Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Effective date and scope

As happened with California, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The opinion put out today is not effective yet. According to this source, its direction to the trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs (that is to overturn the ban on SSM), takes effect on October 28. The trial court's order will determine when marriage will become available. We should somehow note that marriage is yet to become available.

Also, civil unions are being treated as though the civil union law was ruled unconstitutional. It wasn't, the part of it that said marriage is between a man and a woman was. Beyond that, it was the overall statutory scheme that was ruled unconstitutional. That is to say, offering civil union instead of SSM was rejected, not civil unions. Until someone abrogates the Civil Union Act, it should not be treated as though it was repealed. -Rrius (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles

The category "foreign marriages recognized" currently lists:

• Aruba
• Israel
• France
• Netherlands Antilles
• United States (NY, NM)

The inclusion of Aruba and Netherlands Antilles in the "foreign marriages recognized" category is misleading. According to the linked articles Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles do not recognize true foreign marriages, unlike the countries and states in this category. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles recognize only Dutch same-sex marriages as the Dutch island states were found ineligible to deny recognition of same-sex marriages in a territory that was not true "foreign". Foreign same-sex marriages, i.e. from the US, Canada, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, are (unfortunately) not recognized in these small island dependencies. I suggest deleting the territories from this list. gidonb (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a note that Netherlands Antilles and Aruba only recognize Dutch SSM. -Rrius (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's another reasonable solution. Thank you, Rrius! gidonb (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut effective date

SSM in Connecticut takes effect on November 10 according to this source. -Rrius (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, according to this article, gay marriage has started. Please update the template to reflect this (effective date no longer needed). :) Whataworld06 (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} We should probably remove California now that the results are in.--Aervanath's sock lives in the Orphanage, too 14:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But results *aren't* in -- there are more than six times the margin of victory of absentee ballots not yet counted. —Nightstallion 18:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct 3 million votes need to be counted, so people need to chill and wait. CTJF83Talk 18:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done feel free to re-request when results are finalized. Skier Dude (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point, there are no jurisdictions issuing marriage licenses in California any longer to same-sex couples and the No on 8 people have acknowledged defeat. There are court challenges, that will hopefully restore the right to marry, but for now, same-sex marriage in California is not legal and California should be removed. Bastique ^demandez 00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources? Even if No on 8 coincided, they still have ballots to count. CTJF83Talk 03:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If the ban is approved -- remember, 3 million votes uncounted, far more than the margin -- it will be declared on 9 December, IIRC. It will then retroactively apply from 5 November 2008 onwards. Nonetheless, currently SSM is not yet illegal in California. —Nightstallion 21:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's be specific. In California, same-sex marriages are not, and have not been illegal. The state, however, no longer recognizes them, except for the 18,000 or so that were performed between July and November. This was the case before July and it is the case again. Bastique ^demandez 14:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how many votes are left to count, the facts on the ground are that same-sex couples are no longer issued marriage licenses in California.--71.6.12.114 (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ARTICLE 2 SEC. 10. (a) of the California Constitution:

An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.

I'm not sure, but I think the legal challenges filed by Proposition 8 opponents would be "referendum petition[s]" and therefore the proposition yet become part of the Constitution. – Zntrip 05:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut

{{editprotected}} The effective date and footnote for CT should be removed now that we have reached the effective date. -Rrius (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

source CTJF83Talk 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Mark 06:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

California and previous recognition

Hi. I have removed the "regions previously recognised" section, which only contained California. I think that this clutters a template that is already too long. Many regions/countries have previously recognised SSM only to revoke it - examples that come to mind include Iowa in 2007, San Francisco in 2004, Hawaii in 1996, France and Greece (in the latter two, mayors gave marriage certificates to same-sex couples). I think that including this information is irrelevant: the template should reflect where same-sex couples are currently recognised rather than where they were formerly recognised but can no longer marry. Ronline ✉ 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As to Nepal: I've removed it from the SSM list for the time being. The Supreme Court's decision is definitely groundbreaking, but so far same-sex couples cannot be married there. My understanding is that the Court's decision is similar to that of the South African apex court in 2006 (or the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling). That is, it ordered the government to form a committee to look into marriage/partnership laws with the intent of ensuring equal rights for same-sex couples. The government has not responded so far. Ronline ✉ 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

