Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Utah Again

Backround discussion

Re Same-Sex marriage is not recognized by the state of Utah so while the marriages may be valid to the Federal government they are not in the state of Utah overall. That is just not correct. The federal judge ruled that the State of Utah must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize them and they did so for a brief period until SCOTUS put a temporary halt to them so the appeals court can hear the appeal(without ruling on the merits of the original ruling). I suggest further discussion take place on the template talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The 1,300 marriages previously preformed right now are not legal in the state of Utah [2]. So while the couples may get federal benefits they will not get state state benefits. Seeing that the SSM in the United States article has Utah in the red banning same-sex marriage I feel that the inclusion of Utah on the template is misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The State of Utah must still recognize the ones that were performed before SCOTUS ruled as that was the last court ruling on the merits. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Take it there if you want, as far as I have read though the status is a legal limbo, no new marriages can be preformed in Utah at the moment so placing Utah down on a template titled "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships" again is misleading as much as we want it to be true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued discussion

The issue at hand: Are the marriages preformed in Utah legal? and if they are Should Utah be included on states that recognize same-sex relationships? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

When Proposition 8 was in effect, we didn't include California in the template. In that case, marriages previously performed were valid but new marriages could not be performed. So I see that situation as analogous to and precedent for this one. - htonl (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, we did include California, but not in the main list of US states. It was listed separately, under "Recognized, not performed"; here's where it was moved. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be fine adding Utah like that then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with that as well. 331dot (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

But Utah ISN'T recognizing those marriages at this point, per the governor's announcement. As such, it doesn't qualify. As the state is neither recognizing nor granting marriages, it should be left off the list. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Utah is not allowing same sex couples to take new legal actions related to their marriages, but they can maintain actions already done and the marriages performed were not voided. [1] Thus they are still recognized. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nat Gertler's position. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, they are not being recognized by the state of Utah. Saying that they haven't voided the marriages means that the couples will not have to get remarried should the SSM side prevail in the current court situation, but the very first sentence of what you link to explains that they are not now being recognized by the state. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The ones that were performed already are being recognized and any actions that occurred up to the SCOTUS ruling. The article states "According to the governor's memo, any state recognition that has been given so far remains in effect, but no new actions can be taken." They can't do anything new(i.e. change their drivers' licenses) since the SCOTUS order, but if they had done it already, it is still valid. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not recognizing them, that is admitting that they were briefly recognized. They are not recognizing them now. Failing to undo someone's changed name on a driver's license is not recognition. The governor's memo is full of explicit mentions that marriages are not to be recognized ("It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriages but also recognizing same-sex marriages." "state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice." "The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages." "the law does not allow the state agency to recognize the marriage"). This is extremely different from the post-Prop 8 (or more specifically, post a court ruling post prop 8) situation in California, where marriages entered into in California during that period and entered into elsewhere before the end of that period were treated as full marriages, and even those netred into later elsewhere were given a strong psuedo-marriage status. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We obviously disagree about this point, but the marriages already performed still have some level of status which should be recognized in this template in some manner. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(Pardon the lack of indentation). I agree with Nat Gertler and disagree with 331dot. Here are two (long) cents for me to drop in.

1. California has zero relevance here. In CA, the state SC said that anti-SSM laws violated the state constitution, then people modified the state constitution to undo the ruling (later determined to be in violation of the US Const. according to Judge Walker and a vacated 9th Circuit decision) and the state SC grandfathered the pre-Prop 8 marriages in (and the state legislature created the pseudo-marriage thing referenced above). The starting and stopping (and eventual resumption after the appeal was thrown out) were all completely distinct events. With Utah, one judge refused to stay a ruling and then the SCOTUS did it for him.
2. The template does reflect the Utah marriages, it notes that the federal government recognizes the marriages. The state does not recognize them at all, they won't make people undo name changes, but they won't recognize the marriages. The Utah marriages are legally the same as any same-sex couple getting married elsewhere and then moving to Utah. There is nothing legally special about them beyond that they are legally suspect pending the appeals.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why did the governor's memo state "state recognition that has been given so far remains in effect"? They have some level of recognition by the State of Utah, not just the feds. If they were not recognized, the ones already performed would have been declared void. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It did not state that. memo here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, (though that isn't how the media is interpreting it) but it still remains that the performed marriages were not voided and legal actions they took before the stay were not voided. If there was absolutely no recognition, they would have been voided. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Our own article on this subject states "On January 9, Utah's Attorney General advised county clerks to complete processing marriage certificates for same-sex couples whose marriages were solemnized "prior to the morning of January 6"." If these were "not recognized" in any form by the State of Utah, they would have just said to not process anything. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the AG's memo, this was an administrative function to record that the marriages were recognized at the time. It is not an indicator that the marriages are recognized now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Court’s order reinstates the state ban and will keep it intact until after a federal appeals court has ruled on it." And Utah doesn't recognize the marriages that were performed. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-stops-utah-gay-marriages/ --Prcc27 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)--Prcc27 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The State of Utah and we can quibble over semantics but they did not void one same-sex marriage. I will no longer pursue this matter but even if some of these marriages are in legal limbo or whatever it is called Utah have given some level of status, if not recognition, to them which should be reflected here, and I believe not doing so does a disservice to those seeking information on this subject. I do honestly appreciate this discussion, nevertheless. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Utah will not give any legal benefits to same-sex couples. --Prcc27 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

They already did, they allowed drivers' licenses to be changed if they were processed before the SCOTUS order. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"If a same-sex couple seeks to change their names on drivers licenses now, the law does not allow the state agency to recognize the marriage therefore the new drivers licenses cannot be issued." "With the district court injunction now stayed, the original laws governing marriage in Utah return to effect pending final resolution by the courts. It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriage but also recognizing same-sex marriages." "Based on counsel from the Attorney General's office regarding the Supreme Court decision, state recognition of same-sex martial status is ON HOLD until further notice. Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages - that is for the courts to decide." Source: Governor's memo. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

331dot, not making them undo new licenses is not a legal benefit. Joint state taxes, hospital visitation rights, etc... are benefits. Those ~900 marriages are legally no different from a same-sex couple getting married and changing their licenses elsewhere and then moving to Utah, thus they are already covered in the template. The state offers NO recognition or benefits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Then they should void the performed marriages. They were performed with licenses issued by the State and they exist regardless of any legal benefits conferred (or not) until they are voided. As I said, I will not be pursuing this matter further and will await the appeals court ruling. Thank you for your reply. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Utah taxes

