Gay Marriage

Mapping Gay Marriage

Where it's legal around the world.

|

Map of the day: The Economist shows what parts of the world have legalized gay marriage, what parts won't even allow gay sex, and where the other jurisdictions fall on the spectrum in-between:

I'm very disappointed in you, Somalia.

The magazine's commentary is here.

NEXT: United Nations Defends Failure to Keep Goma from Rebels

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do my eyes deceive me or is there no place inside the United States that actually outlaws homosexuality?

    1. Not since Lawrence v. Texas.

      1. I make $74h while I’m traveling the world. Last week I worked by my laptop in Rome, Monti Carlo and finally Paris?This week I’m back in the USA. All I do are easy tasks from this one cool site. check it out..Mel7.comTRY it

        1. I bet you make more money than all of us, have multiple degrees, and engage in substantive discussion to boot.

          1. Needs more tractor pullz.

        2. Hey, wait a minute, comTRY isn’t a valid top level domain. What are you trying to pull? I smell a rat.

  2. Can somebody explain the “No criminal law” category? It seems like it could be the same as several of the other categories, depending on its meaning.

    1. I assume it means that there’s no law specifically allowing or prohibiting same sex marriage, so it’s unclear whether or not its legal.

    2. I had the same question. The map seems a little tendentious to me, as I would expect that many of the “no criminal law” countries are also “no gay marriage” countries.

      New Mexico, for example, doesn’t license gay marriage, but it is listed as “no criminal law.” I would be very surprised to learn that China, India, Russia, etc. license gay marriages, yet they are listed as “no criminal law” rather than “marriage prohibited.”

      The map seems designed to make the US look backwards and bigoted relative to the rest of the world, when this is one area where most of the rest of the world is just like the US.

      1. Japan definitely specifically says in its Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman. While that language is decades old, it’s no different from all the states that added such language in recent years.

        1. Hmm. I had assumed the difference between “no criminal law” and “marriage prohibited” was whether the law specifically addressed the question of gay marriage. But if Japan’s constitution specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman, my theory’s shot. Or else The Economist made a mistake.

          1. It may actually just be in the Civil Code, not the constitution of Japan. But it definitely specifies a man and a woman. (It also requires that people have the same last name after marrying, among other things.)

      2. doesn’t “no criminal law” speak to the relative recency of gay marriage as an issue? We’ve only been talking about it in a serious way for a short time. 50 years ago it never occurred to any legislative body that the concept of gay marriage was even a concept.

        1. It was this realization that led me to understand when people say “redefining marriage”, because that is in fact what gay marriage is.

          I happen to support that redefinition, but it is a redefinition nevertheless.

        2. Serbia is “no criminal law” yet the police beat the shit out of gay people during recent attempts at parades.

          1. Hey, we don’t have a No Puerto Rican Law on the books in Philly, but the cops there still cracked a few heads when the parade-goers Latin blood got a little too hot.

            Cops are the same the world over: the law rarely is the reason they do what they do.

            1. I hope your child is well.

              1. Thanks, Tim. I really appreciate that.

                And we’ll know in 2 weeks (hey, two weeks to the minute!) when she gets here.

        3. doesn’t “no criminal law” speak to the relative recency of gay marriage as an issue?

          I’m pretty sure “no criminal law” is a reference to criminalizing homosexuality, not criminalizing homosexual marriage.

      3. “The map seems designed to make the US look backwards and bigoted relative to the rest of the world, when this is one area where most of the rest of the world is just like the US.”

        Yes, I think the mapmakers want people to see the US and exclaim, “wow, a different color than the rest of the world, what’s the matter with America?”

        1. Because everyone knows when America is not like the rest of the world, it’s America that’s wrong. The same thing would hold for the freedoms we have in terms of speech, guns and religion. I’m not saying gay marraige is bad, only that “everyone else is doing it” is a lame arguement.

          1. The point is that the map conveys the inaccurate impression that the USA is in a different category than the rest of the world. It’s not.

