![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Could anybody change title of that article to Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia? Ron 1987 ( talk) 17:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't California be added in the "recognized" section?
Someone needs to edit this section, so that this fact would be known.
Native94080 (
talk)
00:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a current situation that reflects a past situation. California does not recognize new SSM. Unlike New York that you listed together. Why do you use discussion pages if you just enforce all your opinions through edit warring and without connection to what is being discussed? gidonb ( talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Portugal legalized same sex marraige today, 1/8/09 and should be added to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.220.65 ( talk) 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Remember it does not include adoption rights (just like what Belgium did back in 2003). But adoption did come later in 2005 (2 years later) - the same will happen in Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 11:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Numerous media sources have announced in the past week that Nepal will be legalising same-sex marriage as part of its new constitution, due to come into force by May 2010. [1] Despite this, I don't think the country should be listed in the template yet. The Constitution has not yet been approved and it is not even conclusively known whether same-sex marriage will be included. Nepal is currently at about the same stage that Luxembourg and Iceland are: there has been a relatively firm commitment that same-sex marriage will be legalised, drafting on the law has started, but the law has not been approved yet. I think Nepal should only be listed once the new constitution is approved by the Constituent Assembly, and only if this constitution expressly provides for same-sex marriage. Ronline ✉ 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
[4], [5] [6], [7] What do you think? New York should be included in Unregistered cohabitation section or not?. Ron 1987 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Buenos Aires should be included in the template, for the same reason that it wasn't included when the first same-sex marriage was authorised in the city, and for the same reason that Tierra del Fuego, where a same-sex marriage has already been performed, is not included. Jurisdictions should only be included when they perform same-sex marriage under the general law, rather than only offering them to specific couples. Ronline ✉ 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This section makes no sense. This template is about same-sex unions. The page title is "Template:Same-sex unions", the title of template output is "Legal recognition of same-sex couples", and that text links to Status of same-sex marriage. Previously, there were two sections where the "Status in other jurisdictions" one is: Marriage debated and Civil unions debated. The only possible problem with that formulation was that people tended to exclude some jurisdictions where debates had petered out. The current list appears to simply be a list of every country or US state that has an article about gay rights but isn't listed above. A navigation template about gay rights around the world already exists, so it isn't necessary here. What's more, such a list isn't germane to this template. This template is aimed at navigating among discussion of same-sex unions, not overall gay rights. I've changed the title back to something actually related to debate, and will start weeding out non-germane articles tomorrow. - Rrius ( talk) 10:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Since this template is already long, and that information duplicates information available in other articles and in templates already likely to be at LGBT articles, I've removed it.
I have read in a few different sources that Rhode Island recognizes same sex marriages performed else where.
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=102799 None of them have been very deffinative, mostly new synopsis of current recognition. Does anyone know of any conclusive, citable evidence one way or another? It was my understanding they don't and I imagine its confusion over the state recognizing them as civil unions or something.
Goodleh (
talk)
21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm wondering if we should include Poland under unregistered cohabitation. In the recent case of Kozak v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that tenancy succession benefits provided to those in "de facto marital cohabitation" must also extend to same-sex couples. See here for a brief overview of the case. The ruling appears to be very similar to Karner v. Austria (2003), on which basis Austria was included in the "unregistered cohabitation" section of the template before it passed registered partnerships. See Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria. The reason why I'm unsure of adding Poland is that I don't know whether the decision has any applicability beyond the particular plaintiff in the case. I think Poland should only be included if, as a result of Kozak v. Poland, same-sex couples are now recognised as being in "de facto marital cohabitation" for the purposes of tenancy succession law. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
These are judgments for one case of a homosexual couple in which the Supreme Court held that a homosexual relationship is not a cohabitation (defined solely as the union of man and woman). However, the court described same sex union as a partnership. Besides, it found, that there is no basis for this to cohabitation and partnership be treated differently by the law. Polish law generally does not cover informal cohabiting couples, but some laws on different topics also include couples living in informal relationships. (see: Sytuacja prawna i społeczna osób LGBT w Polsce/Uznanie związków osób tej samej płci on Polish language wiki site))
Według Sądu Najwyższego: „konkubinat to wspólne pożycie analogiczne do małżeńskiego, tyle, że pozbawione legalnego węzła. Oznacza to istnienie ogniska domowego charakteryzującego się duchową, fizyczną i ekonomiczną więzią, łączącą mężczyznę i kobietę. Konkubinat nie odnosi się więc do związków osób tej samej płci, które najczęściej określa się jako związki partnerskie. Konkubinat pełni podobną do małżeństwa rolę, przy czym brakuje mu cech sformalizowania woli wzajemnego pożycia.”