Utah is allowing SS married couples to file joint state taxes. [2] I would submit that this might warrant a footnote much like the Ohio one(Ohio recognizes SSMs for death certificates) 331dot (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that may be reading too much into it. Utah is allowing couples who they recognized as married on Dec. 31 to file joint taxes for the 2013 year because that's what tax calculation is based on: marital status as of December 31 of the year being paid for. So they are not recognizing the marriage currently, but recognizing that they had recognized the marriage; they are treating them no differently than a straight couple who had gotten divorced January 6. (The notice, which you can read here, applies only for this tax year; there is no statement that couples who were married during recognition and fail to specifically unmarry before Dec 31, 2014 will be able to file joint taxes in 2015.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does Ohio get a footnote? Ohio does not and has not recognized SSM for any period of time. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should. Ohio doesn't even give them the tax breaks of couples the way Utah does. — kwami (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing it as well under these circumstances. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought we were talking about taxes. Death certificates: Does that confer any benefits, such as inheritance if intestate? — kwami (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading LGBT rights in Ohio I'm not sure what benefits it carries; Ohio only does that by court order on an equal protection claim(dealing with out-of-state marriages only). I'm just not seeing how Utah is different(even if it is only for this last tax year so far). 331dot (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought you said that you were giving up pending appeal? Utah has not place on the template. In Ohio, every OoS SSM will get recognition on death certificates until the law is changed. In Utah a small set of SSMs will get joint taxes in one circumstance (until the law is change). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I was giving up on listing Utah as a state where SSM is recognized and legal, not as a state which offers just one form of recognition as Ohio does. I still don't see the distinction with Ohio, which only involves SS couples who leave the state to get married(a small group of SS couples) as Ohio has never had legal SSM for any period of time. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the current law in Ohio, anybody in an SSM can move to Ohio, die, and have the marriage recognized on the death certificate. Under the current law in Utah, a small number of SSM couples that got married in Utah can do joint taxes for 2013 (but not 2014 or later and not any for any SSM from another state). Every other SSM couple in Utah does not have this right, just the few that got married in the 2013 part of the non-stay period. Ohio's mention is for a universal SSM right within the state, which can merit being mentioned. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the tax memo is not limited to couples who had married in Utah. Presumably, any couple that had had a same-sex marriage anywhere before December 31 and who have to file Utah taxes for 2013 would be covered. (And, unlike the Ohio situation, it can actually apply to people who are currently married; people who are getting death certificates do not qualify as currently married in any US jurisdiction, I believe, as death dissolves marriage.) The Ohio situation, while laudable, seems so minor that I'm not sure it merits a mention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky

A federal judge has ruled Kentucky must recognize out-of-state SSM's: [3] [4] I'm not clear on if it takes effect immediately or not but when it does I think we can put Kentucky under "Recognized", much as Oregon is. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Scotland

Unless there are any objections, I think it's appropriate to include Scotland under the United Kingdom after it was passed by the parliament. Or is it best to wait for Royal Assent which could take anywhere from 1-30 days? Regardless when it does get included, the commencement date should read something like 'Not yet specified (Autumn 2014).' (Jono52795 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

The established principle on this template is not to add until the bill has been formally signed into law and become an Act; for Scotland, this occurs when Royal Assent is given. See how England & Wales was handled in the edits of 16 July 2013, including the edit summaries and the  in the template text. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's something that comes up time and time again when there's a sizeable gap between the legislature passing it and a compliant executive signing it into law. Primarily it's happened with regards to Commonwealth countries, despite the fact that a bill hasn't been directly refused Assent in 300 years. but it also happened with Illinois, when Pat Quinn wanted a more convenient day to sign it into law.

With specific regards to Scotland, it would be more speculative to say that marriages won't take place in Autumn. Even last night's vote was merely a formality, a fact recognised by everyone in the chamber and news sources reporting on such. The only steps left are foregone constitutional matters, albeit ones that will take four weeks to dispose of.

In that respect, I believe that we should relax the rules a bit, especially for Commonwealth countries, so that the bar for addition is when all legislative matters are dealt with. Perhaps we can also do the same for jurisdictions where the executive has clearly signalled that they will not veto it? Sceptre ^(talk) 16:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK the bill cannot be submitted for Royal Assent until the Lord Advocate has confirmed that the bill as passed by the Scottish Parliament falls within its devolved powers. A situation like this held up Royal Assent of the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 for almost five months: although it was the first bill to be passed by the National Assembly for Wales (3 July 2012), it received Royal Assent on 29 November 2012, so was second onto the statute books, being beaten by the National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Act 2012 (passed by the NAW 3 October 2012, Royal Assent 12 November 2012). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would have imagined if there was any question on either the Lord Advocate or the Queen in this regard then it would have come up when the British Parliament did this for E&W.Naraht (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Acts passed by the Parliament of the UK (such as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013) go straight to the Palace, because they are not devolved matters; there is no equivalent of the Lord Advocate for legislation affecting England & Wales (or even for England alone). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I meant if there was any question on the Lord Advocate viewing the Scottish equivalent bill as part of the devolved powers.Naraht (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should it have been? A UK Act extends to Scotland, unless there are explicit clauses to the contrary. These are usually in a section titled "Extent", which is typically found close to the sections on "Short title" and "Commencement", near the end of the main text, before the Schedules. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has it at section 20, which has one clause stating "This Act extends to England and Wales" and a further eight clauses setting out which parts apply to Scotland and which to Northern Ireland. Since UK Acts are by definition not devolved matters, the Lord Advocate does not need to judge whether it is a devolved matter, and so is not part of the chain. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a massive difference between Scottish and Welsh devolution, though; anything not reserved to Westminster is devolved to Holyrood. The only thing in the English Act that was reserved to Westminster was the review of occupational pensions. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's not argue about the legal technicalities of devolution. What I am saying is that in the cases of England & Wales; France; New Zealand; Uruguay and others, we have waited for the bill (or equivalent) to become an Act (or equivalent), this event occurring with the signature of monarch/president/governor, therefore we should not treat Scotland any differently. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, basically, it's wild speculation to suggest that the act would be anything but assented to without issue (especially as marriage is one of the most notable ancient liberties of Scottish governance). That's why I'm suggesting moving the goalposts back to "has passed the legislature and there is no prospect of being vetoed". This also would apply to Gov. Quinn's "wait until a convenient date to sign a bill I said I'd sign" thing last year. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

We have the ochre color for things like Quinn's promise. Politicians not uncommonly break their promises, and signing is more than just a formality the way it is in Scotland. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See Template:Same-sex unions#Inclusion criteria. I completely overlooked this earlier, because it's "below the fold". But it's what was agreed on well over a year ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Illinois - Cook County

Judge has ruled that Cook County should start accepting same sex marriage applications immediately and the Cook County Clerk has said he will comply. Information over at Same-sex marriage in Illinois and links to [5].Naraht (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam

The way that I read the references (specifically http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/society/89082/same-sex-weddings-officially-permitted-in-vietnam.html) in the Same-sex marriage in Vietnam, what changed recently is that it used to be if two men (or two women) held a marriage ceremony, both could be fined. Now, while still not recognized or legal, the fine has been removed.Naraht (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw s.t. recently about it being equivalent to cohabitation, but forget where. — kwami (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The western understanding of marriage is irrelevant in case of Vietnam. In East Asia, marriage is not the same concept as it is in dominant culture of Europe, Australia or America. Nevertheless, it is true, according to a reliable organisation, rather than just articles in press, that marriage equality has been introduced about a month ago in Vietnam.^[1]--LadyGodiva99 (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the Huffington Post, Vietnam only decriminalized gay wedding ceremonies. It does not recognize gay marriage. See here gidonb (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@LadyGodiva99: I can believe that the understanding of marriage is different in Asia. However, the source you provide doesn't include the claim you make. The article says e.g. "However, the suggested changes fall short of legalizing such partnerships, making it unclear whether LGBT couples will be able to register their marriages with the authorities." SPQRobin (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You couldn't see my ref before now (I am adding reflist). I believe Human Rights Watch confirms that in Vietnam:<quote> "The National Assembly should amend Vietnam’s Marriage and Family Law to guarantee same-sex couples all the rights enjoyed by other couples, Human Rights Watch said today. Those rights include marriage, registration procedures, and full legal protections with regard to property and children."<endquote>

