![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
After reading (and re-reading) through some comments concerning the template, I fooled around a bit and came up with a few new tweaks that I personally really love. The new proposal completely eliminates "same-sex marriage debated" and "civil unions . . . debated;" with "Status in other jurisdictions" in place. For this section, I only included countries/regions with no current form of recognition, though including countries without nationwide recognition, yet have certain regions that provide recognition.
Here's my proposed template; please tell me what you think. :)
VoodooIsland (
talk)
07:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include Laos under status in other jurisdictions? The article is basically pointless. VoodooIsland ( talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I've just put a {prod} on the "SSM in Laos" article. Hopefully it will be deleted soon, and we can remove it from this template (either that, or hopefully something will happen that actually creates a subject matter for the article). LotLE× talk 08:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There are some countries, like Italy, which offers civil unions in some regions - yet they are not on the template. Is there a specific reason for their exemption? Just wanted to make sure before I add them. -- haha169 ( talk) 02:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I really dislike the "heavy" footnotes inside the template. For regular articles, extensive footnoting is great, but for templates it is just distracting. Moreover, these notes do not add anything important or helpful. Most of the notes are for various US states (US-centrism is definitely prominent here too), and contain various information about the dates on which laws go into effect or were in effect. However, the abbreviations of each state listed already links to a whole article on "Same-sex unions/marriage in [State]". Readers who are curious about the exact dates and rules for a given states can perfectly well click on the wikilink for that state/jurisdiction without needing the extra footnote. The leads of all those various articles will provide details on dates-in-effect, or whatever else is most germane to that jurisdiction. LotLE× talk 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
(dedent) Let's give a specific example about the status of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, the first US state to allow SSM (where I happened to live at the time too), same-sex couples can marry... BUT ONLY IF they reside in a state that allows same-sex marriage. When I was there, that meant MA-resident couples only, but now presumably residents of a few other states could travel to get married on beautiful Cape Cod. On the other hand, opposite-sex couples from ANY US state could travel to MA to get married. Right now, today, the status of same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage is a little bit different in MA, and the set of people for whom it is legal is a little bit different. If we were to include everything that was relevant to the status of SSM in a jurisdiction in the template, we would need to transclude the various articles, defeating the purpose. LotLE× talk 23:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It appears that, according to this article, Dutch same-sex marriages will no longer be recognised in the Netherlands Antilles and in Aruba. This would thus make the Dutch situation similar to the Danish situation (where registered partnerships are not performed or recognised in the Faroe Islands). I haven't yet removed the two from the template, however, since I'm not sure what the validity of the court's ruling is. According to the article Same-sex marriage in Aruba, it was the Dutch Supreme Court which held that marriages must be recognised in those countries. The recent article states that the overturning decision was made by the Joint Court of Justice of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. I'm not sure how it is that the Joint Court court overturn a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court, but I'll look into this. Ronline ✉ 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Did Ireland just legalize civil partnerships; did it pass the legislature? The Reuters story's vague language contradicts other reports suggesting that it will go into "second stage debate in the Dáil in Autumn" to be possibly enacted at the end of the year. Niew ( talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just got a question about the domestic partnership scheme passed in Wisconsin and coming into force on July 1. The scheme that passed in Wisconsin was different to other schemes passed in the US, since it was included as part of a budget bill. It seems that, like Maryland, the scheme in Wisconsin is unregistered cohabitation, rather than a registered system like in Nevada, Oregon, California and Washington. Is this correct? Ronline ✉ 15:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, the DP law will go into effect on August 3, 2009 not July 1, 2009. http://fairwisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-rep-mark-pocan-wisconsin-becomes.html Gavino ( talk) 00:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Does Liechtenstein recognize registered partnerships? LGBT rights in Liechtenstein states so in two places; yet the template is silent. Is this a status comparable to the one in Ecuador, or is the article simply inaccurate? VoodooIsland ( talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
An IP address raised a rather interesting question concerning the possiblity of limited (likely unregistered similar to Maryland) in Minnesota or Deleware here. I'm not sure if the mentioned would qualify, as they could be neutral without being in an "unregistered cohabitation" scheme, but I could be wrong. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
