licenses

As info becomes available, we might want to distinguish between a county that doesn't issue licenses to same-sex couples and a county that decides not to issue any marriage licenses at all. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And now maybe one good up-to-date source at the end of the day, preferably local. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Overrode a bunch of edits again, but they contradicted the sources anyway. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Rv'd all edits based on the new source. It contradicts itself (the colors do not match the descriptions), and so is obviously unreliable. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You again deleted content I add that had nothing to do with the county listings. You didn't need to do so at all. Your sloppiness is intolerable. I wouldn't trust you to judge the reliability of anything. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO this section should have been left blank until end of day when a reliable source was/is located. Everyone's time is wasted trying to make WP a news service. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a consistent list of issuing counties at this point (the included tweet goes back to the AL.com map). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How about an example from AL.com of a county where the color and the label don't match? We should help AL.com fix any error they have. I couldn't find one. They may already have repaired it. And we can hope for consistency at end of day. They may have the same problem with multiple updates that this WP entry has had. But just saying things don't match and not sharing that info doesn't help get this corrected. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The only one I've found is DeKalb (red one in NE corner) which has the orange color legend. I'm the one who added the AL.com map in the first place, so I'm supportive of restoring it. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I found 3 or 4 which did not match. Several others contradicted the Guardian. I had tagged the latter 'dubious', but really, all of the additions were dubious. (Whether the Guardian is reliable or not I cannot say.) — kwami (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, glad you found a better source.

But, as that source explains, not all of the counties "issuing" licenses are issuing licenses, so that wording in incorrect. They are willing to issue licenses, whereas the others are unwilling. The issue is not whether anyone got a license today, but whether they would be accepted or refused. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ironically that is the same source, just in article form instead of a map (the reporters at AL.com contacting the local judges). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

We'll see if it holds up, but an explanation of what they did makes it seem more credible. Newspapers are often incompetent when it comes to making maps, so maybe that's all the problem was.

IP added Lamar County, but no ref. Will add to our map if ref is provided -- unless you beat me too it. — kwami (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found validation for Lamar, and am inclined to leave it cloaked at this point. I have found four more, and will add them to the list in the next few minutes once I have the sources ready. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Finished this update. I don't have access to Inkscape to update the map right now, so if you want to handle that now, or I can get to it in a couple of hours. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I can do it. Found an ABC report about 3 more counties as of Tues a.m., but they didn't say which ones. — kwami (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I used the three colors of the Kansas map. If someone wants to add a fourth color for counties which have ceased issuing any licenses, be my guest. But please leave the first three colors as they are, for consistency with the Kansas map. — kwami (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Freedom to Marry has a county-by-county list that has 22 counties currently issuing. The only difference between them and AL.com now is that FtM is counting Barbour but not Dallas, while AL.com is counting Dallas but not Barbour. Both sources agree that Fayette County has stopped so I'll remove Fayette County. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that the map the NY Times had compiled was very different from that on AL.com, which still does not have Mobile green as of Friday morning. Njsustain (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

AL.com's map seems to have been frozen since Wednesday afternoon, so it might be best to remove it at this point and go with the other more current sources. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NY Times said it's source was HRC, but I couldn't find any information from them. Njsustain (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

HRC is our most recent source for refusing SSM vs not issuing any licenses until the conflicting orders are resolved (red vs pink). FreedomtoMarry updated some counties Fri am and the rest Fri pm, so not all changes Fri pm will have been caught. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops, FreedomtoMarry also makes this distinction now, but local news reports contradict them for every case where they differ from HRC, except for Coosa which I cannot verify. IMO we should therefore not accept them as a RS for which counties are issuing licenses but refusing SSM. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Freedom to Marry is now at 50. Some judges apparently had to sleep on it and take all morning and a long lunch to decide. There's a game of chicken: how to do the right thing, not get sued, show conservative constituents you held out... There may even be someone who wants the distinction of being the last to surrender. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cullman also, though FTM has not called them since this a.m., and missed it. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Have there been no changes since February 13? Are there still 11 counties that issue licenses to opposite sex couples only and 9 counties that are not issuing licenses at all? According to the article, Escambia County stopped issuing licenses to same sex couples so it should be colored pink on the map and not blue. Dakicker (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Which colors do we want for the map?

Someone "fixing" the map (they don't say what that means) keeps changing the colors. One of their changes looks better: red for the minority of counties which refuse SS couples, vs pink for the majority of counties that have shut their doors. But that's a bit inconsistent with the Kansas map. I have pink and lighter pink, which isn't as visually striking a difference. Which color scheme do people here prefer? (You can see them in the map's edit history.) — kwami (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Fixing" meant fixing the properties of the vector image objects (counties) as you did not actually change their colours but simply filled it in which is not what is done for vector images. --Leftcry (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

We need any color scheme that gets rid of those question marks. Horrible. Have we run out of colors or can't we use striping? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate the striping. I like the question marks. Czolgolz (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Striping would suggest two different things are going on. This is different: sources contradicting. I think I resolved those, and removed them, but not HRC blog is saying Coosa is issuing. Can't verify, and not sure if they're reliable. — kwami (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court order

The Alabama Supreme Court has now ordered probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses: [1] I'm not sure how we should go about presenting this information -- from my limited understanding of constitutional law, a state court cannot unilaterally override a federal court decision, and the district court has already denied a stay. That being said, this order appears obviously consequential. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In theory, the state Supreme Court is independent, and answers to only the US Supreme Court. In practice, I think we should wait to see the effects. For now, let's present the contents of the order, and avoid discussing any sort of result until such results arise, especially how many counties will still issue tomorrow. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"all probate judges were obliged to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples"

This phrase from the lede may need to be tweaked. Is there a reliable secondary source discussing whether the May 21 ruling affirmatively requires issuance of same-sex marriage licenses (meaning that a refusal to issue any marriage licenses to anyone, as in Mobile County, violates the order) or instead only prohibits discrimination in issuing marriage licenses on the basis of the sex of the applicants (meaning that a refusal to issue any marriage licenses would comply with the order)? Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 22:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a post-Obergefell source discussing Alabama counties ceasing to issue any marriage licenses at all: [2]. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Map is way out of date

Since Judge Granade has lifted the stay on her order, and the list of counties performing (a) only opposite-sex marriages, (b) both opposite-sex and same-sex marriages, or (c) no marriages changes on a daily basis (and will likely change further as the USSC's decision is implemented), is there any need for maps that show nothing more than the state of marriage in Alabama at a particular moment in time, e.g. for March 2015?
I'm also wondering whether, going forward, whether there will be a need for separate articles about the history of the law of same-sex marriage for every single state. But that's a discussion better had after the Obergefell case is fully applied in every state. Techielaw (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there's some value in presenting the state of play prior to the Alabama Supreme Court's order in March, from a historical perspective (something similar is done at Same-sex marriage in New Mexico). -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As an historical perspective for the moment, perhaps. But in what's most likely going to be a matter of weeks or months, there won't be much point in showing a snapshot of same-sex marriage in each individual state as of a particular date. In much the same way that there probably isn't much point in 2015 for showing a snapshot of school integration in each individual state on particular dates in 1957 and 1958. Compare, for example, Civil Rights Movement and School integration in the United States. At some point, would you agree that all of these separate articles should be merged together into a single story rather than ??50?? separate stories about same-sex marriage? Techielaw (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)