^ http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/20/vietnam-give-marriage-rights-same-sex-couples

I have realised that w I might have been wrong. Sorry.--LadyGodiva99 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, that's what talk pages are for. <POV>Let's now hope Vietnam actually changes their marriage law soon!</POV> SPQRobin (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, LadyGodiva99. gidonb (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, guys, there is a problem; on this template Vietnam doesn't have recognition of same sex relationships, but according to these maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg, Vitnam has recognition of unregistered cohabitation . 187.34.250.232 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Champaign County

Is it safe to add Champaign County? Even though ssm is being performed there does that necessarily mean it's legal there..? Same sex marriage was actually ruled to be legal in Cook County by a judge. and until June 1, 2014 the law banning ssm will be in effect for all of Illinois except Cook County. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I made that edit. I was just trying to be helpful and update this (it's a rapidly developing situation). I have found other links to more official sources -like the County Clerk's office. As a matter of law, the clerk issuing the license may be illicit, but the marriage license itself would still be valid. That is my understand of acts of the state of Illinois. Example: Even if you "fail" to park properly during a driver's test, and the driving test instructor illicitly passes you, you still have a valid driver's license. I am not sure, if this principle holds true in family law though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.114.173 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-add Kentucky..?

Should Kentucky be re-added..? The inclusion criteria states that "When marriage has been legalised through a US court decision, we wait until either the supreme court in the jurisdiction affirms the decision, or a stay upon appeal of a lower court's ruling has been denied." recognition has been put on a temporary hold in Kentucky. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexico Recognition

Shouldn't Mexico be listed as recognizing same-sex marriage? --Prcc27 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably should. That would also remove the Mexico footnote from the template. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like same-sex marriage is only recognized when performed in Mexico though. --Prcc27 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all the states in Mexico must recognize the marriages performed in Quintana Roo and Mexico City. But not the foreign marriages. Titanicophile (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And from what I understand, it's not easy to do. AFAICT, you need to be a resident of a state to get married there. It's not like the US where you can just drive across the border. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Countries/states with multiple types of recognition.

I see that some users wants to include countries/states in civil unions section, even though these jurisdictions legalized same-sex marriage. Listing only the highest level of recognition available in concrete jurisdiction is a long-standing policy proposed by Ronline in February 2009, see [6]. Changing the policy will lead to significant expantion of the template, since majority of countries with marriage allows civil unions at national or regional level, not to mention unregistered cohabitation, which is recognized in many countries with marriage and/or civil unions. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Would there be some way to indicate that a jurisdiction with legal SSM also has lower levels of unions/cohabitation? (bolding, a footnote, etc.) I support such an idea in principle, though, so the template is not bogged down. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If anything, Illinois should be listed because same-sex marriage since the same-sex marriage law has not yet gone into effect --Prcc27 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be great to add in the Civil Union section the countries and states which legalized SSM without converting the existent Civil Unions : in the United States, Washington state, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island converted the Civil Unions when they legalized SSM. So Illinois, Hawaii, California, and it seems Maine and Maryland and Washington DC kept the Civil Union when they legalized SSM... Also Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Alberta in Canada ; Catalonia, Aragon, Navarre, Valencia, Balearic Islands, Madrid, Asturias, Andalusia, Extremadur, Basque Country, Cantabria in Spain ; Rio Negro, Buenos Aires in Argentina... and the Civil Unions are still possible in United-Kingdom : England, Wales, Scotland even if they passed SSM (and Northern Ireland too by the way, but there's no SSM here)... and in all the other countries which legalized SSM that I didn't write before. I hope it will help you, and I hope also I didn't make mistakes! Titanicophile (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody cares?... Titanicophile (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think sometimes we tend to forget that this is just a template to link together articles on same-sex marriage. It does not need to reflect every nuance and detail of every country's laws - that is what the articles are for. A detail like "did they convert existing civil unions or not" is far too specific to be included in this template. - htonl (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Civil unions (at least here in the states) are seen as only a stepping stone to full marriage, so once these jurisdictions pass same-sex marriage, the question of whether they keep civil unions or not is a secondary question, and not notable enough for this template. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 16:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Thanks for the answer! Titanicophile (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. This template lists the highest form of recognition for each area, and performing marriages trumps every less-extensive form of recognition (like civil union). This way, the template stays streamlined as you don't have countries showing up in multiple places depending on what unions get grandfathered in. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 20:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Is it more sensible to register the UK under "Great Britain", as all the constituent countries of GB (ENG, SCOT, WAL) have legalised/will legalise SSM and are coming in to effect in the near future. It feels a bit more conclusive than having to list all the countries. We can then change it to United Kingdom if N Ireland decides to legalise it too. StJaBe (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to me. It would seem similar to listing Hispaniola on the chart if both Haiti and the Dominican Republic legalized SSM.Naraht (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom is a country; Great Britain is not. --Prcc27 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

For the United Kingdom entry in the Civil Unions section, should it be noted as either Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland/Scotland?Naraht (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I say list Scotland as well until Scottish marriage goes into effect. At that point, we can remove Scotland, in line with our practice for US states. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy of "giving accurate information = vandalism"

wikipedia's reputation... <full of (we want to be polite, so let's call it) half-truths>

---

Civil Union

Saying "United Kingdom" goes against "Listing only the highest level of recognition available in concrete jurisdiction" as England and Wales and Scotland have got that "highest level of recognition".

Saying "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland" would imply that the law covers Northern Ireland only.

---

This template could be accurate - could tell the truth - by adding just a few small words to the Civil union section - words like "Belgium", "France", "Netherlands", etc. Only a few small words are needed to make this template give accurate information about the "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships".

(Just to remind you - that's the template's title) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The decision was made not to include Civil Unions if Same Sex Marriage was available in the same jurisdiction. Similarly if either Marriage or Civil Unions are available, then unregistered cohabitation is not included.Naraht (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

but ... The United Kingdom IS included in both lists - "marriage" and "civil union". In the civil union section it doesn't say "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland". It says "United Kingdom" only. So by taking a look at this template people will know that the United Kingdom as a whole has got civil unions and that England and Wales and Scotland have got marriage in addition to civil unions. But they will not know that France, South Africa, etc. have got civil unions, too - in addition to marriage - as those countries are listed in the marriage section only - unlike the United Kingdom.

---

It is a fact that there are some countries that recognize (same-sex) couples by both - marriage and civil union. It has to be mentioned.

It could be done by simply adding an asterisk to the countries' names - and a side note - something like "A Civil union can also be entered into." Knisfo (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a few points here worth of discussion. To Enumerate

United Kingdom in the Civil Union section should be changed.
Notation on specific countries/states that CU still exist.
General note that the existence of Marriage in the chart does not specifically mean that CUs do not exist.

