This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I am still trying to understand what is possible and where. According to Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#New_South_Wales The Relationships Register Bill 2010 was introduced to the NSW Legislative Assembly on 23 April 2010. The bill was approved by the NSW Legislative Assembly on a 62-9 vote on 11 May 2010, and then by the NSW Legislative Council (upper house) on a 32-5 vote on 12 May. It is currently awaiting royal assent. The precise date when it will enter into force is yet unknown.
Therefore I don't think that NSW should not appear in the "Performed in some jurisdictions" section of this template yet? Paul Jeffrey Thompson 08:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso ( talk • contribs)
I think "Common-law marriage" as the section's title could be better than "Unregistered cohabitation". Ron 1987 15:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Reading the Same-sex marriage in Argentina page adequately shows the "it is not" already. Cited sources show that. Lihaas ( talk) 09:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, it's already LAW. The three powers are independent. Laws are approved by the legislative branch, not the executive. You can watch the session on YouTube. The Senate's president concluded "se convierte en ley, comuníquese al poder ejecutivo" (it turns to law, inform the executive branch). Since that exact moment, the motion is law. The rest, its just a communication, a recognition that the president has been informed of the outcome, just that. Even if vetoed, its still law. Vetoing can affect only if the law enters into practice or not, but legally its recognized. The template is for "legal recognition of SSM", thus Argentina has recognized it whatever the president does with it. pmt7ar ( talk) 17:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have put an astericks on both Argentina and Ireland since those laws have not become effective yet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 13:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
By "Legal recognition of same-sex couples", Argentina already enters the "Same-sex marriage" category. Its recognized by law since July 15th. The come into force will be apparently in wednesday. Also, there's already the first couple with date to marriage under this law, for August 13th (protocol require you to request it 28 days before celebration) [3]. Also if you put acterisk, wouldn't be necessary a legend? pmt7ar ( talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} In the "Notes" section it reads "*The law not take effect yet." when it should read "The law has not taken effect yet."
71.82.148.133 ( talk) 04:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Though this issue appears to have been brought up many times before, does this case give any clarification as to New Mexico's same-sex marriage recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halbtone ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
From the reliable sources I've read so far the issue is not settled, a higher court may intervene and nothing is legal before August 18, so let's be cautious with misinformation for now. Hekerui ( talk) 07:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed Wyoming - same-sex marriages are currently in litigation there. Hekerui ( talk) 06:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Tasmania recently passed a law to recognise overseas same-sex marriages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Tasmania last paragraph.
Can someone please edit the template to include Australia: TAS under Recognized, not performed for Same-Sex Marriage
60.241.58.161 ( talk) 03:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
According to LGBT rights in Uganda, same-sex marriages are prohibited there.
I suggest modifying the template to include a section, "Same-sex marriages prohibited", and move Uganda into it.
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 12:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I propose to change the heading same-sex marriage to marriage. Two reasons:
L.tak ( talk) 10:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that Legal recognition of same-sex unions is more appropriate title than Legal recognition of same-sex couples. Ron 1987 12:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
In view of the staleness of the present section and the discussion above there seems to be no consensus for any of the suggestions; + several editors show their uneasynes with the present wording. combining 2 proposals and looking at the comments: how would you all think about legal recognition of same-sex relationships? In that way it's not about the relationship of the couple (where it is unclear what is recognized in "couple") but still the word "legal recognition" is in, so the procecution of gays etc is clearly out... As for the unregistered cohabitation entries. They are in here as a kind of "de facto relationship" and therefore have a legal status in some jurisdictions, so I guess there it would fit as well. L.tak ( talk) 07:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
done! L.tak ( talk) 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
What is the cutoff time for inclusion in the "Recent debates" section?
For example, was the SSM ban in Louisiana recent enough (as Ron 1987 contends in the summary for this edit) or does the fact that it was seven years ago disqualify it (as Knowledgekid87 contends in the summary for this edit)?