"Perform" is a perfectly fine word when discussing a marriage rite. However, what we are discussing here is not the performance of the rite (which in many cases is not a government action) but the bestowing of a specific legal status - which is more properly a "grant" rather than a performance of some kind. I tried changing this (boldly) but had the change reverted who thought "perform" simply better, so I thought I ought get some more voices in on it. Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
For countries that already have specific pages such as "Registered partnership in . . ." (i.e, no page titled "Recognition of same-sex unions in . . .") with then a section concerning information about same-sex marriage in the country, should we split these up and create a page such as "Same-sex marriage in Slovenia" and then do a See Also link at the top of the Registered Partnership in . . . page? I'm not talking about every country, but countries that have significant info or can have it added, such as within Slovenia, where such an article could serve extra significance. There are pages for a few, such as in the UK and France, and these all have substantial amounts of info concerning the same-sex marriage status only. Countries with active debates about same-sex marriage could serve additional worth with seperate articles, but only for countries that do not already have a "Recognition of same-sex unions in . . ." page. For example, Argentina, which currently uses a "Recognition of same-sex unions in" titling to cover all of its information, would stay how it is. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that the recent change from "performed" to "granted" makes the template rather ambiguous. While "granted" may be correct legally, it is very uncommonly used in plain English when referring to the recognition of same-sex unions. A Google search on "grants same-sex marriage does reveal a few important articles that use the term. Nevertheless, I believe it is more appropriately (and commonly) used when referring to the initial decision to "grant" marriage rights to same-sex couples (e.g. "4 June 2009: NH grants SSM rights"), rather than the ongoing process of facilitating same-sex marriage ("7 countries now grant same-sex marriage"). Furthermore, to people who are not aware of the discussions on this page, phrases such as "Recognised, not granted" are very ambiguous. In many contexts, "recognised" is used as a synonym for "locally granted". Thus, it is rather confusing for the template to state "Recognised, not granted". The former heading, "Recognised, not performed", was at least clearer in suggesting that, while some jurisdictions provide same-sex couples in foreign marriages with full rights, such marriages are not performed locally. Thus, I think the template should be changed back to "performed" instead of "granted". Ronline ✉ 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Maryland should return to "Civil unions and registerd partnerships" section. See [2] [3] Ron 1987 ( talk) 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering, New Caledonia's unique status and system of government, should it be included under civil unions and registered partnerships? I recently passed a civil union law. [4] VoodooIsland ( talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
After reading (and re-reading) through some comments concerning the template, I fooled around a bit and came up with a few new tweaks that I personally really love. The new proposal completely eliminates "same-sex marriage debated" and "civil unions . . . debated;" with "Status in other jurisdictions" in place. For this section, I only included countries/regions with no current form of recognition, though including countries without nationwide recognition, yet have certain regions that provide recognition.
Here's my proposed template; please tell me what you think. :)
VoodooIsland (
talk)
07:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include Laos under status in other jurisdictions? The article is basically pointless. VoodooIsland ( talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I've just put a {prod} on the "SSM in Laos" article. Hopefully it will be deleted soon, and we can remove it from this template (either that, or hopefully something will happen that actually creates a subject matter for the article). LotLE× talk 08:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There are some countries, like Italy, which offers civil unions in some regions - yet they are not on the template. Is there a specific reason for their exemption? Just wanted to make sure before I add them. -- haha169 ( talk) 02:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I really dislike the "heavy" footnotes inside the template. For regular articles, extensive footnoting is great, but for templates it is just distracting. Moreover, these notes do not add anything important or helpful. Most of the notes are for various US states (US-centrism is definitely prominent here too), and contain various information about the dates on which laws go into effect or were in effect. However, the abbreviations of each state listed already links to a whole article on "Same-sex unions/marriage in [State]". Readers who are curious about the exact dates and rules for a given states can perfectly well click on the wikilink for that state/jurisdiction without needing the extra footnote. The leads of all those various articles will provide details on dates-in-effect, or whatever else is most germane to that jurisdiction. LotLE× talk 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