            1. Yes, but it seems the USA is in a different category than the West, which is an observation worth making.

              1. If they were doing the map honestly, the U.S. wold be under “no criminal law,” which seems to mean “doesn’t recognize same-sex unions but doesn’t make adult sodomy as such into a crime.”

                Such a map would put the U.S. in line with a whole lot of other parts of the world, including even parts of Europe!

            2. Maps are for fags.

  3. not legally recognized != prohibited

    I’m not aware of same sex couples rotting in jail for committing the prohibited act of getting married. Fuck. Words mean things.

    1. Isn’t sarcasm premised on the belief that words don’t mean things, and thus a sentence can actually mean the exact of opposite of what it appears to be saying?

      1. I don’t think that map was intended to be sarcastic, though I could be wrong.

        1. I believe Stormy is referring to your handle.

          1. Does that mean Stormy is just blowing smoke?

            1. It doesn’t mean anything. They’re just words.

    2. Gay couples are prohibited from acquiring the legal status of marriage in those places.

      Any other definition of marriage other than the legal kind is the equivalent of little kids calling themselves princes and princesses.

      1. Fuck off, slaver.

      2. I know people who consider themselves married and have no interest in the state getting involved. It’s a shame you won’t recognize their marriage.

      3. Get married anyway, without a marriage license/permission slip, and get the legal paperwork done to get all the “goodies” those evil breeders get, Tony.

        That’s what my girlfriend and I are going to do… neither of us want to get married with the permission of the state, so we’re going the civil ceremony route. Fuck the permission slip.

        You gay folks would do well to do the same, instead of bitching that you can’t get a symbolic piece of paper approved by some local goddamn bureaucrat.

        Hey, folks, watch Tony pull the old “you’re an anti-gay bigot” line. Just like John Conyers, Tony makes shit up out of thin air.

        1. I have no interest whatsoever in getting married, and I’m even not especially keen on monogamy. I just think people should have equal rights under the law.

          Whatever dress-up games you want to play are certainly your business.

          1. I’m sure this is irrational, but I find the idea that T o n y is ready to characterize people’s life commitments as “dress-up games” unless they have a state permission slip one of the more offensive he’s expressed.

            1. Just shows how hateful he is, like most liberals. Remember, he hates “breeders” and isn’t afraid to talk glowingly about his bigotry of same.

              1. I don’t hate you, I’m just uncomfortable around you.

                1. Good thing you’ve never actually “been around” me.

                  But it does show one difference between us, Tony: If we WERE in the same room, only one of us would be uncomfortable.

                2. I don’t hate you, I’m just uncomfortable around you.

                  Why on earth would you be uncomfortable around “breeders?”

                  1. Why on earth would you be uncomfortable around “breeders?”

                    Because he’s a bigot.

                  2. They don’t groom properly, at least the male ones.

                    1. Please Tony, I am certain that you look like a slovenly pig next to me. Just because you’re gay doesn’t mean you were born with a set of “Queer Eyes”.

                    2. This is how I know Tony is nothing but a sockpuppet. He’s pulling out every gay stereotype imaginable and has now even resorted to calling all straight males poor groomers next to their gay brethren.

                      Hey Tony, are there no gay male farmers, butchers, longshoremen, lumberjacks, garbagemen, sewage workers or filthy Italians?

                    3. or filthy Italians

                      Like these fine gents?

                    4. I just enjoy getting you guys into a politically correct tizzy.

            2. FIFY’s arguing for a different legal status for people because of how they were born–and my opinion is the offensive one?

              1. No, I’m not, and never have.

                I’m arguing for EVERYONE to have the same legal status.

                You fucking-A well know that, though.

                1. For practical purposes you are. You know very well legal marriage is not going away in your lifetime or the lifetimes of your grandchildren. So either you’re for legal equality or you’re not, and that only means one thing in the real world.

                  1. What does it mean, Tony? Going to call me a liar yet again?

                    Fuck off.