California is a case where same-sex marriages legally went on. The marriage that went on this summer are still recognized by the state government. There are legally married gays in California, there just won't be anymore until something voids prop 8. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that the pre-Prop 8 marriages are still legal. Then again, the same-sex marriages conducted in Greece also haven't been formally invalidated. I agree that California is a special case due to the sheer number of married couples (18,000+). I wouldn't mind maintaining it in the SSM section of the template; however, I feel that the section is already too cluttered, with four separate subheadings. Ronline ✉ 09:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the concept of previously recognized and currently not is too fuzzy for all locations. The previous situation may be (somewhat) ambiguous, there are (above mentioned) degrees of retraction, and consequently major differences in the distance previous-current. Lets keep this limited to the current (+soon to be changed) situation. If SSM is totally withdrawn somewhere, it would fall under discussion in other countries. I am removing the category and leaving the note that also belongs to the regional recognition category. gidonb (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden will legalize SSM from 1 June 2009 - Is this correct or can be verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes (talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

this is as close as I found CTJF83Talk 06:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the country should yet be included on the list. Nonetheless, it is quite certain that this legislation will pass and SSM will be legal by mid-2009. Just a general note on including countries (this applies to Nepal too): I believe countries should only be included in the main SSM list if 1) SSM is currently legal, in the sense that same-sex couples are being issued with marriage licences, or 2) a SSM bill has been definitively passed which will come into effect by a given date (i.e. Norway at present). Ronline ✉ 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Civil Unions

Is it necessary to have the two Canadian provinces listed under the unions section when marriage is granted nation-wide? Thankyoubaby (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. CTJF83Talk 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So should we change it? Thankyoubaby (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait a few days to see if anyone else comments. CTJF83Talk 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think unions are other type of recognition than marriage and in my opinion it should be left as now 79.163.199.91 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, there is also Netherlands and Belgium. So I think it should be left. 79.163.220.87 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nepal

User wanted to see this on the talk page, hence my writing here. According to the linked article, there is no SSM in Nepal. There is not even a date for it like in Norway. It seems to be in the process, but at Wikipedia we refrain from crystal balling. If you still insist there is SSM in Nepal, please put your comments here or fix the article Same-sex marriage in Nepal with verifiable references. gidonb (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no controversy here. According to the quoted article, the SC only seems to have recommended same-sex marriage, with no action taken so far. As long as we don't have more information on the issue, Nepal should remain in the "recognition debated" section. Finedelledanze (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Whataworld06 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This was precisely my impression. In any case, someone who disagrees is more than welcome to provide counter-evidence. It will be evaulated based on its merits... gidonb (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Nepal, and look at the sources you will see that Nepal needs to placed in the same sex marriage section (with a 2009 in parentheses). Azcolvin429 (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in reference 3, I read: "So far, the government has not responded to the ruling.". We are all very happy if more rights spread to more countries, but please follow wikipedia policy. Moreover, I doubt that a magazine article is a sufficient reference, we would need a link to the law. Nepal is today in the same situation as South Africa in 2005. As long as the gov't doesnt respond to the court, there will be no SSM. Finedelledanze (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

Can it be confirmed that Sweden will provide SSMs from 1 May 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.82.242 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not definite yet. Currently, the Alliance government has submitted a bill to Parliament which would legalise same-sex marriage. This bill has the support of all parliamentary parties except the Christian Democrats. It is expected to be voted upon in the coming weeks/months and, if approved, would enter into force on 1 May 2009. So, considering the degree of political support for this bill, it is almost certain that Sweden will have SSM by that time. However, Sweden should only be included in the template once the bill has been approved by Parliament.