I'll agree with that, the only question for me is whether to say NI only or Scotland/NI
I'm opposed to this, if only because expiration of CU would receive *very* little coverage and I'm not sure it contributes much
Maybe. It may be worth discussing this again.Naraht (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again I need to point out that this template is not supposed to give a complete description of all the details about same-sex unions in every country. That is what the articles are for. This template is just to link together the series of articles. - htonl (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Denmark is listed in both sections, too. In the marriage section as "Denmark proper" and in the civil union section as "Denmark - Greenland". Denmark proper has got marriage only and Greenland has got civil unions only. So in the case of Denmark it makes sense.

But mentioning the United Kingdom in the civil union section as "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland" would imply that there are no civil unions in the other parts of the UK. Mentioning the United Kingdom as "United Kingdom" is not fair towards the other countries that are in a similar situation.

2. Half of the countries that opened marriage to same-sex couples have got civil unions in addition to marriage. None of them have plans to repeal their civil union laws. In (e.g.) France and the Netherlands civil unions are actually very well-liked.

The number of countries will very likely even increase. Luxembourg is on its way to a gender-neutral marriage law - without repealing its civil union law. Malta's civil union bill will most likely be approved any day now - a bill by which Malta would also recognize marriage performed abroad.

Civil unions are not endangered. They are doing fine. They are here to stay.

Some asterisks and a side note would not make the size of this template explode.

3. Well ...better than nothing Knisfo (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

... proper

There is no jurisdiction called "Denmark proper", no jurisdiction called "Netherlands proper"...

"This formulation is the result [...] after much discussion."

Why is there much discussion needed ?

There is something called (constitutional) law. Take a look at it and you will know about the countries'/territories' (official) names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo (talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because size is also a criteria that we are taking into account. The wikipedia page for Denmark is for an area that includes Greenland, however SSM are not done in Greenland or the Faroes. If you have a description for the area which does SSM which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark that is not significanly longer, please propose it.Naraht (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

for example ... Netherlands

The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the countries of Aruba, Curacao, Netherlands and Sint Maarten.

Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are not autonomous territories or colonies or ... - of the (European) Netherlands. All four countries have got the same status.

It may be confusing that the Kingdom and one of its constituent countries share the same name but ... calling the Netherlands "Netherlands proper" is like calling Aruba "Netherlands improper", "wannabe Netherlands". Calling the Netherlands "Netherlands proper" is offensive towards the other constituent countries.

For now it should simply be:

Netherlands:

- Netherlands

...and in ca. 100 years be changed to:

Netherlands:

- Curacao

- Netherlands Knisfo (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Malta - Recognition of marriage celebrated abroad

Civil Unions Act

Article 1: [...] the Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" [...]

Article 6 (1): [...] with regard to a marriage celebrated abroad by two persons of the same sex, article 18 of the Act shall be construed in such a manner as to be applicable to such marriage.

---

Marriage Act

Article 18: A marriage, whether celebrated in Malta or abroad, shall be valid for all purposes of law in Malta [...] Knisfo (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that does appear to be for actual marriage. Which begs the question why RS's report it as being for CUs. But we're not qualified to interpret the law. Find us some RS's (good 2ary sources) that say this is SSM. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It does not "appear to be for actual marriage". Those are the articles by which Malta DOES recognize marriage celebrated abroad. - Civil unions perfomed abroad are recognized by:

Civil Unions Act

Article 1: [...] "union of equivalent status" means any of the unions found in the list which the Minister by regulations may issue under this Act.

Article 6 (2): [...] a union of equivalent status celebrated abroad shall be valid for all purposes of law in Malta [...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo (talk • contribs) 08:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree is shows that foreign same sex marriages are being recognized and support inclusion of that info... It quite a clear cut law text, which we can apply without getting into OR territory../. L.tak (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the "equivalent status"? Lots of polities recognize foreign SSM, but recognize them as CUs. We really do need something better than OR. — kwami (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that you were originally putting Malta down for SSM, not for recognition of foreign SSM. Is claiming the latter acceptable to everyone? — kwami (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Gosh. Article 6 (1) recognizes foreign marriage, Article 6 (2) recognizes foreign civil unions. I am no native speaker of English but even i can understand the simple language of that law. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand a simple law.

You are a citizen of whatever-country, a resident of whatever-country, aren't you ? Your country passes laws every day - laws that affect your daily life. Are you trying to tell me that you don't know shit about the laws that rule your daily life ?!? Do you trust gaystarnews, pinknews, etc. more than the law ? No news article could ever be a better source than the law itself.

Find me a reliable source that explicitly states that Malta does NOT recognize marriage performed abroad - or stop reversing my edits !

And your "I will ask to have you blocked for disruption." doesn't impress me. I know that I am on the right side of this fight. I am the one who gave arguments, who gave sources. It is YOU who hasn't given any source that explicitly proves you right when you say that Malta does NOT recognize marriage performed abroad. Knisfo (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Article 6(1) and Article 6(2)? Can you please link to the version you are quoting? Here is the bill on civil unions from the parliament website, Bill No. 20 - Civil Unions Bill (click on "20 - Civil Unions Bill"), the context of the statements is clearer;

"Provisions particular to civil unions.

Notwithstanding the provisions of article 4, with regard to a marriage celebrated abroad by two persons of the same sex, article 18 of the Act shall be construed in such a manner as to be applicable to such marriage."

That's not saying marriages abroad will be marriages under Maltese law, it is just saying they are recognised as article 18 of the Marriage Act requires.

What is clear is that Malta is recognising marriages conducted abroad, but I'm afraid the language is not clear on whether it is recognising them as civil marriages, or as civil unions which the context seems to imply. For instance from the date the Civil Partnership Act came into force in the UK it recognised marriages conducted abroad, but it recognised them as Civil Partnerships. Reading through I'm now not convinced Malta does recognise them as marriages. I think on this point we could really do with a third party source on the issue. ChiZeroOne (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

He Knisfo, you are (now you are aiming for inclusion of "recognition of foreign marriages") right in my opinion (and also Kwami suggests he is probably ok with that if this is the consensus). However, in terms of process, Kwami didn't do anything wrong. Edit warring is a problem on wikipedia, so according to bold-revert-discuss cycle, if you are reverted: have the discussion on the talk page and see what is happening. No reason to get frustrated by the speed this happens (you may use the time to update the Malta article as suggested on this page), but stay polite, discuss factually (and if you'll read, you'll realize their is a good probability your edit suggestion will be accpeted... It may be helpful to know that often (very often) a change is pushed here which turns out not to be correct and based on an incorrect interpretation of sources, so the "natural scepticism" of the regulars here has some ground.... L.tak (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(Copying what I said on File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg) We are looking for a problem where there is not necessarily one. Any jurisdiction recognises foreign same-sex unions to a status available in that country, be it marriage or a partnership. In most countries, partnerships give less rights than marriage so foreign same-sex marriages are recognised as partnerships (Germany, Ireland, ...). In the case of Malta, civil unions are identical to marriage in all but name, so foreign marriages are identical to both (Maltese) civil unions and (Maltese) marriages. This, in my opinion, doesn't require explicitly classifying Malta as recognising foreign marriages since it is equivalent to what other countries do. Other jurisdictions that we mark as recognising foreign SSM (Israel, Oregon, Mexico), do have a distinction: they do not grant unions with equal rights (Oregon does w.r.t. state law, but not federal law). So if we need to choose between recognition or civil unions, I would at least put Malta under civil unions, maybe under both. SPQRobin (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The ssm might be being recognized as another partnership, not as ssm. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is what I'm thinking: that Malta recognizes foreign marriages as civil unions. This was the status in the UK iirc. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 02:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to explain that there is no difference. Since civil unions and marriages are identical in all but name, foreign SSM are recognized but it doesn't make a difference whether you call them civil unions or marriage -- the foreign union is fully recognised whatsoever. This is different from other countries, where marriages and partnerships are different. SPQRobin (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Some US states are/were all-but-marriage, but we still counted them as CU's. Separate-but-equal is seldom really equal. — kwami (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@SPQRobin: So are we gonna have to add more countries to the recognition column then..? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point @Kwamikagami:. In that case, Malta shouldn't be in the recognition column unless they are recognizing ssm performed in other jurisdictions as ssm rather then other partnerships. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That's my view, that Malta should be removed from the recognizing list until Knisfo or someone else provides a news source saying that marriages are being recognized as marriages. (The burden of proof would be on him.) Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 04:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that point of view. I've tried to find sources to clarify the issue, but to no avail. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