                    1. It means we apply the same marriage laws to gays as are already applied to straights.

                      If you want to get rid of all legal recognition of marriage (making the concept meaningless), then kindly ask the straights to go first and see how far you get.

                    2. If you want to get rid of all legal recognition of marriage (making the concept meaningless), then kindly ask the straights to go first and see how far you get.

                      It gives you kind of a perverse pleasure to divide people up into opposing sides, doesn’t it?

                      Happy Thanksgiving, fuckface. Try not to fall down the stairs and die.

                    3. He hates straights as much as some people hate gays, Randian, yet somehow he’s better than all of us combined. Go figure.

                      BTW, he has yet to prove that I ever told him to get AIDS and die. He that up, too.

                    4. It gives you kind of a perverse pleasure to divide people up into opposing sides, doesn’t it?

                      Happy Thanksgiving, fuckface. Try not to fall down the stairs and die.

                      You see, Randian, this is why people don’t take us seriously. I personally don’t think Tony should try not to fall down the stairs and die. As a matter of fact, better advice would have been to tell him to blindfold himself prior to entering any stairwell or open elevator shaft for that matter.

                    5. I’m all for that, Tony.

                      In fact, I’m doing my part by not groveling before a magistrate to give my lady and I a piece of paper granting us permission to use the words “married couple”.

                      What are YOU doing, besides calling people liars?

                    6. Whatever I’m doing I bet it results in equality under the law faster than your method.

                    7. Whatever I’m doing I bet it results in equality under the law faster than your method.

                      In this, I’m sure you’re right. If you get your way, we’ll all be equally enslaved in no time flat.

              2. for people because of how they were born

                Trying to slip one past the goal, eh?

                And before you get all hufflepuff, I study philosophy of sex identity, sexual expression, gender identity and sexual politics, so bring your A-game.

                1. Well, I’m gay, and I didn’t choose it. What is the philosophy of sex identity? I’m no expert but I do know a little about the science of sexuality.

                  1. Well, I’m gay, and I didn’t choose it.

                    That doesn’t necessarily mean you were ‘born that way’ either, Princess.

                    What is the philosophy of sex identity?

                    Did I say ‘the’ philosophy? Do you need me to lend you some money so you can buy a primary reader?

                    I’m no expert but I do know a little about the science of sexuality.

                    Doubt it.

                    1. You’re right, it doesn’t mean I was born that way, but I was certainly gay by the 3rd grade, without knowing what it even meant yet. So there is no element of choice regardless of whether sexuality is set at fertilization or sometime in childhood, and the only relevant factor is whether it’s a choice, right?

                    2. and the only relevant factor is whether it’s a choice, right?

                      No.

                      I thought I told you to bring your A Game.

                    3. You’re right again: choice isn’t relevant either.

                      You’ve brought no game at all so what am I supposed to do with that?

                  2. You know you were born gay, but you probrably think gender roles are a social construct. And that there is no correlation between race and intelligence. So much for “science.”

                    1. but you probrably think gender roles are a social construct. And that there is no correlation between race and intelligence. So much for “science.

                      Goddamn, you really ride that hobby horse.

                    2. “Heroic Mulatto”

                      I don’t get it.

            3. …unless they have a state permission slip one of the more offensive he’s expressed.

              I know people who consider couples that wed outside the Catholic Church as not really married. The state is the liberal’s church, and often they are similarly dismissive of – if not hostile to – people who skirt government sacraments.

              1. I was actually going to bring up the comparison to the Catholic Church myself. Of course, I’m about as big a fan of the RC Church as I am of the state, so it started to seem redundant.

              2. Good call, Fist.

              3. Bullshit. If anything I’m openly hostile to traditionally married people gay and straight. I think marriage is dumb. And it’s certainly no business of mine what you call yourself or your relationship, and life is far too short for me to give the slightest shit. The only request on the table is that people have equal rights.

                1. God, you’re a hateful bitch, Tony.

                  1. God, you’re a hateful bitch, Tony.

                    That’s homophobic!