Finally, just a more general message: it would be great if people would stop including countries in the template on a speculative basis. I'm referring to countries like Hungary and Nepal. This template is already big and complex, if we include countries with "TBA" labels next to them it would just make it a lot harder to interpret. Ronline ✉ 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

auto archiving

I'm adding auto archiving for threads stale 45+ days with a minimum of 5 threads to remain so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ecuador

It states on the Ecuador page as well as in several news articles that Ecuador has civil unions, yet it is included in the "recognition debated" section. Until someone can find a source that confirms a shift on the legislation of CUs, I'm moving it to the CU section. Vickiloves08 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Like in Nepal, the situation in Ecuador is more complex than some news articles make it out to be. The new Constitution of Ecuador provides that de-facto couples (including opposite-sex) couples will be entitled to all the rights of marriage in accordance with the law. So far, the Government of Ecuador has not produced a corresponding law implementing the constitutional provisions. See Recognition of same-sex unions in Ecuador. This means that, while same-sex unions are a constitutional right, there is as of yet no legal framework for these unions and thus no real recognition is being offered. For this reason, Ecuador should be moved back to the "recognition debated" section (which is essentially just a placeholder for all jurisdictions which have articles on same-sex union recognition but no real recognition at the moment). Ronline ✉ 10:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll move it back. Vickiloves08 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Added Greenland

I added Greenland to civil unions. It seems to qualify for the box. Please correct me if you have a different opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Greenland definitely should be there :) Since it is formally not an independent country, I think the reason why it wasn't included is because it would have already been covered by the inclusion of Denmark. Just a bit of background: Danish law relating to registered partnerships does not apply in Greenland and the Faroe Islands, and Greenland only legalised civil unions six years after Denmark, through a separate law in 1995. So yes, it definitely merits separate inclusion, and I'll make a new article for it as well. Ronline ✉ 07:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania?

These were listed under the Civil Unions/Registered Partnerships debated — yet there has been no recent debate of allowing such unions and such would be unconstitutional in Ohio and Michigan as all forms of same-sex unions are explicitly banned in the constitution. Pennsylvania has been rumored to have a petition going to get a ban, but this has nothing to do with legislating a same-sex union. Until someone can give some sources, I am removing these from the templates. Vickiloves08 (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Estonia

Social Democratic Party supported same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.6.95 (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire

Please correct me if my facts are incorrect, but; The NH legislature sent the bill to Governor Lynch on Wednesday last. Today is Monday - exactly 5 days since the legislature sent the bill to the Governor. Since I have heard no news of a veto or a signature...wouldn't that mean that the marriage bill has passed w/o the governor's signature? --haha169 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Those five days exclude Sundays and holidays. He has more time. Fortuynist (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's something else. The bill has not reached the Governor's desk, because it has not been "enrolled", or signed by legislative leaders; a technicality, possibly because he wants more time to consider it. May Garriage (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Russia

[1] - Not sure if it is completely reliable or not, but Pink News states the loopholes in the Russian law that recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad. Apparently, there is a list of foreign-marriages that aren't recognized, and same-sex marriages aren't on the list. --haha169 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We'll soon find out, for two Russian women are attempting a same-sex marriage sometime soon and if they fail as expected, they will try to get a marriage performed abroad recognized by the Russian government. See this article for more. While Russia wouldn't be at the top of my list of likely candidates who could choose to make such a bold move in the near future, you just never know these days. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

Portugal has something called "União de facto" which juridically is very similar and hence translatable as registered partnership for same sex couples. The table was wrong--62.169.67.134 (t alk) 02:46, 19 February 2009 (UT

New Jersey, USA

Last week a judge ruled that New Jersey has a long standing tradition of recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. Didn't read anything that the decision was being appealed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflack (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maryland, USA

The same-sex marriage in Maryland page says that there is unregistared domestic partnerships, but this table doesn't show it. Which is right?

