Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Portal link+icon on template

An icon and link for the LGBT Portal has been added to the template. I am not sure this is good idea. Many pages this template is transcluded on are already within. Also, the template is quite long on the page. -Rrius (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I switched it to just a wikilink, this should fit in better than with the image added. Banjeboi 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

talk page clean-up

I've archived threads that looked to be resolved but was unsure about the ones remaining. Please feel free to tag any remaining threads with {{stale}} and {{resolved}} if they seem ... stale or resolved. In this way those visiting the talkpage can quickly suss out what topics are current. Banjeboi 09:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico and same-sex marriage

I've just rewritten and expanded the Same-sex marriage in New Mexico article, adding numerous source references. (More could be written there, but I don't have time to research the whole history of the issue in that state.) While it's true that NM marriage statutes neither condone nor prohibit same-sex marriage, I've been unable to find any source that says an SSM obtained in another place has been officially recognized in New Mexico.

Thus, I feel the template is incorrect, and NM should be removed from the section "Foreign Marriages Recognized." Seems as if no one has yet gotten hitched out of state and come back to challenge the issue there with state officials or with the courts.

Can anyone verify by reputable source(s) whether NM has ever officially honored an out-of-state same-sex marriage? If not, let's fix this template, okay? Textorus (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur that NM could be removed from the "Foriegn Marriages Recognized" section until the claim is confirmed (or denied). It seems appropriate to list it only under "Recognition debated" based on the current information. ZueJay (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No one has weighed in with an objection to this, so I've removed NM from the "marriages recognized" section; it's already listed under "recognition debated." Textorus (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zuejay. According to statistics compiled by British Columbia, a few New Mexico same-sex couples have gotten married there. But I'm not aware of any official recognition by New Mexico (or any official denial of recognition, for that matter). This strikes me as odd, however, since Nex Mexicans were also allowed to marry in Massachusetts back when Massachusetts still barred most out-of-staters from getting same-sex marriages there, and some did. Unlike in Rhode Island, I can't find that even the New Mexico attorney general has opined about recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstephenclark (talk • contribs) 07:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Coquille Indian Tribe

I don't think we should list Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon) as a place where marriage is legal. It is not a state, unless this is some huge tribe, that I know nothing about, and is prominent. CTJF83Talk 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, i would move the discussion here since it concerns this template. Banjeboi 04:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but a quick brush looks like it probably doesn't belong? The way it's presented, MA, CA, and Coquille are equivalent, which is an insult to the people of the Coquille :) Seriously, though, a tribe of 258 people doesn't have the same status as the 31st state entering the union (pop. ~ 36 mil). -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would seem worthy of a footnote or something. I'm inclined to keep something there. Banjeboi 02:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be kept where it is. While the Coquille tribe does not have the same status as a state, it does have self-determination in the area of marriage. Thus, like Massachusetts and California, the tribe is one area where SSM is recognised. Ronline ✉ 15:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, but was San Fran added when they were issuing marriage licenses? The template should only contain State and Countries. The tribe can have its on section on the page, but I don't think it is worthy of the template. CTJF83Talk 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the point of caution but this does seem a rather unique point of interest in the current environment. The Coquille tribe would be the first tribe to do so, and while the tribe resides in Oregon, where voters amended the state constitution in 2004 to prohibit same-sex marriage, the tribe is a federally recognized sovereign nation. Thus, this first case, like potential test cases in each state, will have to sort out legal issues in conjunction with the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996, possibly on the way to the US Supreme Court. Banjeboi 23:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ctjf83 starts to get to the heart of the matter. Do tribes, and the Coquille in particular, issue marriage licenses? If not, they do not belong. This template is about jurisdictions that sanction civil marriages. If the tribes sanction civil marriages, they should be included; if not, they are more similar to religions, and should not be. -Rrius (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears they do have authority in domestic relations law, so I think they should be included. We would include Puerto Rico if it provided for SSM, wouldn't we? -Rrius (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, but Puerto Rico is a country, not some small Indian tribe. We need to limit the list to States and Countires only! CTJF83Talk 02:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Indian tribes have sovereignty, too. I guess I just don't see the basis for excluding a jurisdiction that has control over marriage law. -Rrius (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Puerto ico is not a country, it is a territory of the USA, and even the UN recognizes it as non-self governing. I think a better analogy is if same-sex marriage were legal in Washington D.C. I think it would be listed. The tribe is soverign regardless of how few people it represents. It performs its own marriages and has the right to define what it constitutes as a marriage. If they made it legal for an adult tomarry a 12 year old or their sibling, it would be a legal marriage regardless of what any state says. Its only thecontroversal issue of same-sex marriage and the state constitutional amendments banning its recognition that make this situation any different. In fact, there was some speculation that if a lesbian Cherokee couple (who obtained a marriage license before the Cherokee nation banned recognition of same sex marriage) had gotten married the federal government itself would have torecognize the marriage due o tribal soverignty. There may be a similar issue here. Also, the comparison to San Fransisco is flawwed. The marriages performed in San Fran wre demeed illegal. Therefore, its inclusion would have been inappropriate. If the marriages had turned out to be legal and San Fran had the right to define its recognition of marriage then its inclusion on the list would be appropriate. 75.187.39.176 (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with adding the tribe, and any city. We need to list only states and countries, listing the tribe gives undue weight as if the tribe is on an equal footing with a state or a country, which it is not. CTJF83Talk 03:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is in on the same level if it makes its own marriage law. That is the only reason states are on the list. The same point you are making could be made by people from other countries about US states. Indian tribes, like states, have a strange status; they are within a sovereign country, yet retain sovereignty of their own. -Rrius (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But legally they are a sovereign state so just like California their laws next step is to the federal level. -- Banjeboi 09:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you all can see why I agonized over whether to list the tribe on this template! It may be helpful to think of the following when discussing the powers and limitations of the Coquille's self-government: the tribe is a sovereign nation that has its own laws that are ultimately subject to the US Constitution. This structure is almost identical to the powers/limitations imposed on a state. Just substitute "Massachusetts" (or any other state's name) with "The tribe" and "state" with "nation" and you've got an accurate description of how state's have retain their own sovereignty, but will acquiesce to the federal constitution if demanded. Because of this, I'm inclined to leave it in.Ronnotronald (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Y'all, seriously. Whether or not the Coquille can issue marriage licenses is an interesting debate, but WP:UNDUE is pretty strong here. At the very top of this template, on par with several *countries* and two large states is a tribe of people that *may* have 25 LGBT people in it. The Coquille need to be moved to a footnote, a mention in the SSM article, or something, but don't need to be right up there on top of this template. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a whiff of WP:UNDUE about it, but it is a closer case than you make it out to be. The precedent of a tribe legalizing SSM does, after all, touch more than just the Coquille. Also, leaving them out should not be done lightly, as it is far too easy to marginalize Native Americans by dismissing their importance and that of their institutions. -Rrius (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We aren't trying to dismiss their importance as a people, or a tribe...I'm saying, they aren't "as important" as a state or a country...just like a city or county wouldn't be, if they (somehow) legalized gay marriage on their own...like SF did years ago. CTJF83Talk 05:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