                    1. That’s homophobic!

                      Funny, I didn’t sense any fear when I read it…

                    2. The correct word would be homorgic.

                      Jus’ sayin’

                    3. The correct word would be homorgic.

                      I’m not interested in any homo orgies, thanks. Uh, NTTAWWT.

                2. The only request on the table is that people have equal rights.

                  Can you honestly not understand what people here are saying about the difference between marriage prohibition and unrecognized marriage? I’m not asking if you agree with it, just if you understand that some people might see a difference.

                  1. Clearly people see a difference, but I can’t figure out what that difference is.

                    1. Guys, Tony doesn’t believe people have rights unless government recognizes.

                      hth

                    2. Clearly people see a difference, but I can’t figure out what that difference is.

                      I’m not trying to trick you. I’m just trying to see if it’s an act to prove a point or if you actually can’t step outside that mindset.

                3. Re: Tony,

                  If anything I’m openly hostile to traditionally married people gay and straight. I think marriage is dumb.

                  Nothing here addresses the question whether you believe a marriage is legitmate in itself when you have two conseting adults, or whether marriage is whatever the government says.

                  If you believe it is whatever the government says (i.e. government determines reality), then would you agree with the statement that gays are fighting against reality ans should really just back off?

                  The only request on the table is that people have equal rights.

                  But why is that the imperative? Isn’t the imperative that rights come from government? If so, why would your wishes matter?

                  If you believe that people should have equal rights, doesn’t that run contra the notion that rights come from government and thus are predicated on whatever government wishes?

                  1. OM marriage doesn’t make sense except in the context of legal recognition. If you shack up with someone and proclaim yourselves married, you are merely appropriating a term that has since time immemorial been a “permission slip” from the relevant authority (the state, or the church-state in more primitive times).

                    What I’m saying is that I’m all for the liberalization of the concept of marriage to the point of making it nothing but a common contract, but that I recognize that the world we live in accords it a certain special status, and that legal equality being the imperative, the existing legal construct ought to apply to people equally. That will not do the slightest harm to any movement that wishes to change the concept of marriage for all people.

              4. The state is the liberal’s church

                Yup.

                The state is violence, and liberals, Tony especially, worship violence.

          2. and I’m even not especially keen on monogamy

            Anybody else get the feeling that this is the excuse Tony tells himself and others for his solo status? Don’t worry fella, I’m sure there’s a hip young dude out there looking for an acrid, sanctimonious Charles Grodin look-alike.

            I actually feel bad for saying those awful things about you now. I’m sorry you’re a bitter old maid, and the closest you’ve gotten to intimacy lately was the empty thrill you got voting for Dear Leader.

            1. goddamn, GBN, I felt that smackdown all the way over here.

            2. I may be acrid and I may be sanctimonious, but I do not look like Charles Grodin and your insults are no match for my ego.

              As it happens I live with my boyfriend, though he disagrees with me on the whole monogamy thing.

              1. You know who else had a big ego?

                1. Ok, I’ll start…

                  Ayn Rand?

        2. Get married anyway, without a marriage license/permission slip, and get the legal paperwork done to get all the “goodies” those evil breeders get, Tony.

          I would if various federal and state statutes didn’t get in the way.

          1. You can get married by any willing god-botherer.

            You can set up all your property, inheritance, etc., arrangements to match the marriage defaults. About the only private arrangements that a licensed marriage might get you that you can’t arrange for yourself are employment-related, as in, your employer (freely!) chooses not to extend health insurance eligibility to non-licensed spouses.

            The only thing you need a marriage license for is to qualify for government spousal benefits and, of course, the tax penalties on marriage.

        3. neither of us want to get married with the permission of the state, so we’re going the civil ceremony route.

          Um…what? Not snark…isn’t “civil ceremony” normally used to refer just to the permission-slip, nonreligious forms of marriage?

          1. I mean, we’re going to have a ceremony without the benefit of it actually being a “legal” marriage. I know a Wiccan who’d love to give the blessing, and I’m taking her up on it.