California in flux

I edited the template to list California under the US states, but give the parenthetical '(in flux)'. I'm not really in love with that term, but cannot think of another that is better.

Some other editor changed it (in a bit of an edit war) to using a whole section of the box titled 'Recognized, currently repealed'. I really don't like the section because it gives this huge visual emphasis to California, more than most nations, the other states, etc. Moreover, the section title really gives less information than my parenthetical, not more.

The problem is that we really can't fully characterize the situation in few enough word to fit into a template section title or parenthetical. Nor is a template a place to put several sentences of description. A section title would need to be: 'Recognized for a few months, but repealed by voters, but repeal may not have followed constitutional procedures, but existing marriages are still acknowledged, unless the supreme court also nullifies them'. The right way to handle that is by mentioning CA as briefly as possible, but with a Wikilink that points to an article with the actual details. LotLE×talk 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..I would claim that the CA dispute on marriage is unique in the world and I think it could stand for a section a-parte, as I did it in a previous edit. OT: I'm sorry, I didnt mean to start an edit war, I hate it (especially when someone stubbornly keeps on posting Nepal in wrong sections..).

After all, CA is the beacon of the worldwide LGBT civil rights movement; all the world has been following the referendum closely. Therefore a special section is wiki-relevant.

My proposal is to insert another sub-section (wording to be agreed on, what about "formerly recognized, now disputed"?) but something that gives a summary of what is going on. "In-flux" is a bit too generic and seems to suggest that marriage is to be legalized rather than the other way round. At least, this is my sensation.Finedelledanze (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "beacon" is a bit overblown. The Netherlands or South Africa actually seem more important to me than this one US state (I live in CA even, but try to think globally). The thing I like about the overly generic "in flux" is precisely that it is too generic... readers need to follow the link to find the details, and are encouraged to do so. Any specific section title for CA is not-quite-accurate, and is a bit WP:RECENTist as well (obviously, the whole template is about something rapidly changing). E.g., the new lawsuit someone files tomorrow will change the appropriate section title in some manner, or the new court action. At some point in the near future we'll know more about what category actually applies to CA, at this point, it's mostly WP:CRYSTAL ball. LotLE×talk 21:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As a suggestion: let's try to get some other editors to opine before we change things further. I have an opinion, but I'm not totally opposed to your "Formerly recognized" section title either. LotLE×talk 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a "recognition disputed" section for situations like these when the issue comes into dispute in two or more places. But "status in flux" is OK for now, because the issue of where CA will be hinges on whether the state will recognize the marriages performed in the interim period. Like You Never Did See (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We have an IP that keeps removing CA. Until the CA SC says anything there are 18000 SSMs from California that are currently valid. It is improper to speculate that these marriages will be divorces until the ruling comes in Wikipedia:SPECULATION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. If Prop H8 stands but the marriages are not divorced, I would suppose California remain on the Same-Sex Marriage list noting that SSM has (temporarily) ended in California. Status in flux properly describes the situation at the moment Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with having "CA" listed under the section where MA, and CT are because they just aren't the same -- I don't see the problem, even after reading everything above, to put it in the "debated" section because that's what currently is happening. Whether the SC will overturn Prop 8 or not is irrelevant -- just how when IA had SSM for one day, it was listed at the top along with the other countries. However, I do not want to keep reverting things back so I will leave this as it is and just state that I disagree as the only thing that's "in-flux" is the actual recognition of existing marriages. In reality, Iowa should be in-flux too under the circumstance since one gay couple was legally married but it's unclear what will happen when the IA SC rules. I like that the title was changed to 'other jurisdictions' instead of 'foregin' as as soon as NY was in there, it really didn't flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflack (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I currently like the "recognition disputed idea". But the problem with this state is that whatever the Supreme Court does (except divorce of existing couples and upholding Prop 8), California is going to be very difficult to categorize. --haha169 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nepal