WYROK SĄDU APELACYJNEGO W BIAŁYMSTOKU
z dnia 23 lutego 2007 r. Sygn. akt I ACa 590/06 1. Pod pojęciem konkubinatu należy rozumieć stabilną, faktyczną wspólnotę osobisto-majątkową dwojga osób. Bez znaczenia we wspomnianym aspekcie jest płeć. 2. Nie ma podstaw do stosowania odmiennych zasad przy rozliczaniu konkubinatu homoseksualnego niż te, które mają zastosowanie odnośnie konkubinatu heteroseksualnego. http://bialystok.sa.sisco.info/?id=1352
WYROK SĄDU NAJWYŻSZEGO W WARSZAWIE
Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 301/2007 Jeśli osoby pozostające w związku partnerskim dorobiły się majątku, to po jego ustaniu należy go rozliczyć zgodnie z przepisami o bezpodstawnym wzbogaceniu.
Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 326/2007 Do rozliczeń majątkowych po rozpadzie związku nieformalnego sąd nie może stosować reguł prawa rodzinnego o podziale dorobku małżeńskiego. Skoro nie ma przepisów, które regulowałyby konkubinat jako trwałą wspólnotę osobistą i majątkową, do ich rozliczeń majątkowych mają zastosowanie wyłącznie przepisy kodeksu cywilnego. http://dziennik3rp.blogspot.com/2007/12/nie-ma-wsplnoci-jest-bezpodstawne.html http://www.rp.pl/artykul/4,74934.html
I tried to update it by myself but apparently this page is semi-protected!
Registered users, do proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.77.84 ( talk) 09:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
All the mexican states recognize the SSM performed in Mexico City because there is no DOMA in that country. So it should be Mexico (performed in mexico city only) in the section of recognized not performed. and the map should be changed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.6.145 ( talk) 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Does it make sense to list all the countries, which proposed same sex unions in the past? Shouldn't we just list the countries which are NOW considering some legal recognition of same-sex unions? otherwise the list will become way too long in some years! Instead of this list we should make a list of the countries which are now considering to adopt same-sex marriage and in another one which are considering registered partnerships/civil unions - I bet that the list wouldn't be so long! Olliyeah ( talk) 22:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if you’re going to use an asterisk to indicate that something needs qualification you need to put a following asterisk somewhere, most likely the bottom of the chart, that explains what that qualification is. Goodleh ( talk) 21:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe this section should be split as these two sub categories are very different and convey the wrong impression.
Civil Partnerships (as in the UK's case) is akin to Same Sex Marriage as widely discussed on the talk page there, whereas a registration of partnerships (for example in NSW's case in Australia) is nothing more than signining a book in the town hall. It offers nothing in the way of legal rights.
This section really needs to clearly set out those countries and state which have:-
and the recognition of each of these categories.
It is important to be able to see "at-a-glance" where each country/state falls. At the moment it is getting very messy.
Also the headings need to be succinctly explained (at the moment the reader has to wade through several pages to work out what is what). The exceptions and asterisks also need explanation.
I suggest a summary section similar to Status_of_same-sex_marriage explaining the differences *as used to categorise countries* listed in this template. Paul Jeffrey Thompson 08:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso ( talk • contribs)
![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Could anybody change title of that article to Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia? Ron 1987 ( talk) 17:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't California be added in the "recognized" section?