            We’re just not going to get the marriage license Tony insists as being the Holy Grail for gay folks.

            1. Good for you. Yet you insist on arguing for prohibiting gay people from having the choice you have.

              1. The fuck I am, Tony. I’m not against gays getting married. Quit fucking lying, you stupid cunt.

                1. Well you certainly go to a lot of effort disagreeing with equal rights advocates over nothing then.

              2. Re: Tony,

                Yet you insist on arguing for prohibiting gay people from having the choice you have.

                Does this stupid retort come out of your assumption that libertarians are against gay marriage (which is a lie) or just out of a desire to start a confrontation?

            2. Ah okay. See since you’re having a blessing, I would say (not saying you should say, but if it were me, I would say) that you’re having a religious but not a civil marriage.

              1. Basically, yeah, Nicole. I suppose you could put it that way.

                1. I guess part of what offended me about T o n y’s dress-up comment so much was that, as a nonreligious anarchist, I will never want or have a permission slip from anybody if I get “married,” but I’d like to think that, you know, vows undertaken in seriousness and good faith actually mean something.

                  And congrats!

                  1. Thanks, nicole. I haven’t been this happy in… well, ever.

                    1. “Thanks, nicole. I haven’t been this happy in… well, ever.”

                      That’s because you’re not yet married.

                      Zing! (Don’t tell my wife)

                  2. So what does a “nonreligious anarchist” scream when she’s in bed?

                    1. The same things as everyone else, presumably. At least, everyone else who screams.

                      (Do statists call out to the government? Because, uh, I don’t do that.)

          2. exactly…the civil right includes a permission slip, too. Some agent of the state will perform the ceremony and another will sign off on the accompanying paperwork. Doesn’t “civil” in legal terms imply some action on the part of the state?

            1. **the civil ROUTE

            2. Okay, I used the wrong word.

              We’re getting married, but without benefit of seeking permission from the state. Which is what the gays want so goddamn bad, they’re not seeing the forest for the trees.

              1. semantics and procedures aside, congratulations and here’s to many happy years ahead for you.

                1. Thanks. We’re pretty goddamn happy.

        4. That’s what my girlfriend and I are going to do… neither of us want to get married with the permission of the state, so we’re going the civil ceremony route. Fuck the permission slip.

          Hey, I admire you for your principles and all, but you’re setting yourself up for a lot of headache.

      4. Re: Tony,

        Gay couples are prohibited from acquiring the legal status of marriage in those places.

        So much for believing that rights come from government, when you don’t even agree with that sentiment in this instance.

        Any other definition of marriage other than the legal kind is the equivalent of little kids calling themselves princes and princesses.

        What you mean is that unless the government says so, people are not really married? All those committed gays are just playing “pretend”?

        Would you be willing to tell them that to their angry faces? I would like to see that.

        1. People can call themselves whatever they want, and I’m not going to argue with them about it. The only relevant issue here is the legal status.

          1. If all couples had that same legal status, you mean?

            But, hey, it’s all about ginning up bigotry where there may not actually BE bigotry. All for the sake of scoring sleazy, cheap points for Team Blue.

            Kinda like when the word “incompetent” is used to describe a black woman who lied to the American public.

            1. 1. I don’t want to call anyone names but there is, in fact, no reasonable secular argument against marriage equality.

              2. Ever consider that Team Blue might deserve support for a position that people agree with it about?

              3. Oh God spare me. If Susan Rice actually were incompetent, that would be fair game. But all she is is the political scapegoat of a whiny, lashing out Republican party trying to create a political scandal out of a tragedy.

          2. Re: Tony,

            People can call themselves whatever they want, and I’m not going to argue with them about it.

            It’s not only a question of asserting something about themselves, Tony. They entered into a compact that they intend to honor.

            The only relevant issue here is the legal status.