Can someone confirm whether or not Nepal is indeed forced by the highest court to allow for same-sex marriages. Either way of course until this happens Nepal shouldn't show up in the top with the other countries like it had some time ago. KFlack ✉ 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Format

The format looks terrible on the sidebar, I tried to fix it, but could not figure out what went wrong. It looks all scrunched up on the "same-sex marriage" page, while if you click on "same-sex marriage in Spain" or any of the other countries, it looks how it originally looked. Can anyone change the main page to look how it originally did? user:vicki:vickiloves08

reverted to former formatting (without the line-height coding).. it looked okay on my browser but guess it did not translate well to others. Maybe someone who has more experience with the formatting can tighten up the wasted space somehow. I am on 1024x768 resolution and this template takes up almost 3 screen lengths. Outsider80^(talk) 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope people do not mind that I am changing the title to "recognized, not performed" -- prior to, it had been something like "Foreign marriages recognized" which was semi-ok but when 'NY' was added, it didn't sound right. Although one can put 2-and-2 together and realize that we likely mean marriage only by noticing that the countries listed under 'other jurisdictions' aren't under the 1st list of countries that have SSM, it still makes it completely clearer, and looks better as it doesn't have the word 'jurisdiction' on its own line.

KFlack ✉ 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming

Recently, the U.S. state of Wyoming defeated a bill that would have amended its constitution to forbid recognition of same-sex couples married out of state. It does have a statute saying that all marriages performed in Wyoming must be between a man and a woman, but apparently Wyoming is "bound to recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other states." So why isn't Wyoming next to New York under 'Foreign marriages recognized'? Has this been discussed before? Wyoming doesn't have a Same-sex marriage in page! Noble Spear (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the law in Wyoming, but I find it somewhat difficult to believe that it recognises out-of-state same-sex marriages in the same way as New York State does. Furthermore, I fail to see how it can recognise civil unions when it doesn't even have an analogous state civil union scheme yet. It is an interesting issue, though; I think we need to look into it a bit more. UPDATE: Numerous online media sources are reporting that Wyoming now recognises out-of-state gay marriages: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Ronline ✉ 13:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Of those four sources Ronline provided, three are identically worded, and all of them are a case of sloppy reporting. I've just done some further research, and I am not finding any reliable sources that show that Wyoming has ever recognized any gay marriages or is about to do so. Notice the following excerpts from the Casper, Wyoming, newspaper (http://www.trib.com/articles/2009/02/06/legislature/news/doc498ce0d8953c3429025167.txt) in its article reporting the defeat of the "Defense of Marriage" resolution on Feb. 6, emphasis mine:

Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states. Two states – Massachusetts and Connecticut -- currently allow same-sex unions. Supporters of the resolution said it’s important for the Legislature to address the legal discrepancy before the courts are forced to weight in. They urged the House to send the issue to the voters, who are required to endorse constitutional amendments. . . .

Rep. Edward Buchanan, R-Torrington, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the resolution doesn’t preclude same-sex relationships, but it does draw a clear line about the state’s position on marriage. Without dealing with the legal discrepancy, he said, it’s possible that the state could be asked to recognize other unacceptable unions.

Clearly, what this article is saying is that the state of Wyoming has not yet officially recognized any gay marriages, despite the legal discrepancy, which would require a court ruling to resolve.

The fact that state law requires that out-of-state marriages be recognized is beside the point; all 50 states have some such law on the books. But DOMA explicitly exempted all states from being required to recognize same-sex marriages.

Neither the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/your_community/1111.htm) nor Freedom to Marry (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/wyoming.php#reports) show that Wyoming has ever recognized a same-sex relationship of any kind. Therefore, I'm reverting the template to remove Wyoming from the box of states that recognize gay marriage. Textorus (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, I knew that couldn't be right. Aww, for a little while I thought Wyoming was more Liberal than California XD --Occono (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)