(dedent) Let's give a specific example about the status of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, the first US state to allow SSM (where I happened to live at the time too), same-sex couples can marry... BUT ONLY IF they reside in a state that allows same-sex marriage. When I was there, that meant MA-resident couples only, but now presumably residents of a few other states could travel to get married on beautiful Cape Cod. On the other hand, opposite-sex couples from ANY US state could travel to MA to get married. Right now, today, the status of same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage is a little bit different in MA, and the set of people for whom it is legal is a little bit different. If we were to include everything that was relevant to the status of SSM in a jurisdiction in the template, we would need to transclude the various articles, defeating the purpose. LotLE× talk 23:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It appears that, according to this article, Dutch same-sex marriages will no longer be recognised in the Netherlands Antilles and in Aruba. This would thus make the Dutch situation similar to the Danish situation (where registered partnerships are not performed or recognised in the Faroe Islands). I haven't yet removed the two from the template, however, since I'm not sure what the validity of the court's ruling is. According to the article Same-sex marriage in Aruba, it was the Dutch Supreme Court which held that marriages must be recognised in those countries. The recent article states that the overturning decision was made by the Joint Court of Justice of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. I'm not sure how it is that the Joint Court court overturn a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court, but I'll look into this. Ronline ✉ 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Did Ireland just legalize civil partnerships; did it pass the legislature? The Reuters story's vague language contradicts other reports suggesting that it will go into "second stage debate in the Dáil in Autumn" to be possibly enacted at the end of the year. Niew ( talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just got a question about the domestic partnership scheme passed in Wisconsin and coming into force on July 1. The scheme that passed in Wisconsin was different to other schemes passed in the US, since it was included as part of a budget bill. It seems that, like Maryland, the scheme in Wisconsin is unregistered cohabitation, rather than a registered system like in Nevada, Oregon, California and Washington. Is this correct? Ronline ✉ 15:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, the DP law will go into effect on August 3, 2009 not July 1, 2009. http://fairwisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-rep-mark-pocan-wisconsin-becomes.html Gavino ( talk) 00:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Does Liechtenstein recognize registered partnerships? LGBT rights in Liechtenstein states so in two places; yet the template is silent. Is this a status comparable to the one in Ecuador, or is the article simply inaccurate? VoodooIsland ( talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
An IP address raised a rather interesting question concerning the possiblity of limited (likely unregistered similar to Maryland) in Minnesota or Deleware here. I'm not sure if the mentioned would qualify, as they could be neutral without being in an "unregistered cohabitation" scheme, but I could be wrong. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
"Perform" is a perfectly fine word when discussing a marriage rite. However, what we are discussing here is not the performance of the rite (which in many cases is not a government action) but the bestowing of a specific legal status - which is more properly a "grant" rather than a performance of some kind. I tried changing this (boldly) but had the change reverted who thought "perform" simply better, so I thought I ought get some more voices in on it. Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
For countries that already have specific pages such as "Registered partnership in . . ." (i.e, no page titled "Recognition of same-sex unions in . . .") with then a section concerning information about same-sex marriage in the country, should we split these up and create a page such as "Same-sex marriage in Slovenia" and then do a See Also link at the top of the Registered Partnership in . . . page? I'm not talking about every country, but countries that have significant info or can have it added, such as within Slovenia, where such an article could serve extra significance. There are pages for a few, such as in the UK and France, and these all have substantial amounts of info concerning the same-sex marriage status only. Countries with active debates about same-sex marriage could serve additional worth with seperate articles, but only for countries that do not already have a "Recognition of same-sex unions in . . ." page. For example, Argentina, which currently uses a "Recognition of same-sex unions in" titling to cover all of its information, would stay how it is. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that the recent change from "performed" to "granted" makes the template rather ambiguous. While "granted" may be correct legally, it is very uncommonly used in plain English when referring to the recognition of same-sex unions. A Google search on "grants same-sex marriage does reveal a few important articles that use the term. Nevertheless, I believe it is more appropriately (and commonly) used when referring to the initial decision to "grant" marriage rights to same-sex couples (e.g. "4 June 2009: NH grants SSM rights"), rather than the ongoing process of facilitating same-sex marriage ("7 countries now grant same-sex marriage"). Furthermore, to people who are not aware of the discussions on this page, phrases such as "Recognised, not granted" are very ambiguous. In many contexts, "recognised" is used as a synonym for "locally granted". Thus, it is rather confusing for the template to state "Recognised, not granted". The former heading, "Recognised, not performed", was at least clearer in suggesting that, while some jurisdictions provide same-sex couples in foreign marriages with full rights, such marriages are not performed locally. Thus, I think the template should be changed back to "performed" instead of "granted". Ronline ✉ 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Maryland should return to "Civil unions and registerd partnerships" section. See [2] [3] Ron 1987 ( talk) 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering, New Caledonia's unique status and system of government, should it be included under civil unions and registered partnerships? I recently passed a civil union law. [4] VoodooIsland ( talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)