By treating a tribe as similar to a city or county, we would be dismissing their importance. Cities and counties are creatures of state government. They exist as a convenience to the state, which is a sovereign power. Indian tribes are also sovereign powers. Their existence is not the result of a decision of a state government or the national government. I am not saying that the tribe must be on the list, and frankly the small size of the tribe is persuasive, but I am worried from some of the comments here that some editors are making their decisions based on a false understanding of the situation. -Rrius (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, on a note of SatyrTN, according to their wiki page, they population is 258 people. Seriously, how many gay people are in the tribe? no more than 25, by a very liberal 10%. 258 hardly compares to the 36.5 mil in California and the 6.4 mil in Massachusetts. Even the smallest state has 522,830 people, which is 2,026 times bigger than the tribe. My proposal was for a size and notability (in comparison to states and nations) reasons. CTJF83Talk 05:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the small size is a persuasive argument, but comparison to two of the largest states in the US is not. Wyoming hardly compares to either one, and no one would question its right to be on the list. Nor does Washington, DC, which also doesn't have any sovereignty at all, yet its domestic partnerships are in the template. -Rrius (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Although we aren't discussing DC, it should stay. DC is often, if not always, included in list related to states, such as List of U.S. states by area, List of U.S. states by population, Alcohol laws of the United States by state, List of U.S. states by elevation, List of U.S. states by life expectancy, etc, etc. DC is basically on a state level, it has 3 electoral votes and such, no Indian Tribes have electoral votes, and none are listed in any of those lists, or any other state list. CTJF83Talk 16:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I'm not proposing taking DC from the list. I am not even saying that I am going to stand in the way of removing the tribe. I am saying that the rationales are not especially compelling because they do not leave behind rule that are applicable to future case. Are we going to exclude all tribes? That doesn't seem right as tribes are sovereign governments that issue marriage licenses. Is it because it's small? Monaco is small (32,671 people). Is it because it's really small? If so, how many thousands does a jurisdiction need to be included? We need a rule. Excluding jurisdictions because they do not feel as though they should be included will lead to ethno-centrism. I am far from an activist on these issues, but ignoring a jurisdiction whose marriage licenses are the equal of those of California or Wyoming or DC or France or Sweden just doesn't sit right with me. This is all the more true since I suspect that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the tribe, even at only 258 people, were a traditional, post-Peace of Westphalia nation-state. -Rrius (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me the "rights" a tribe has, in comparison to states. That is what I'm not understanding. I don't get this "sovereign nation". Do they, apparently, not have to follow Oregon state (or any state) law? CTJF83Talk 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When on tribal lands, not necessarily. The relationships among the states, tribes, and federal government are complicated and based on treaties and federal statutes. This is because each has some sovereignty. Each has authority of it's own that is not dependent on another for its power. US states do not derive their power to tax and make laws in the general interest from the federal government. Sovereignty is passed directly from the people of the state to the instruments of state government. By the same token, the federal government does not derive its power from the states. By way of the Constitution, the American people took some sovereignty that had previously resided in the state governments and gave it to the national government. Tribes derive power from the tribe members, but some sovereignty has been yielded up by treaty or taken by force. At this point in history, the US government recognizes and protects that sovereignty to some extent.