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 16:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I suggest removing the following things from the list of recent debates in the U.S.: Alabama, American Samoa, Arizona, Guam, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, and United States tribal jurisdictions. Those are the ones in the U.S. about which I think there was no recent news regarding SSUs. Hekerui ( talk) 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This section includes only countries where same-sex unions are not recognized, but issue is debated. Do not add countries which recognizes same-sex unions. Ron 1987 09:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
added japan to recognized but not performed with a conditional, because japan recognizes same-sex marriages with a foreign same-sex partner if that partner comes from a nation where same-sex marriage is recognized. Thisbites ( talk) 06:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, the argument goes that none of Israel's religions allow same-sex marriage, and marriage in Israel is basically a religious matter. So what of this: [7]? -- haha169 ( talk) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Japan should be included. From all of the sources, it seems that all the Japanese government is doing is issuing documentation to same-sex couples to allow them to marry in foreign jurisdictions (e.g. documents that certify that they are single). There are no sources stating that these foreign marriages are then recognised under Japanese law as valid marriages. Ronline ✉ 10:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In second reading Liechtenstein passed legislation for civil unions.
I think we need a criterion on when we add countries to a sections. For example, we have more options:
I don't mind too much what to choose, but would prefer something consistent. The most consistent thing to me seems the date of entering into force. Let me know what you think! L.tak ( talk) 23:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's see if that works. For Liechtenstein, Isle of Man and Illinois do we know if it is final (royal assent in Man applicable?)? I will add the asterisks provisionally now... L.tak ( talk) 14:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Kosovo should be included in this map? Can anyone do this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg
79.163.182.107 ( talk) 10:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Nepal does not legally recognize same-sex marriages. This was proposed earlier, but a new constitution with this included has yet to be adopted and there is a good chance according to the Indo-Asian News Service that this won't happen. The recent same-sex wedding ceremonies have not been legally binding - at least there is no source that says so and plenty that imply otherwise. Hekerui ( talk) 23:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Gov. Cuomo has officially signed this into law, so NY should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.14.41 ( talk) 04:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
If the law has not yet taken effect, "NY" should still be added to the template but with a note of when the law will take effect. Given SSM is, or is about to be, allowed in NY, it would be incorrect to omit it from the template. Johnhousefriday ( talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Governor Chafee has not yet signed the Civil Union law as far as I know, so has the law really entered into force without being signed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Also Rhode Island should be removed from the unregistered cohabitation section, since surely whatever that law included is now included in civil unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.152.89 ( talk) 20:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Chile passed a Civil Unions law today called the AVC Acuerdo de Vida en Comun - (Agreement to a life in common or commonlife agreement) [10], it needs to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longthicknosnip ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
We can include the UK in the recent debate section because this October the UK government announced plans to introduce SSM by the time of the next general election, and the Scottish parliament discusses this issue at the moment. Hekerui ( talk) 08:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Here is the formal ruling: http://diario.tj.es.gov.br/2012/20120103.pdf search for 001/2012, page 7. The ruling does not mention marriage, just a guarantee to same-sex couples to register their union and grants them the same rights of any heterosexual couple.
Further research is required to find out if "same rights of any heterosexual couple" means also the right to use the word "marriage"
99.231.6.139 (
talk) 18:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.ibdfam.org.br/?noticias¬icia=4707 What about this for a serious souce on this Subject? This is from the BRAZILIAN INSTITUTE OF FAMILY RIGHTSnews website. Here you can perfectly read that this ruling is for MARRIAGE not UNIONS and the ruling number in Alagoas Justice Court. AND By the way the state of Espirito Santo haven't ruled this yet. The ruling someone posted above is from ONE marriage in Espirto Santo, but a Judge authorized one. I hope this finishes the dispute.