For me it is self explanatory and doesn't need a secondary source. If the interpretation that same sex marriages from abroad are interpreted as civil unions is true, then there wouldn't be a reference to the marriage act, but to the corresponding link in the civil unions act; or the statement in Article 6(1) would have had a disclaimer... There is really one straightforward way to interpret this IMO... For Northern Ireland etc, where they are recognized as civil unions, this "status change" was mentioned very explicitly.... I understand being on the safe side, but we have made much furher stretches without reliable sources in other cases (interpreting US trial cases, stays etc)...L.tak (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And we have a source! Here it is clear that marriages from abroad are recognized. The discussion that follows about the "anomaly" makes it clear that in the interpretation of the Times of Malta, foreign marriages are indeed recognized as marriages (otherwise there would be no anomaly..). Now the thing to do is to see if the bill was amended in 2013, because this report is from before the final version of the bill was knwon.. L.tak (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Civil Union Act is built around the Marriage Act, hence why it refers to how articles in the latter should now be interpreted. The legislation references the Marriage Act article 18 because that is the relevant piece of legislation regarding the recognition of marriages abroad, but it does so in the context of provisions particular to civil unions. I read the article you cite before this discussion, it says nothing conclusive unfortunately. Recognising marriages abroad but not in Malta is an "anomaly" irrespective of how they are recognised. Is the copy of the bill I linked to above the original or final? I cannot find a more complete recent version. Either way the context of the foreign marriages recognition clause seems to indicate we are still talking about them being civil unions. ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If Malta is anything like the UK, it can take some days after the Presidential signature before the Act itself gets published online. This version probably won't differ from the final version of the bill in any way except for the addition of the date of assent. For example, the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 received Royal Assent on 12 March 2014, but the Act as passed went online during the afternoon of 14 March. The introduction to the Act contains the text "The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 4th February 2014 and received Royal Assent on 12th March 2014", which was probably not in the bill. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@ChiZeroOne: Here is the text of the Act. @L.tak: If I remember correctly, there were no amendments adopted during the parliamentary consideration. All amendments introduced by the opposition (including the technical ones) were rejected by the parliamentary committee. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll do a third attempt. Foreign same-sex marriages or other unions are recognised for what they are. Since Maltese civil unions are equal to marriage, it makes no difference whether you say foreign unions are recognised as marriages or civil unions – they are recognised, point. To the point Kwamikagami raised, federalism complicates it: US civil unions were equal in state law but aren’t in federal law. Whereas Malta is, as far as I know, in a unique situation where foreign unions are explicitly recognised and where civil unions are equal to marriage and as ChiZeroOne put it, the Civil Union Act is built around the Marriage Act. In e.g. the UK or Ireland, the partnerships are separate and inferior to marriage, and foreign same-sex unions are recognised under this separate and inferior status. Because of Malta’s unique situation, the question whether foreign SSM are recognised as civil unions or marriages is a moot question to which no-one will have the “answer” and neither will sources. Proving reliance to sources as not always helpful to the partnership/marriage question is the fact that many sources reported on Malta having legalised gay marriage, similar to whether Denmark and Norway in the 1980s/1990s legalised partnerships or gay marriage. SPQRobin (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Inferior or equal to marriage, it's still civil union, not marriage. In the context of this template it's a big difference. We should not to mislead readers that marriages are recognised as marriages, not civil unions, if we don't have a clear evidence. I hope that someone will find something to clarify this.Ron 1987 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

First foreign gay marriage registered in Malta as marriage, first Civil unions from the 14th of June check it out but it is in Maltese. http://www.tvm.com.mt/news/aggornat-ryan-u-jamie-jirregistraw-l-ewwel-zwieg-gay-fmalta/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.109.77 (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I need to use Google translate, so I'm presumably losing the nuances. Since it's a pain to copy the text, I'll paste some of it here. The headline is:

Ryan u Jaime jirreġistraw l-ewwel żwieġ gay f’Malta

(Ryan and Jaime register first gay marriage in Malta)

Then,

Il-koppja Ryan Pisani u Jaime Banuelos naqqxu isimhom bħala l-ewwel koppja li rreġistrat uffiċjalment iż-żwieġ gay tagħhom f’Malta

(The couple, Ryan and Jaime Pisani Bañuelos, (you chose a name??[7]) as the first couple to officially register a gay marriage in Malta)

They got married in Canada, and,

Ryan u Jaime ħassew li kellhom jirreġistraw ukoll iż-żwieġ tagħhom f’pajjiżna wara li l-Parlament Malti introduċa l-liġi tal-Unjoni Ċivili f’Malta fl-14 ta’ April li għadda.

(Ryan and Jaime felt they also had to register their marriage in our country after the Maltese Parliament introduced the Civil Union law in Malta on 14 April last.)

Ryan qal li hu u r-raġel tiegħu Jaime kienu qegħdin jagħmlu l-istorja hekk kif irreġistraw l-ewwel żwieġ gay f’Malta.

(Ryan said he and his husband Jaime were making history as the first gay marriage registered in Malta.)

Civil Unions will start June 14.

Cyrus Engerer qal li r-Reġistru Pubbliku beda jirrikonoxxi żwiġijiet bejn koppji tal-istess sess li saru barra.

(Cyrus Engerer said the Public Registry began/will begin to recognize marriages carried out between same-sex couples.)

Not clear who that is, but since they're talking about domestic CU's, it's not clear what "marriage" means.

Din il-liġi qed tagħti lill-koppji tal-istess sess l-istess drittijiet u obbligazzjonijiet daqs kull koppja oħra u li ma setgħux igawdu.

(This law gives same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as any other couple can enjoy.)

Again, looks like "marriage" might be referring to the CUs.

(The rest is arguing about the politics.)