I suggest that sovereignty is too stringent a test, actually. It occurs to me that the basic rule should be that will be listed if it meets the following criteria:

1. The jurisdiction issues marriage licenses
2. The jurisdiction has the power to decide who can receive a marriage license
3. The jurisdiction recognizes or is debating recognizing SSM or another partnership

This test would include places like DC that do not have sovereignty, but would exclude cities that have their own DP registries. It also brings us around to the ultimate question: if we are going to exclude this tribe, what reason do we assert for doing it? My suggestion is if we go with the "it's really, really small" approach, we reassess the situation when we get some more tribes. -Rrius (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your criteria. I thought county clerks issued licenses? They would have the power to decide who receives them, if approved by say the mayor and city council, correct? I'm not sure the tribe, or any, would pass Wikipedia:Notability. How many books are written about this tribe, or how often is it in the news? There have been plenty of books written on DC, Wyoming, and Monaco. I don't think the tribe is notable enough for the infobox. I have no problems listing it in the article. How many people had heard of this tribe before this discussion was brought up, compared to the number of people who have heard of the other 3 places I just listed. CTJF83Talk 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's being a little more literal than I meant it, which is my fault because I was inartful. The State of California issues marriage licenses. Counties (or other sub-units) physically issue a license, but it is a California marriage certificate. You can probably replace the first two points with "the jurisdiction controls marriage law", but I was trying to get at places like DC, where marriage law ultimately resides with a superior level of government (the federal government), but is actually in control. -Rrius (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecuador

Can someone provide a reference for same-sex marriage being legal in Ecuador? Keep in mind that removing the constitutional ban (which I imagine is what happened) would not remove any statutory ban that might exist. -Rrius (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The new constitution appears to create or allow for some sort of civil union, but it specifically states that "marriage is a union between man and woman" at article 67. Since marriage is not actually legalized, but it's not clear whether the constitutional specifically provides for civil union or just permits or directs the legislature to do so, I'm removing Ecuador from the list. -Rrius (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ecuador has now been added as having civil unions. Can anyone provide a link showing that the new constitution actually creates them as opposed to allowing of directing the legislature to do so? If it is not established in a few days, I'm taking it down. -Rrius (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, don't know who added that, as my edit summary said, I just fixed the link from LGBT rights in Ecuador to Same-sex marriage in Ecuador CTJF83Talk 00:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving Ecuador to the debate section, as the new constiution still has not been applied in any new law so far. I'm happy to see that civil unions are forthcoming, but it seems like there are not even unregistered partnerships so far. Ecuador's constitution recognizes same-sex couples but doesnt really tell us what rights should be accorded to them. If somebody has data on ordinary laws or court sentences about same-sex couple in light of the new provisions, please provide them. Then, I'll move Ecuador back to "unregistered cohabitation".Finedelledanze (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Rhode Island does NOT recognize foreign same-sex marriages. The state attorney general opined in early 2007 that the state would, but his view is only a legal opinion. No Rhode Island court has ever recognized a foreign same-sex marriage, and the state supreme court strongly hinted in 2007 that it would not do so. In that case, the court refused to allow two Rhode Island women to seek a divorce from their Massachusetts marriage. The court held that the word "marriage," as used in the relevant divorce statute, meant only the union of one man and one woman, and the court deemed irrelevant the fact that the couple had celebrated a marriage in a state that had redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. Rhode Island should not be listed as a place that recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. Jstephenclark (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this it was listed because the AG opinion meant gave Massachusetts cover to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples from Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. That was probably always a week reason for including it, but after the supreme court opinion, it is hard to see any reason. Good catch. -Rrius (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, Massachusetts said that Rhode Island does not explicitly "prohibit" same-sex marriage, which is a somewhat different question from whether Rhode Island would recognize foreign same-sex marriages. The interplay of these two states' views is pretty complicated. But the bottom line is that Rhode Island courts are the authority on Rhode Island law, and that state supreme court decision would seem to make the prospects of recognition quite bleak there. Subsequent developments might change this, but for now, I'd say there isn't enough basis to say Rhode Island recognizes. Jstephenclark (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Recognized"