Denisxavier (
talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
From the four sources I read in the article, they all seemed to indicate that a judged ruled that they needn't go before a judge to have their civil unions converted to a marriage. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the verification needed in-line templates over at Talk:Same-sex marriage in Alagoas. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
What appears to be part of the template documentation is showing up in articles. Can someone please tweak the noinclude, or whatever it is, to fix this? It's very annoying. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As seen on Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico, we have no confirmation that SSMs can be legally performed in this Mexican state aside from when some couples pick some public officials in big cities who agree with a lawyer that a legal loophole allows it. Until we know better whether every state citizen can marry in the state, we ought to leave this template alone, lest we mislead readers on the countless pages this is embedded in. I beg some patience please. Hekerui ( talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to conclude that we have no consensus yet and I see no new evidence. I therfore reverted Me's bold move to put in it per :BRBRBRD. Please do not add again until we have consensus; you can easily convince me with the suitalbe sources, but I refuse to be in a hurry; wikipedia is about facts and consensus; not about the daily news.... L.tak ( talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I added this state back in to the template, with the disputed tag. Policies: WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. Just because may not be recognized state-wide, it is in some municipalities. Municipalities = juristiction per the defintion. Now let's resolve this issue please, perhaps find some compromise? Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Additional policy: WP:CRYSTALBALL. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
On January 5, 2011 a judge in the Brazilian state of Alagoas ruled that same-sex marriages will be performed in the state instead of the Civil Unions, making this the first state in Brazil to grant the married status to gay couples. Marriages performed in this state will then be recognized throughout the whole country. Former Alagoas state judge Maria Berenice Dias, who currently directs the National Commission on Sexual Diversity of the Order_of_Attorneys_of_Brazil, sent the text with the decision of the Court of Alagoas to the other states in an attempt to extend the measure across the country. She said the state of Paraná must adhere to the decision of Alagoas soon. [1] [2]
In
Brazil, a same-sex couple may convert their civil union into marriage with the approval of a state judge, if approved that marriage is recognized in all the national territory.
[3]
Denisxavier (
talk) 01:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help creating the new article. Since the ruling is new, I haven't found any English articles, but the two I cited in Portuguese are reliable ones. I'll keep looking for English ones and watching the page. Also, I'd like to ask for help on changing the colour of the Alagoas state on the World map. Denisxavier ( talk) 02:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't find the question whether SSM is legal in the state, similarly to how it would be had legislation allowing it passed, sufficiently answered in the sources. I suggest waiting for English language sources and not relying on Google Translate only to decise what is or is not legal. Unless some user here is a Brazilian lawyer, waiting is better than giving false information or give the impression that we promote an issue. Hekerui ( talk) 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I can try to clarify what the articles say. In Brazil, same sex civil unions are legal since last year. After this decision was made by the Supreme Federal Court, various Judges in many Brazilian states have started converting these registered unions into full marriages, based in many reasons (one of them is that the Brazilian Constitution does not differ a married straight couple of a civil united one). What happened here in Alagoas (and what is explained in these articles in Portuguese, which you haven't understood because of weak translation in Google Translate) is that after many converted civil unions into marriages in the Alagoas State court of Justice, this specific Judge ruled that from now on it won't be necessary for gay couples to register their civil unions and then go to a Judge to convert it into a full marriage, since a broad Jurisprudence has been estabilished. Instead, the notaries are now allowed to perform the marriage instead of a civil union, ending with the need to seek for a Judge. These articles are very clear on that. I am still seeking for an article on the English media. But since it may take days since someone decides to write about this in English, I suggest we accept the Portuguese articles which are from reliable sources. I guarantee there isn't any false or improper information on my explanation.
Answering L.Tak's Question about the Judge cited in one of the articles, she is a former Judge who is now part of a Special Diversity Commission at the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (Brazilian Bar) . What the article says is that immediately after the Alagoas State Court have taken this decision, she have sent the text to the other Brazilian state courts willing to make an advance in the rest of these states. And she said that another state (Paraná) is also next to making the same decision. I apologize for the fact I am struggling to write in English, hence this isn't my first language.