            Well, you’re begging the question. It’s only relevant because the government deciced to make it relevant, but that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the compact between two people and worse, it goes against the intended role of government. The government is obligated by the Constitution to honor all contracts, which does NOT mean deciding which are valid and which are not. That would include all marriages.

            [And when I say a contract, I mean a mutual agreement between two parties, which means a contract that affects a 3rd party unwittingly is NOT a contract, so don’t even try.]

            1. and the validity of your description, OM, is born out in real-world situations like medical decisions, property dissolution when relationships end, etc. Unmarried straights face the same issues that most gays do.

              When two consenting adults agree to something that does not affect me, it seems presumptuous to believe I have a say in the matter.

    3. I’m not aware of same sex couples rotting in jail for committing the prohibited act of getting married.

      You should read the news coming out of Saudi Arabia sometime. When Saudi police raid a gathering of (often Filipino) homosexuals, they often describe the gathering as “a marriage ceremony”. Whether or not that’s true is immaterial. The Saudi authorities perceive it to be a same-sex wedding, and thus prohibited by Sharia.

      1. Sarcasmo’s referring to the dark blue part of the map. You’re referring to the light blue one.

        1. Fair enough.

  4. When liberals look at that and see all the light blue in Africa, how do they react? Do they conclude the continent is full of bigots?

    1. Well, yeah, MBC. According to liberals, there are only two kinds of people in America: Themselves, and racist closeted-gay hillbillies.

      Just ask Chris Matthews, who can find racist “dog whistles” on an aspirin label.

      1. You seem to have misread the location there, FIFY.

        1. Well, yeah, but it still works.

          Hey, I’ve been gone a while. I’m kinda rusty.

    2. Do conservatives see kindred spirits?

      1. Careful there, sport. “Kindred” is probably one of John Conyer’s “racist code words”.

        1. OT but I’ve been curious: if criticism of Susan Rice is racist, how does one characterize criticism of Condi Rice?

          1. Or criticism of Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas?

            If a white woman criticizes those men, is she being sexist and racist?

            1. I get this curious feeling that one is only a sexist/racist/bigot when criticizing a member of the political left. When they do it to ideological opponents, it’s principled argument.

              I asked the Rice/Rice question to a couple of lefties. One refused to answer; the other may have gotten an aneurism.

              1. Got it in one, wareagle. Double standards are one of the leftists’ stock-in-trades.

              2. The fact that they are both named Rice only increases the lulziness opportunities.

                “Can you believe that Rice was out there peddling what turned out to be bunch of lies?”

                “What are you, some kind of racist anti-woman bigoted troglodyte christfag?”

                “Man, I never thought I’d hear you defending Condi Rice’s PR job for invading Iraq. What gives?”

          2. how does one characterize criticism of Condi Rice?

            What are you, blind? She lost her blackness by virtue of being a Republican.

      2. Re: Tony,

        Do conservatives see kindred spirits?

        Like for instance all those blacks that voted for Prop 8?

        1. None of whom voted for Republicans?

    3. When liberals look at that and see all the light blue in Africa, how do they react? Do they conclude the continent is full of bigots?

      EAT DA POO POO!

    4. It’s wierd, when Uganda made sodomy a capital crime, liberals reacted negatively. I had always thought that blacks always came first. But now I guess liberals value the right to fuck whoever you want (with my money subsidizing, of course) more than they value the right of blacks to have their “culture” and be free from “cultural imperialism.”

      1. But now I guess liberals value the right to fuck whoever you want (with my money subsidizing, of course)

        How do tax dollars subsidize gay sex?

        Jus’ askin’

        1. Where gays can get married their pratice of having “gay sex” is susidized. And for funding these “gay studies” departments in college campuses. Not like it’s any worse with straigh americans, as Sandra pay for my Fuck shows.

  5. I make $74h while I’m traveling the world. Last week I worked by my laptop in Rome, Monti Carlo and finally Paris?This week I’m back in the USA. All I do are easy tasks from this one cool site. check it out..WWW.MEL7.COM

  6. We can all agree that this map is fucking horribly done.

    1. No one has even complained yet about the nonsensical diagonal bullshit in a few states. What is that supposed to be?

      1. And hey look, vaunted liberal bastion Venezuela deserves that naughty naughty dark blue color.

        Was the intern running The Economist that day or something? This is an utter disaster.