Someone needs to edit this section, so that this fact would be known.
Native94080 (
talk)
00:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a current situation that reflects a past situation. California does not recognize new SSM. Unlike New York that you listed together. Why do you use discussion pages if you just enforce all your opinions through edit warring and without connection to what is being discussed? gidonb ( talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Portugal legalized same sex marraige today, 1/8/09 and should be added to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.220.65 ( talk) 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Remember it does not include adoption rights (just like what Belgium did back in 2003). But adoption did come later in 2005 (2 years later) - the same will happen in Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 11:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Numerous media sources have announced in the past week that Nepal will be legalising same-sex marriage as part of its new constitution, due to come into force by May 2010. [1] Despite this, I don't think the country should be listed in the template yet. The Constitution has not yet been approved and it is not even conclusively known whether same-sex marriage will be included. Nepal is currently at about the same stage that Luxembourg and Iceland are: there has been a relatively firm commitment that same-sex marriage will be legalised, drafting on the law has started, but the law has not been approved yet. I think Nepal should only be listed once the new constitution is approved by the Constituent Assembly, and only if this constitution expressly provides for same-sex marriage. Ronline ✉ 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
[4], [5] [6], [7] What do you think? New York should be included in Unregistered cohabitation section or not?. Ron 1987 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Buenos Aires should be included in the template, for the same reason that it wasn't included when the first same-sex marriage was authorised in the city, and for the same reason that Tierra del Fuego, where a same-sex marriage has already been performed, is not included. Jurisdictions should only be included when they perform same-sex marriage under the general law, rather than only offering them to specific couples. Ronline ✉ 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This section makes no sense. This template is about same-sex unions. The page title is "Template:Same-sex unions", the title of template output is "Legal recognition of same-sex couples", and that text links to Status of same-sex marriage. Previously, there were two sections where the "Status in other jurisdictions" one is: Marriage debated and Civil unions debated. The only possible problem with that formulation was that people tended to exclude some jurisdictions where debates had petered out. The current list appears to simply be a list of every country or US state that has an article about gay rights but isn't listed above. A navigation template about gay rights around the world already exists, so it isn't necessary here. What's more, such a list isn't germane to this template. This template is aimed at navigating among discussion of same-sex unions, not overall gay rights. I've changed the title back to something actually related to debate, and will start weeding out non-germane articles tomorrow. - Rrius ( talk) 10:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Since this template is already long, and that information duplicates information available in other articles and in templates already likely to be at LGBT articles, I've removed it.
I have read in a few different sources that Rhode Island recognizes same sex marriages performed else where.
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=102799 None of them have been very deffinative, mostly new synopsis of current recognition. Does anyone know of any conclusive, citable evidence one way or another? It was my understanding they don't and I imagine its confusion over the state recognizing them as civil unions or something.
Goodleh (
talk)
21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm wondering if we should include Poland under unregistered cohabitation. In the recent case of Kozak v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that tenancy succession benefits provided to those in "de facto marital cohabitation" must also extend to same-sex couples. See here for a brief overview of the case. The ruling appears to be very similar to Karner v. Austria (2003), on which basis Austria was included in the "unregistered cohabitation" section of the template before it passed registered partnerships. See Recognition of same-sex unions in Austria. The reason why I'm unsure of adding Poland is that I don't know whether the decision has any applicability beyond the particular plaintiff in the case. I think Poland should only be included if, as a result of Kozak v. Poland, same-sex couples are now recognised as being in "de facto marital cohabitation" for the purposes of tenancy succession law. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
These are judgments for one case of a homosexual couple in which the Supreme Court held that a homosexual relationship is not a cohabitation (defined solely as the union of man and woman). However, the court described same sex union as a partnership. Besides, it found, that there is no basis for this to cohabitation and partnership be treated differently by the law. Polish law generally does not cover informal cohabiting couples, but some laws on different topics also include couples living in informal relationships. (see: Sytuacja prawna i społeczna osób LGBT w Polsce/Uznanie związków osób tej samej płci on Polish language wiki site))
Według Sądu Najwyższego: „konkubinat to wspólne pożycie analogiczne do małżeńskiego, tyle, że pozbawione legalnego węzła. Oznacza to istnienie ogniska domowego charakteryzującego się duchową, fizyczną i ekonomiczną więzią, łączącą mężczyznę i kobietę. Konkubinat nie odnosi się więc do związków osób tej samej płci, które najczęściej określa się jako związki partnerskie. Konkubinat pełni podobną do małżeństwa rolę, przy czym brakuje mu cech sformalizowania woli wzajemnego pożycia.”