Denisxavier (
talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
According to Law of Brazil section State-level judiciary, the Court of Justice (Tribunal de Justiça in Portuguese) is the highest court at the state level. However, the ruling could be reversed be the federal court. Ron 1987 ( talk) 21:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we please remove the two line breaks between the "|}" and the last "noinclude" just above the Notes section? They're causing blank lines to show up in articles. Thanks. Jason McHuff ( talk) 07:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Christine Gregoire will sign the SSM bill on Monday, the 13th, but that date doesn't mean anything. The bill won't take effect until 90 days after the session of the legislature ends. If, as expected, enough signature signatures are collected to force a referendum, the law won't take effect unless a majority vote to approve it in November. - Rrius ( talk) 20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
When this happened in New York, I remember that NY was listed immediately after Cuomo's signature. I think the same thing happened with Maine in '09 on this template. Houstonbuildings ( talk) 20:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I left this note at Same-sex marriage in the United States, but I think it will be of use here too:
Maryland's House just passed an SSM bill, and its Senate and Governor look set to join in the fun, but Maryland has a people's veto similar to Washington's. In Maryland's case, the deadline for signatures (and the earliest possible date for the law to take effect) is June 1. If one-third of the 55,737 signatures (based on the turnout figure at Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010) are in by June 1, the deadline will be extended to June 30. If the signatures are collected, the law won't "become a law or take effect until thirty days after its approval" in the referendum. Thus, assuming a petition is successful, the earliest the law would come into effect would be December 6, 2012. - Rrius ( talk) 00:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be made collapsible. An example of such a template is:
Part of a series on |
Evolutionary biology |
---|
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In all cases, until now, where marriage rights for gays and lesbians has been made law, Wikipedia has placed the state (or district) among those that currently perform the ceremonies in the sidebar. In cases such as those in DC, New Hampshire,Iowa, and California, the state's name was added and preceded by an asterisk noting the future time when the law will be fully implemented. The current law in both Maryland and Washington State affords same-sex couples the right to wed; Washington State's law to begin in less than 4 months. The Secretary of State in Washington has a page available for same-sex couples looking to marry. In both states, the law is clear yet on Wikipedia certain editors have prevented, by removing and blocking, those states from being listed because of possible future referendum. Wikipedia, to remain neutral, must post about laws as they currently exist and not how those laws might look in the future. The debate over the likelihood of these laws being put to a vote is irrelevant. Both Washington State and Maryland should be listed under the list of states where marriage is performed with the asterisk as is precedent at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSDgraduate2003 ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree with UCSDgraduate2003 and Nat Gertler here. As it currently stands, the law in Washington state will go into effect later this year. Until and unless signatures are collected and confirmed, it will go into effect. We can't predict that happening - we can only state the facts as they stand. So the template should reflect the current status - add in WA and MD, with their future dates. If the petitions come about and a referendum is scheduled, then the template can be changed to reflect the new sets of facts. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I propose that we should break away from previous precedent and adopt a simple standard: can a same-sex couple go, today, to the town hall/courthouse/registry office/whatever and get a marriage license (or get married; not all countries require a license)? This is a simple question that can be answered without getting involved in questions of the legislative process and when a law becomes a law, and it seems to me to be the most logical criterion. Indeed, a heading in the template says "Performed in some jurisdictions": SSM is not yet performed in MD or WA. We should, though, also have a "legislation pending" section or something like that. - htonl ( talk) 01:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2012 in LGBT rights. This article states that all of Brazil recognizes Alagoas' marriages, putting the country in the same position as Mexico with Mexico City's marriages. I'm not familiar with this case at all, but can someone review it to see if this statement is fact, and if it is, correct the article? -- haha169 ( talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
A report dated May 2012 on the status of LGBT rights around the world was released by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. This report looks comprehensive and omits Alagoas. See here for a link to the report. Hekerui ( talk) 09:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Here are three sources from an ESL IP editor from below:
Google Translate gets the point across that a court case requires notaries throughout Alagoas to solemnize SSMs just as they would hetero sexual marriages. Can anyone provide a better reason to continue excluding the state than that some advocacy group produced a report, the accuracy of which we can't be sure of, that didn't happen to mention a relatively recent, and quiet development? - Rrius ( talk) 00:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It's lacking on the template same-sex marriage in the Brazilian state of Alagoas. I’m sorry guys but ILGA is not as reliable as some may think. They database is not very accurate. The State of Alagoas legalized same-sex marriage in January 2012 putting the country in the same position as Mexico with Mexico City's marriages. In fact it was the only state that had guts to do it. ILGA definitely has some research work to do and so they one who shut down the topic about same-sex marriage in the Brazilian state of Alagoas. Some links: http://aquiacontece.com.br/noticia/2011/12/20/provimento-autoriza-casamento-homoafetivo-em-alagoas http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/1034007-cartorios-de-alagoas-sao-obrigados-a-registrar-casamento-gay.shtml http://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/alagoas-facilita-casamento-de-homossexuais/ PS: The last ones are very reliable media of Brazil. -- 201.50.30.157 ( talk) 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Same-sex marriages are always recognized, and performed, though not by standard, in Brazil, and they are supposed to be performed by standard in Alagoas. Alagoas, or Brazil as a whole, should be on the top in some way. Lguipontes ( talk) 02:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Today, October 10, 2012, the highest Court of the State of Bahia issued guidelines to all State Registrars/Notaries/Clerks for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full text of the opinion in the PDF file accessible via the following link at the Court's website: http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142
The state of Alagoas was the first to authorize. The template is outdated and ignoring the facts. I already had this discussion before, I brought it many people did not like it. The Court of the State of Alagoas ruled that the civil registration records of Alagoas are forced to file lawsuits to people of the same sex to marry, just as occurs in cases of heterosexual marriages. Here are the links for information:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.70.91 ( talk) 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I think if we can straighten this out, we can see if we can add or not! L.tak ( talk) 16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
So, Some clarification here... but I cannot judge the legal standing of this document... The article 44 for example is under "RECOMENDAÇÕES GERAIS" (general recommendations)... L.tak ( talk) 16:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
1- Yes. There are recent reports regarding the event. Here are some: globo.com ibahia sidneyrezende.com folha.uol.com.br jus.br
PS: This last one is the very own court’s website report
And here is the final document PDF link
2- The document which can be found on the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado da Bahia (Court of the State of Bahia) website ( http://www5.tjba.jus.br/index.php ) is a final document.
3-The provision 12/2012 of the Internal Affairs Division of Justice (CGJ) and the Magistrate of the Interior Districts (CCI) was published in the Journal of Electronic Justice (DJE) this Wednesday (10/10) and takes effect on 26 November 2012, time required for notification and system adequacy and the Court civil registry offices throughout the state.
The provision requires that the notary's offices of the State of Bahia Notes are allowed to perform the procedures of public deeds inventory and asset sharing, consensual divorce, with or without division of property, and restoration of conjugal society, as well as for homosexual couples the registries would qualify civil marriage also between same-sex. The decision of the Corregedorias -TJBA guarantees the right to equality for all.
4- The standard procedure for civil wedding held in registries, is attending the registry with the following documents:
- Identity card; - CPF (Registration of Persons) - Updated proof of residence; - For unmarried spouses, birth certificate; - For widowed spouses, marriage certificate and death certificate of the deceased spouse; - For divorced spouses, marriage certificate endorsed with the letter of divorce and the divorce judgment; - Identity, social security number and proof of residence of two witnesses;
The documentation required for qualification for marriage must be in perfect condition.
5- There will be no need for judges or judicial rulings to guarantee the rights to the homosexual couples anymore.
6- I did not understand the question.
7- The notaries will have a deadline for them to adapt to the new rules. Then the same procedure used for heterosexual couples should be used for homosexual couples. As of November 26, couples interested in formalizing the union must go to one of the registries of Bahia or requesting authorization of marriage on the website of the Court (TJ-BA). The standards for civil marriage are the same for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. The offices of the entire Bahia are now allowed to do the process and issue the certificate of civil marriage.
Additional information: The permission/provision was signed by federal judge Ivete Caldas, corregedora General of Justice and the Judge Person Antonio Cardoso, magistrate of the counties in the state. According to them the notaries/registries of the entire Bahia are now allowed to do the process and issue the certificate of civil marriage.
According to the magistrate Ivete Caldas, the basis of the decision was the decision of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), several decisions of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul (The most advanced State Court in Brazil, I have to say), besides the need to update the familiar design community. The federal judge also explains that permission only establishes what many judges have been applying the rule.