        1. It’s really such bullshit. I mean, what’s “full marriage”? If I were to define it, I would say that neither gays nor straights have “full marriage” rights in Quebec, because it’s actually disallowed for women to take their husbands’ name (without going through what I understand is a very difficult non-marriage-related name-change process). I’m sure that’s still an important part of “full marriage” for a lot of people (though perhaps not for so many gays). Let’s get a giant chunk of Canada changed color…

          1. Am I allowed to take my wife’s name in Quebec with less of a hassle, or what?

            1. No, it’s not easy for anyone. The Quebec government site on it has some fun-sounding statist-speak, but from Wikipedia, “Although as in other jurisdictions a resident of Quebec may informally use whatever name he or she wants, procedures for formal name change are very strict as Quebec (unlike the rest of Canada) operates under a civil law system. The decision must be authorized by the Director of Civil Status, and requires a valid reason for changing the name, including long-term use of the new name (in the Montreuil case cited below, the Quebec appeals court has considered five years’ use to be a sufficient reason), difficulty of use due to spelling or pronunciation, or bearing a name that another person has made infamous.”

              1. “The Director of Civil Status” So, Orwell is not dead; he moved to Canada. What a frightening term.

                1. The most bizarre/interesting thing about that is that it’s actually also illegal for Quebec government workers to translate their titles into English. So…yeah.

                  1. Nicole! I want your bras. Sorry, I have been really busy. I will respond to your email soon.

                    1. Haha that is going to look so great on this thread. Take your time and I hope you’re doing well!

      2. Some states explicitly legislated that same-sex civil unions were legal but same-sex marriages were not. N.H. was like that for a year or two.

        1. Isn’t it supposed to be representative of one moment in time though? I guess it makes sense to say that some states have “marriage prohibited” AND “civil union/some rights,” but it seems like a stretch to make things look bluer.

          1. I don’t doubt that the Economist has an agenda, but the stripes are an accurate description of those state’s legislation. Even though I am a Justice of the Peace who has performed eight marriage ceremonies, I still don’t get the essential difference between a “civil union” and a “marriage”…but there you go.

            1. Right, the problem is that they are a hyperaccurate description of those states’ legislation, while we know that other countries have pretty inaccurate coloring.

              1. Yup.

                The only reason that the United States looks as it does is because states explicitly took a look at the issue and rejected gay marriage.

                Other countries basically just say “that’s preposterous go away”.

  7. I like how there’s a “Considering Full Marriage” color.

    It’s sort of like coloring Obama as a civil liberties guy. I mean, fuck, I’m sure he ‘considered’ it.

    1. he’s still evolving. Look for Biden to go out and test drive Obama’s latest thoughts.

      1. he’s still evolving.

        So racist. Enough with the dog whistles; just call him a monkey already.

  8. Not giving state goodies to married gays is way different from throwing them in prison. Why are they the same color? This map is pretty poorly done. Why is “civil unions” in orange while “full marraige is in green? If it’s supposed to be a spectrum, you would think it would be dark blue, light blue, green, light orange, dark orange, to give the maximun contrast.

    1. This is from the Economist; the point is to demonstrate that ‘the US is bad, m’kay’!

  9. In what way is California “considering” the issue? I thought California’s last action on the issue was to ban it outright. Are they interpreting the lawsuit over that ban as a “consideration” of the issue?

  10. Why are civil union states hashed with “prohibited” blue while civil union countries are solid red? I’m sure a marriage by that name is just as hard to get in both places.

    It looks like some tiny Euro region gets the same treatment, so maybe it’s not all anti-US. But it is puzzling.

  11. If you looking for some nicebateau neck dress, i know one,Queendresses can give you nice dress,take a look now

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.