So, on the face of it, it looks as though Malta may be recognizing marriage as marriage, but it's not clear to me that's not carelessness in the reporting, or a naive reliance on translation, since domestic CU's might be included under that word. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Malta does recognize [foreign same-sex] marriages as marriages, that's not something that's in doubt. What we have been arguing about is whether to specifically mention it on all relevant articles/templates. SPQRobin (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How is it not in doubt? — kwami (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I explained it in my earlier comment. Legal frameworks aren't always black and white. Malta recognises them 100% for what they are. We, as Wikipedians, classify the legal frameworks under "marriage", "civil unions" etc. and in most cases the laws are clear. But in some cases, mostly due to court decisions, but in this case due to a statute, the law may not be as clear. If you say Malta recognises foreign same-sex marriages, that is 100% true. If you say Malta recognises them as marriages, that is kind of true. If you say Malta recognises them as civil unions, that is also kind of true since civil unions are equal to marriage. From what I read, the Maltese public registry won't be treating these foreign marriages any differently. We as Wikipedians are however making the classifications of the jurisdictions. We are making a big deal for what is just a classification – the reality is still that foreign same-sex marriages are fully recognised. SPQRobin (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Separate but equal, in other words. Maybe Malta can make that work. It doesn't have a good track record elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

How can you be in doubt? At the moment the Public registry in Malta can only deal with marriages as that is the only registry available at the moment so when a foreign same sex marriage is registered it can only be in that particular registry and as such it is listed as a marriage and full accepted as one. While the one of the Civil Unions it is not officially open as it's commencement is on 14 June 2014. It is clear and how it is just that you all cannot understand Maltese but you want the last word on it anyways. I cannot understand all this crap of yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethgrima (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No, we expect you to provide sources for your claims. Saying so doesn't make it so. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move

I've seen two other vertically oriented templates recently have "sidebar" added to their name. I propose that Template:Same-sex unions be moved to Template:Same-sex unions sidebar. Naraht (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd want to see more than two examples before I support this simply on an "all the cool kids are doing it" basis. -Nat Gertler (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oaxaca

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oaxaca 201.26.78.139 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding the changes. It's been legal for weeks. Wikipedia should reflect that. (Tigerghost (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

Deleting. A failure to demonstrate something after four weeks suggests it's *not* true, not that it's true. Regardless, you need a source, per the repeated claims of this at other articles, and the fact that there's still no ref in the Oaxaca article. I'm tempted to delete from there as well, but will leave it as 'citation needed' for now. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Naraht (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So, according to the BBC, marriage is not open in Oaxaca. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the BBC story is from 2012. The others are more informative. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. http://www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2014/524544/6/declaran-inconstitucional-prohibicion-de-bodas-gay-en-oaxaca.htm Naraht (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, from what I understand the constitution of Mexico makes a blanket decision affecting the country *very* difficult. It would have been like Brown vs. Board of Education if the Supreme Court would have had to judge lawsuits in 5 different counties in each state in order to make a blanket decision for *that* state. And *then* the same for the next state. Ich.Naraht (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Effects

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=18399&MediaType=1&Category=24

The implications of the ruling remain uncertain. That is, while officials may no longer use Article 143 to deny a marriage license to a gay couple, the state has not legalized such unions. But Alex Ali Mendez Diaz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the decision meant that gay couples in the state can marry through a court order.

So list or not?Naraht (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge it's very confusing, but I say that Oaxaca qualifies once we have a definite court order or state legalization for all couples (like with Quintana Roo). There's six or so Mexican states where individual couples can be married by court order, and my understanding is that is where Oaxaca is. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 20:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

So essentially, the state has to be at homosexual couples treated exactly the same way by government functionaries as straight couples?Naraht (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe so, i.e. marriage open to all same-sex couples without need for an individual ruling. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 02:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That was our standard in Brazil. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Added "Previously performed"

I've added a field to the marriage list, "previously performed", given the amount of states where same-sex marriages have been conducted but are currently not, most likely due to court stays. Given that the federal U.S. government recognises marriages before the stays in UT, AR, MI, I think it's inaccurate to claim that there are no legal same-sex marriages in those states. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good point, but have rephrased a bit in order not to clutter the template. The delineation seems also clear: marriages should have to be open without an individual court order necessary; and performed marriages should be valid at present still... L.tak (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the bright line should be the marriages are valid, as opposed to the ACT marriages, which were never legally conducted (i.e. they were voided). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sceptre: But it isn't made clear that all of the "Previously performed" marriages are currently valid... --Prcc27 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reworded it "Previously performed but not invalidated" so then it's more clear that only valid marriages that used to be performed are included. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Costa Rica

On 22 May, the board of directors of the country's social security system has voted to grant some rights for same-sex couples. The decision will be implemented within three months. See [8], [9], [10]. In that case Costa Rica should be included in Unregistered cohabitation section. Objections? Ron 1987 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait the three months, in case of some officials in governement or religious authorities try to "block" this decision? Titanicophile (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Costa Rica should be added with a TBD commencement date footnote. Yes it's possible people might try to "block" the decision, but that's possible for other decisions that haven't gone into effect as well. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not yet in effect

Can we turn the greek letter into an asterisk instead..? Prcc27 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 30 June 2014

Malta v. Portugal

I am adding this because I would like opinions on the following: Malta created a union that is identical to marriage without the name, and it is considered of a lesser right than Portugal's "marriage" that is undefined on joint adoption by same-sex couples. Should not exactly the same right but under a different name, especially under the case of a Catholic nation such as Malta, be recognized compared to an ad hoc marriage that is available in Portugal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew1444 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

In Portugal the marriage law is exatly the same for same-sex or different-sex couples. There is nothing about adoption in marriage laws. The adoption laws then do not allow same-sex married couples to adopt. GMMarques (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Colorado

@Dralwik: I fixed the format for Colorado but I'm not sure Colorado should be listed since the top of the template reads "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships" and it doesn't seem to be legal.. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Religious Recognition

This template lists where same-sex marriages or similar unions are either performed or recognized by the state. I am aware that various religions perform same-sex weddings as part of their faith. Shall we create a new section on the template listing them?

Pros: 1. This directly relates to recognition of same-sex unions

2. It would be educational

3. It is involved in the legal debate as a federal lawsuit on religious freedom in North Carolina is being brought forward by the United Church of Christ and other ministers in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper http://www.ucc.org/news/free-religion-lawsuit-alliance-baptists-06052014.html http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/north-carolina

Cons: 1. May change the template, as there is currently a monopoly held on the template by legal issues in states, countries, and other sovereign states.

2. Certain denominations as a whole would definitely be listed, but confusion may ensue as many denominations (as a whole) that do not recognize/ bless same-sex unions have inside groups trying to change church policy and may independently perform them and bless them on their own without official denomination approval. The Reconciling Ministries Network within the United Methodist Church is one of many examples.

I think that if religious recognition is added, that these informal groups should not be included, for better or for worse. An alternative idea that is inclusive could involve creating a link that shows a list of informal religious sub-organizations that do bless unions, without full church support.

Note that since this template only includes places that recognize or perform unions, therefore listing churches that do recognize/ perform/bless same-sex unions not would not be necessary.

I also note that church changes on this subject are rare so it would not need frequent revisions, unlike pages like "Same-sex Marriage in the United States."

Proposed additions below:

Christian denominations

Episcopal Church

Friends General Conference (Quakers)

Metropolitan Community Churches

Unitarian Universalist Association

United Church of Christ

Unity

Source http://www.believeoutloud.com/background/christianity-and-lgbt-equality

Jewish Movements:

Reform

Reconstructionist

Conservative

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/07/religious-groups-official-positions-on-same-sex-marriage/

Note the above link iis from 2012, and there may be changes.