I hope it help you. If you need some more information just ask.-- 189.104.70.91 ( talk) 03:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see this as clear because of the unclear language in the source, I started a discussion on Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil. Hekerui ( talk) 13:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It's clear than same-sex marriage is fully legal in Bahia. In Alagoas is needed a judge at the final of the process, unlike than heterosexual couples. In Sao Paulo, like the rest of the country, several couples are married, but is case per case situation, if the judge authorizes. Paucazorla ( talk) 02:41, 7 December 2012 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I am still trying to understand what is possible and where. According to Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#New_South_Wales The Relationships Register Bill 2010 was introduced to the NSW Legislative Assembly on 23 April 2010. The bill was approved by the NSW Legislative Assembly on a 62-9 vote on 11 May 2010, and then by the NSW Legislative Council (upper house) on a 32-5 vote on 12 May. It is currently awaiting royal assent. The precise date when it will enter into force is yet unknown.
Therefore I don't think that NSW should not appear in the "Performed in some jurisdictions" section of this template yet? Paul Jeffrey Thompson 08:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso ( talk • contribs)
I think "Common-law marriage" as the section's title could be better than "Unregistered cohabitation". Ron 1987 15:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Reading the Same-sex marriage in Argentina page adequately shows the "it is not" already. Cited sources show that. Lihaas ( talk) 09:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, it's already LAW. The three powers are independent. Laws are approved by the legislative branch, not the executive. You can watch the session on YouTube. The Senate's president concluded "se convierte en ley, comuníquese al poder ejecutivo" (it turns to law, inform the executive branch). Since that exact moment, the motion is law. The rest, its just a communication, a recognition that the president has been informed of the outcome, just that. Even if vetoed, its still law. Vetoing can affect only if the law enters into practice or not, but legally its recognized. The template is for "legal recognition of SSM", thus Argentina has recognized it whatever the president does with it. pmt7ar ( talk) 17:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have put an astericks on both Argentina and Ireland since those laws have not become effective yet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 13:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
By "Legal recognition of same-sex couples", Argentina already enters the "Same-sex marriage" category. Its recognized by law since July 15th. The come into force will be apparently in wednesday. Also, there's already the first couple with date to marriage under this law, for August 13th (protocol require you to request it 28 days before celebration) [3]. Also if you put acterisk, wouldn't be necessary a legend? pmt7ar ( talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} In the "Notes" section it reads "*The law not take effect yet." when it should read "The law has not taken effect yet."
71.82.148.133 ( talk) 04:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Though this issue appears to have been brought up many times before, does this case give any clarification as to New Mexico's same-sex marriage recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halbtone ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
From the reliable sources I've read so far the issue is not settled, a higher court may intervene and nothing is legal before August 18, so let's be cautious with misinformation for now. Hekerui ( talk) 07:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed Wyoming - same-sex marriages are currently in litigation there. Hekerui ( talk) 06:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Tasmania recently passed a law to recognise overseas same-sex marriages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Tasmania last paragraph.
Can someone please edit the template to include Australia: TAS under Recognized, not performed for Same-Sex Marriage
60.241.58.161 ( talk) 03:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
According to LGBT rights in Uganda, same-sex marriages are prohibited there.
I suggest modifying the template to include a section, "Same-sex marriages prohibited", and move Uganda into it.
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 12:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I propose to change the heading same-sex marriage to marriage. Two reasons:
L.tak ( talk) 10:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that Legal recognition of same-sex unions is more appropriate title than Legal recognition of same-sex couples. Ron 1987 12:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
In view of the staleness of the present section and the discussion above there seems to be no consensus for any of the suggestions; + several editors show their uneasynes with the present wording. combining 2 proposals and looking at the comments: how would you all think about legal recognition of same-sex relationships? In that way it's not about the relationship of the couple (where it is unclear what is recognized in "couple") but still the word "legal recognition" is in, so the procecution of gays etc is clearly out... As for the unregistered cohabitation entries. They are in here as a kind of "de facto relationship" and therefore have a legal status in some jurisdictions, so I guess there it would fit as well. L.tak ( talk) 07:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
done! L.tak ( talk) 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
What is the cutoff time for inclusion in the "Recent debates" section?
For example, was the SSM ban in Louisiana recent enough (as Ron 1987 contends in the summary for this edit) or does the fact that it was seven years ago disqualify it (as Knowledgekid87 contends in the summary for this edit)?
-- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 16:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I suggest removing the following things from the list of recent debates in the U.S.: Alabama, American Samoa, Arizona, Guam, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, and United States tribal jurisdictions. Those are the ones in the U.S. about which I think there was no recent news regarding SSUs. Hekerui ( talk) 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This section includes only countries where same-sex unions are not recognized, but issue is debated. Do not add countries which recognizes same-sex unions. Ron 1987 09:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
added japan to recognized but not performed with a conditional, because japan recognizes same-sex marriages with a foreign same-sex partner if that partner comes from a nation where same-sex marriage is recognized. Thisbites ( talk) 06:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, the argument goes that none of Israel's religions allow same-sex marriage, and marriage in Israel is basically a religious matter. So what of this: [7]? -- haha169 ( talk) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Japan should be included. From all of the sources, it seems that all the Japanese government is doing is issuing documentation to same-sex couples to allow them to marry in foreign jurisdictions (e.g. documents that certify that they are single). There are no sources stating that these foreign marriages are then recognised under Japanese law as valid marriages. Ronline ✉ 10:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In second reading Liechtenstein passed legislation for civil unions.
I think we need a criterion on when we add countries to a sections. For example, we have more options:
I don't mind too much what to choose, but would prefer something consistent. The most consistent thing to me seems the date of entering into force. Let me know what you think! L.tak ( talk) 23:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's see if that works. For Liechtenstein, Isle of Man and Illinois do we know if it is final (royal assent in Man applicable?)? I will add the asterisks provisionally now... L.tak ( talk) 14:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Kosovo should be included in this map? Can anyone do this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg
79.163.182.107 ( talk) 10:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Nepal does not legally recognize same-sex marriages. This was proposed earlier, but a new constitution with this included has yet to be adopted and there is a good chance according to the Indo-Asian News Service that this won't happen. The recent same-sex wedding ceremonies have not been legally binding - at least there is no source that says so and plenty that imply otherwise. Hekerui ( talk) 23:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Gov. Cuomo has officially signed this into law, so NY should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.14.41 ( talk) 04:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
If the law has not yet taken effect, "NY" should still be added to the template but with a note of when the law will take effect. Given SSM is, or is about to be, allowed in NY, it would be incorrect to omit it from the template. Johnhousefriday ( talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Governor Chafee has not yet signed the Civil Union law as far as I know, so has the law really entered into force without being signed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 ( talk • contribs) 06:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Also Rhode Island should be removed from the unregistered cohabitation section, since surely whatever that law included is now included in civil unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.152.89 ( talk) 20:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Chile passed a Civil Unions law today called the AVC Acuerdo de Vida en Comun - (Agreement to a life in common or commonlife agreement) [10], it needs to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longthicknosnip ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
We can include the UK in the recent debate section because this October the UK government announced plans to introduce SSM by the time of the next general election, and the Scottish parliament discusses this issue at the moment. Hekerui ( talk) 08:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Here is the formal ruling: http://diario.tj.es.gov.br/2012/20120103.pdf search for 001/2012, page 7. The ruling does not mention marriage, just a guarantee to same-sex couples to register their union and grants them the same rights of any heterosexual couple.
Further research is required to find out if "same rights of any heterosexual couple" means also the right to use the word "marriage"
99.231.6.139 (
talk) 18:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.ibdfam.org.br/?noticias¬icia=4707 What about this for a serious souce on this Subject? This is from the BRAZILIAN INSTITUTE OF FAMILY RIGHTSnews website. Here you can perfectly read that this ruling is for MARRIAGE not UNIONS and the ruling number in Alagoas Justice Court. AND By the way the state of Espirito Santo haven't ruled this yet. The ruling someone posted above is from ONE marriage in Espirto Santo, but a Judge authorized one. I hope this finishes the dispute.