WYROK SĄDU APELACYJNEGO W BIAŁYMSTOKU
z dnia 23 lutego 2007 r. Sygn. akt I ACa 590/06 1. Pod pojęciem konkubinatu należy rozumieć stabilną, faktyczną wspólnotę osobisto-majątkową dwojga osób. Bez znaczenia we wspomnianym aspekcie jest płeć. 2. Nie ma podstaw do stosowania odmiennych zasad przy rozliczaniu konkubinatu homoseksualnego niż te, które mają zastosowanie odnośnie konkubinatu heteroseksualnego. http://bialystok.sa.sisco.info/?id=1352
WYROK SĄDU NAJWYŻSZEGO W WARSZAWIE
Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 301/2007 Jeśli osoby pozostające w związku partnerskim dorobiły się majątku, to po jego ustaniu należy go rozliczyć zgodnie z przepisami o bezpodstawnym wzbogaceniu.
Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego - Izba Cywilna z dnia 6 grudnia 2007 r. IV CSK 326/2007 Do rozliczeń majątkowych po rozpadzie związku nieformalnego sąd nie może stosować reguł prawa rodzinnego o podziale dorobku małżeńskiego. Skoro nie ma przepisów, które regulowałyby konkubinat jako trwałą wspólnotę osobistą i majątkową, do ich rozliczeń majątkowych mają zastosowanie wyłącznie przepisy kodeksu cywilnego. http://dziennik3rp.blogspot.com/2007/12/nie-ma-wsplnoci-jest-bezpodstawne.html http://www.rp.pl/artykul/4,74934.html
I tried to update it by myself but apparently this page is semi-protected!
Registered users, do proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.77.84 ( talk) 09:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
All the mexican states recognize the SSM performed in Mexico City because there is no DOMA in that country. So it should be Mexico (performed in mexico city only) in the section of recognized not performed. and the map should be changed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.6.145 ( talk) 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Does it make sense to list all the countries, which proposed same sex unions in the past? Shouldn't we just list the countries which are NOW considering some legal recognition of same-sex unions? otherwise the list will become way too long in some years! Instead of this list we should make a list of the countries which are now considering to adopt same-sex marriage and in another one which are considering registered partnerships/civil unions - I bet that the list wouldn't be so long! Olliyeah ( talk) 22:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if you’re going to use an asterisk to indicate that something needs qualification you need to put a following asterisk somewhere, most likely the bottom of the chart, that explains what that qualification is. Goodleh ( talk) 21:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe this section should be split as these two sub categories are very different and convey the wrong impression.
Civil Partnerships (as in the UK's case) is akin to Same Sex Marriage as widely discussed on the talk page there, whereas a registration of partnerships (for example in NSW's case in Australia) is nothing more than signining a book in the town hall. It offers nothing in the way of legal rights.
This section really needs to clearly set out those countries and state which have:-
and the recognition of each of these categories.
It is important to be able to see "at-a-glance" where each country/state falls. At the moment it is getting very messy.
Also the headings need to be succinctly explained (at the moment the reader has to wade through several pages to work out what is what). The exceptions and asterisks also need explanation.
I suggest a summary section similar to Status_of_same-sex_marriage explaining the differences *as used to categorise countries* listed in this template. Paul Jeffrey Thompson 08:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso ( talk • contribs)