An IP editor proposes, and I agree, that "recognized" should be limited to its legal meaning to avoid confusion. In a legal context, "recognize" refers to the treatment of marriages from other jurisdictions. This would leave, I think, just one use: "Foreign marriages recognized". Other than that other terms should be used. The IP editor proposed using variations of "establish" for the other instances. I propose using "valid" for "recognized" in "Recognized in some regions" and the like, "SSM" or "Unions" for "recognition" in "Recognition debated", and "Unions granted" for "Recognition granted. -Rrius (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I was the anon editor, so I agree. The shifting uses of "recognition" make the portal confusing. The heading "Recognized in some regions," for example, sounds as though it refers to regions that recognize marriages celebrated elsewhere, but it actually refers to regions that have authorized the performance of valid same-sex marriages in those regions themselves. "Valid" is an acceptable compromise. Jstephenclark (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another complication. The labels "Foreign marriages recognized" should probably be something like "Local marriages invalid, but foreign marriages recognized." That correctly describes the set of places listed under that heading. If, instead, you want to list all the places that recognize foreign same-sex marriages, you would need to include every place that allows same-sex marriage itself. Massachusetts (by judicial precedent), California (by statute), and South Africa (by civil law) will recognize foreign same-sex marriages that were valid where celebrated. The other places that allow same-sex marriages (Canada and the EU countries) would probably recognize foreign ones if the spouses lived in or were nationals of a place that allows same-sex marriage. Jstephenclark (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One final complication. Some places will recognize a foreign same-sex marriage but will recognize it as a civil union or civil partnership. New Hampshire, for instance, has a statute providing that foreign same-sex marriages will be treated as civil unions in New Hampshire. If you really want to be complete about which places will recognize foreign same-sex marriages, New Hampshire and similar places should be included as places that provide for civil unions internally and also recognize foreign same-sex marriages as civil unions. Jstephenclark (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, I see the distinction, but I don't think we need to explicitly make it. I think it is implied that jurisdictions that provide for SSM also recognize foreign SSM and that jurisdictions in the second list do not provide for SSM (or else they would be on the first list). If people cannot make the logical leap, they are expecting too much out of a navigation template. As to your third point, I think trying to make that point would expand an already long template and possibly introduce inaccuracy by omission. The problem is that detail is sometimes hard to come by. Language barriers are hard enough (we may not be able to tell which acts actually do recognize marriages as civil unions), but the ways in which such things are recognized can be difficult to verify. For instance, California's SSM case came down after the last time the UK revised its list of relationships recognized as civil partnerships. The Home Office can recognize relationships that are not on the list, but it would be difficult to verify that they do. If other countries have this sort of system, it could be messy. -Rrius (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've mocked up a version of the template along the lines of what I set out at the beginning of this discussion here. Something about "Unions valid" bothers me, but I'm having trouble coming up with something better right now. -Rrius (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to mock up the revision. It looks good. One change: I'd make the heading of the whole template "Legal STATUS," not "Legal Recognition," to be consistent with the idea of restricting the use of the word recognition in the template, but this is a minor point.

"Unions valid" seems find to me. Here's a thought, though. Why is this block even under the CU heading? All those places are already listed as places that provide for civil unions. Why shouldn't this block be under marriages, since it is about places where marriage is being debated? If you want to know whether a place that is debating marriage already has civil unions, you can just go to the civil union block and check.

I agree with your response to my second and third points. Incidentally, I may be mistaken, but I thought the UK act has a section that mandates recognition of foreign forms even if they haven't been listed, so long as those foreign forms are equivalent to the civil partnerships. It seemed to me, back when I read the act some time ago, that the listing was for purposes of clarity but that recognition was not made entirely dependent on the list. Jstephenclark (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recognition of non-Schedule-20 unions is necessarily within the discretion of the Home Secretary since she must decide whether the union meets the act's criteria. While we can use logic to determine that given union would be recognized, but it would be difficult to impossible to get non-OR sources saying that the Home Secretary has decided to recognize any given non-schedule union.

As to the other points, I think it is helpful to note that the places where a debate is happening have some sort of union already. If at some point there are places with no unions debating SSM, they should go in their own category. I have re-done a proposed new version here. -Rrius (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So, any comments on the new mock-up before I replace the template with it? -Rrius (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)