This is not a comprehensive list, as it is hard to research this topic, many religions exist, not all support, and some have no position or are in the midst of a debate. If anyone can improve this, please, go ahead and update it. I don't want to leave out religions that do affirm, for the sake of truth, inclusion, and political correctness. Please cite your source in any discussion.

I recognize this is a divisive idea to add this and I welcome respectful debate on this sensitive topic. The conditions following this apply:

1. Do not insult any religions mentioned

2. This is not a place to debate whether homosexuality should be religiously recognized, this is a debate over whether religions shall be included on the template that already bless same-sex unions.

I am aware that Wikipedia pages on this topic already exist, the question is whether to put it in the template or not.

Thank you all!

166.147.104.162 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have thoughts? I posted this about a month ago. Also, I'm not an editor, so I can't make the actual changes.98.253.175.243 (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I think it'd be much simpler to limit this template to geographic jurisdictions. With religious denominations, we'd have to track down which ones support equal marriage and to keep an eye on new announcements which often don't get the media attention of when a country legalizes it. If you want to try a template of such denominations, that could be a really nice way to track them. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 00:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that it would run into difficulties of scale - while we can obviously point to some big groups, there are a g-dzillion little groups and independent churches worldwide. We've been lucky on the political situation in that it has mostly been decided on the national level, rather than on the sub-national level. Not all of these groups are top-down; while Roman Catholicism may have a central planning point that makes the big policy decisions and overrides the local groups, other groups are more organizations of cooperative independents joined by common interests, where the group exists to do things that are useful in coordination, but doesn't so much dictate what the individual churches do. You point to Jewish movements, but while those movements may have groups within them that temples are commonly members of, not even all US temples that practice Conservative Judaism are part of United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. So we have questions of how granular we get, and how overwhelming this addition might be... and unlike political boundaries, one cannot quickly do a map summary. If this were to be done, there would have to be some practical limit (groups whose membership represent .1% or more of the world population, say) or organizational method in place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC) (Just to illustrate the complexity, I quote this from Conservative Judaism: "In December 2006, a responsum was adopted by the Committee that approved the ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis and permitted commitment ceremonies for lesbian and gay Jews (but not same-sex marriage), while maintaining the traditional prohibition against anal sex between men.[25] An opposing responsum, that maintained the traditional prohibitions against ordinations and commitment ceremonies, was also approved. Both responsa were enacted as majority opinions, with some members of the Committee voting for both.") --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Coahuila

I don't know how the legislative process works in Mexican states, but according to this source, the law takes effect in one week. It is unclear whether the governor has signed it, nor if he even has to at all. In any case, he supports it (this source doesn't mention anything on a governor's signature). The state's Civil Code can be found here, which should be updated soon I suppose (for example, article 253 will be changed to "El matrimonio es la unión libre y con el pleno consentimiento de dos personas [...]"). SPQRobin (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this is the law, entering into force on the day following publication in the state's official gazette (see September). SPQRobin (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Too Many States Revisited

Okay, the template looks stupid now. Why are the 5 states under "Previously performed but not invalidated" not labeled "5 states"..? If we're going to use the "19 states", we should use it for the previously performed and for countries with more than one sub-jurisdiction as well. This template should be consistent. A big issue with the change though is that it doesn't link directly to the state's same-sex marriage page which is a big problem. The individual links are really important (I can not stress that enough). and I don't think the template was all that cluttered before and it didn't really bother me. Prcc★27 (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm changing the template back to the way it was as there was clear opposition to the proposal that has yet to be addressed. Prcc★27 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, which discussion do you want to have? The one about wether we should have individual states of the US in the template by abbreviations? Or the one about consistency of the implementation? L.tak (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should start off by discussing whether or not we should have individual states of the US in the template. Then, if we decide to get rid of the individual states we can discuss doing that throughout the whole template, not just the United States of America. I oppose changing the template. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I suggest you give your suggestions in the sections up... I thought there was broad consensus for implementation (after having this discussed several times and always getting to a consensus that there should be a point where a country takes up simply too much space in the template and things become contra productive... Let's see in a week or so if the consensus has changed there and wether the discussion is complete and wait for implementation until that there... You may want to explain a bit your "oppose change" position in relation to the "other states should do so as well" position in the context of the arguments followed in the past months (related to amount of space). L.tak (talk)

Okay, at what point is it considered "too much space"? 17 sub-jurisdictions? 18? 19? 20? I don't think that's been established yet.. The template isn't even that cluttered. Even if it was, all that would mean is that there are a lot of jurisdictions in the United States that legalized same-sex marriage. If 20+ countries legalize same-sex marriage we're not gonna leave them off the template because it's "too cluttered" are we..? The main reason the proposal is an issue is that it doesn't link to the individual same-sex marriage pages. Those pages are important and should be included on the template. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of establishing this new thread instead of continuing the above (where the purported "inconsistency" was already addressed, and no opposition to the suggested change was given afterwards)?

Obviously subnational entities are less relevant than countries. You've given no argument why US states' pages are supposed to be "really important" for a worldwide (!) overview template. They are still linked indirectly via the linked US page, just like the individual articles of the Canadian states which legalized SSM individually are. And as discussed above, the states' abbreviations are likely incomprehensible for most non-Americans anyway - they're literally clutter to me. If you want to list all 19 states then why not the 10 individual tribes, a much lower number? The template was consistent in summarizing all lists of ten or more subentities after my edit; it's inconsistent now (as it was before) in this regard. (FWIW, a limit of ten or so subnational jurisdictions seems reasonable to me for summarizing. I also wouldn't mind summarizing or even removing the "previously performed" states due to their lower relevance, but that's another topic.)

I wouldn't mind putting the links to the individual states in a footnote to the template (or a pop-up window shown when hovering above the US line, if that's possible) if you insist on keeping direct links to their articles. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think if we're going to remove the links from the United States then we should do the same to the other countries with subjurisdictions. Many people might not understand the abbreviations for the respective subjurisdictions of Australia and Mexico, so what's your point..? How are they any different from the abbreviations of the United States? That's not a good reason to remove them! I could support having a footnote or pop-up window for all countries with subjurisdictions. But the fact that the United States has a lot of states with ssm doesn't make their articles any less important or relevant than say the articles for subjurisdicitions of Mexico. So whatever we do to the United States, I feel we must do to the other countries. Also, the reason we don't list all 10 tribes is because there is only 1 article for all ten tribes. I don't really care if we remove the previously performed. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Let's be real here: U.S. state abbreviations are likelier to be familiar to an English-speaking audience (and this is English-language Wikipedia) than state abbreviations in, say, Mexico. But we use Mexican state abbreviations anyway. Why not? The information is presented in a clear and direct way, and the awesome thing about wikilinks is that if you want to learn more about something, you can click the blue link and gain the knowledge you seek. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The obvious difference between the US SSM entry and e.g. Mexico (as repeatedly pointed out) is the number of states with SSM - summarizing 19 states saves space, while "summarizing" e.g. Mexico's two states actually increases the amount of text. Other than that, I wouldn't mind summarizing the subjurisdictions of all countries; I'd also like to get rid of the other "cryptic" abbreviations. If you want to keep all individual US states just because they have individual articles, then why not list the Canadian and Brazilian states which have individual articles? To me, the template should primarily be an information summary, and only secondarily a "link farm". Note that the UK's subjurisdictions are listed individually although they don't have individual articles, putting in doubt your argument for not listing the tribes.

@Kudzu1: Likelier yes, but still probably not likely. As Nat wrote in the above thread, not even all US readers will know the abbreviations; and the US is only a small part of the English-speaking world. The awesome thing about wikilinking "19 states" as I did is that if you wanted to learn more about the individual states' laws, you could click the blue link and gain the knowledge you seek from the US article's table and links. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing Australia's states decreases the amount of text though... If we are going to get rid of abbreviations it has to be consistent throughout the template. Also, UK's subjurisdictions are countries. I didn't like how the "19 states" was wikilinked; it didn't link to the states' articles. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The UK's subjurisdictions England, Scotland etc. are only "nations", not countries (as are many tribes which call themselves "XY Nation"), and that is a purely cultural term without any international legal meaning AFAIK. I wouldn't mind summarizing Australia's Civil unions entry as well if you prefer (though summarizing only long lists of states would also be "consistent"), I was only looking at the SSM section.

How could "19 states" wikilink to all 19 states at once? I'd be glad if one could do a pop-up window showing the list of wikilinked states, but I don't know how to do this (if it's possible). If we can't wikilink all the states, we must link to a list instead, as I did. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You could wikilink to part of an article that actually has links for each states' articles. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, the United Kingdom recognizes England, Wales, Scotland, etc. as countries (see Wikipedia articles) and they are more sovereign than Native American tribal nations (especially since evidently they are allowed to vote for their independence). Native American tribal nations are recognized by the United States as "domestic dependent nations." Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida

There is a district court decision in Florida that has been stayed. This case has not yet gone to circuit court. We have not previously listed states under this circumstance. We need a circuit court ruling before we can list it. 76.105.127.56 (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a temporary stay from a district court and we have listed states under this circumstance. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Adoption

Since this Iist is about LGBT relationship recognition, shouldn't it also list the states, territories, and countries where lgbt adoption is recognized? Upside: Adoption is a significant step within a relationship and has the potential to be recognized or banned by a state/country/territory. Downside: The places on the template links to existing articles about the recognition within that governing land mass. The catch is that only the UK, the US, Brazil, and Europe (as a whole) have articles for it. Thoughts? Should we move forward with this?98.253.175.243 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So far, all the relationships concern only the same-sex couple themselves. Adoption by same-sex couples, while a relationship which concerns a same-sex couple in part, is entirely different from the spectrum of quasi-marriages provided presently. --krimin_killr21(talk) 23:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Estonia

Is Estonia's recently passed law, actual marriage for same sex couples or is it a civil partnership scheme? I only ask because some news sources seem to imply its a change to the nation's marriage laws. See here:
Estonia becomes first former Soviet state to legalise gay marriage (The Independent)
Estonia first ex-Soviet state to legalise gay marriage (BBC News)
Every other source makes no mention of it being a change to the country's marriage laws. Can anyone confirm? Jono52795 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. Upon further reading of a multitude of other sources, it is clear this is a civil union law, giving same sex couples most of the rights as marriage. Rather surprising though that two reputable sources (BBC and the Independnet) would make such a blatant mistake in their reporting. Feel free to delete this section. Jono52795 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2014

This edit request to Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

While most of the US states are ordered by the state's full name, the Ns seem to be ordered by their abbreviation (i.e. North Carolina before New Hampshire, Nevada in between New Mexico and New York.) FagusNigra (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging by other states - particularly those in the I's and M's - and as happened in three of these four edits, the established order is alpha by full name, so

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Change list position of DC

This edit request to Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Move DC to the end of the states, just before the tribal law listing, to keep it sort of separate. DC is not a true state, though it should be listed as it is a region with its own laws. Kumorifox (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Changing the order of listing so that it goes against an established pattern should be discussed. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The pattern is already prevalent in the pages detailing SSM in the United States; states are listed without including DC among them, and DC is always added at the end. Kumorifox (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording

Pedantic, but it should be "Previously performed *and* not invalidated". There is no contradiction. Or, maybe better, "Previously performed and still valid". 207.192.243.66 (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

This edit request to Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The list of U.S. states looks good when there are 6 states per line, but with 7, at least on my browser, one wraps and it's ugly. Also, it's almost but not quite in alphabetical order.

Currently the infobox lists:

· AK, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC,

· HI, ID*, IL, IN, IA, ME, MD,

· MA, MN, NV, NH, NJ, NM,

· NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI,

· UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI,

· 10 tribes

DC, IA, MA, and NV are out of alphabetical order, and that second line has too many states. Even though the Is make it narrower than the Ms in the third line, MD still wraps onto a line of its own. Please alphabetize it and break it up so so it looks like

· AK, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE,

· HI, IA, ID*, IL, IN, MA,

· MD, ME, MN, NC, NH, NJ,

· NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA,

· RI, UT, VT, VA, WA, WI,

· WV, 10 tribes

The edited wikitext (for ease of cut & paste) is:

· AK, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE,
· HI, IA, ID^*, IL, IN, MA,
· MD, ME, MN, NC, NH, NJ,
· NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA,
· RI, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV,
· WI, 10 tribes

71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The established order is alphabetical by state name not abbreviation, see higher up this page. Also, whether it wraps or not is very much dependent upon circumstances like: browser; installed fonts; screen resolution; the skin that you're using. Fonts are particularly influential here because if the capital I has no serifs, the abbreviations from HI to IN inclusive are all narrower than normal, so for many people, seven on row 2 will fit in the same space as six on the other rows. Fixing for one person will make it worse for somebody else. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(I was writing this while you replied; and got delayed by an edit conflict, sorry.)

Oops! I came here because of the wrap issue, and didn't see the discussion of alphabetization order above. (I clicked straight on "submit an edit request" which took me straight to adding a new section to the talk page.) Me, I think sorting by abbreviation makes it easiest to find things, and I would go ahead and WP:Be Bold and make the edit. In a library, where there are multiple possible abbreviations and you don't know which is used in any given document, you sort by unabbreviated because that's the unique form, but the two-letter state abbreviations are themselves unique, so that doesn't apply. Someone who doesn't know the abbreviations and is hovering over the abbreviations to see them expanded will search a little bit longer, but I think it'll be easier for the people who know the US well enough to care about state-by-state details. But feel free to disagree.

But anyway, if you want to stick with the current order, the wikitext would be:

· AK, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC,
· HI, ID^*, IL, IN, IA, ME,
· MD, MA, MN, NV, NH, NJ,
· NM, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA,
· RI, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV,
· WI, 10 tribes

I agree that it's hard to get everything right, but having six states per line consistently doesn't "break" anything for other people, other than having a slightly different right margin. It's not like moving WI to the last line makes the infobox any taller. I'm using stock Firefox, which seems popular enough.

A better solution would be to borrow the idea from the sandbox and just say:

· 30 states, 10 tribes

(I've also made the same edit to the sandbox.)

As a final note, and a separate edit request, I agree that the asterisk on Idaho should be removed. It was on hold, but the deadline has passed, the stay has been lifted, and there are plenty of reliable sources documenting that the state has started issuing marriage licenses. It's no longer "not yet in effect".

71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/20/vietnam-give-marriage-rights-same-sex-couples

[1]