Denisxavier (
talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
From the four sources I read in the article, they all seemed to indicate that a judged ruled that they needn't go before a judge to have their civil unions converted to a marriage. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the verification needed in-line templates over at Talk:Same-sex marriage in Alagoas. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
What appears to be part of the template documentation is showing up in articles. Can someone please tweak the noinclude, or whatever it is, to fix this? It's very annoying. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
As seen on Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico, we have no confirmation that SSMs can be legally performed in this Mexican state aside from when some couples pick some public officials in big cities who agree with a lawyer that a legal loophole allows it. Until we know better whether every state citizen can marry in the state, we ought to leave this template alone, lest we mislead readers on the countless pages this is embedded in. I beg some patience please. Hekerui ( talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to conclude that we have no consensus yet and I see no new evidence. I therfore reverted Me's bold move to put in it per :BRBRBRD. Please do not add again until we have consensus; you can easily convince me with the suitalbe sources, but I refuse to be in a hurry; wikipedia is about facts and consensus; not about the daily news.... L.tak ( talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I added this state back in to the template, with the disputed tag. Policies: WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. Just because may not be recognized state-wide, it is in some municipalities. Municipalities = juristiction per the defintion. Now let's resolve this issue please, perhaps find some compromise? Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Additional policy: WP:CRYSTALBALL. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
On January 5, 2011 a judge in the Brazilian state of Alagoas ruled that same-sex marriages will be performed in the state instead of the Civil Unions, making this the first state in Brazil to grant the married status to gay couples. Marriages performed in this state will then be recognized throughout the whole country. Former Alagoas state judge Maria Berenice Dias, who currently directs the National Commission on Sexual Diversity of the Order_of_Attorneys_of_Brazil, sent the text with the decision of the Court of Alagoas to the other states in an attempt to extend the measure across the country. She said the state of Paraná must adhere to the decision of Alagoas soon. [1] [2]
In
Brazil, a same-sex couple may convert their civil union into marriage with the approval of a state judge, if approved that marriage is recognized in all the national territory.
[3]
Denisxavier (
talk) 01:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help creating the new article. Since the ruling is new, I haven't found any English articles, but the two I cited in Portuguese are reliable ones. I'll keep looking for English ones and watching the page. Also, I'd like to ask for help on changing the colour of the Alagoas state on the World map. Denisxavier ( talk) 02:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't find the question whether SSM is legal in the state, similarly to how it would be had legislation allowing it passed, sufficiently answered in the sources. I suggest waiting for English language sources and not relying on Google Translate only to decise what is or is not legal. Unless some user here is a Brazilian lawyer, waiting is better than giving false information or give the impression that we promote an issue. Hekerui ( talk) 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I can try to clarify what the articles say. In Brazil, same sex civil unions are legal since last year. After this decision was made by the Supreme Federal Court, various Judges in many Brazilian states have started converting these registered unions into full marriages, based in many reasons (one of them is that the Brazilian Constitution does not differ a married straight couple of a civil united one). What happened here in Alagoas (and what is explained in these articles in Portuguese, which you haven't understood because of weak translation in Google Translate) is that after many converted civil unions into marriages in the Alagoas State court of Justice, this specific Judge ruled that from now on it won't be necessary for gay couples to register their civil unions and then go to a Judge to convert it into a full marriage, since a broad Jurisprudence has been estabilished. Instead, the notaries are now allowed to perform the marriage instead of a civil union, ending with the need to seek for a Judge. These articles are very clear on that. I am still seeking for an article on the English media. But since it may take days since someone decides to write about this in English, I suggest we accept the Portuguese articles which are from reliable sources. I guarantee there isn't any false or improper information on my explanation.
Answering L.Tak's Question about the Judge cited in one of the articles, she is a former Judge who is now part of a Special Diversity Commission at the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (Brazilian Bar) . What the article says is that immediately after the Alagoas State Court have taken this decision, she have sent the text to the other Brazilian state courts willing to make an advance in the rest of these states. And she said that another state (Paraná) is also next to making the same decision. I apologize for the fact I am struggling to write in English, hence this isn't my first language.
Denisxavier (
talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
According to Law of Brazil section State-level judiciary, the Court of Justice (Tribunal de Justiça in Portuguese) is the highest court at the state level. However, the ruling could be reversed be the federal court. Ron 1987 ( talk) 21:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we please remove the two line breaks between the "|}" and the last "noinclude" just above the Notes section? They're causing blank lines to show up in articles. Thanks. Jason McHuff ( talk) 07:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Christine Gregoire will sign the SSM bill on Monday, the 13th, but that date doesn't mean anything. The bill won't take effect until 90 days after the session of the legislature ends. If, as expected, enough signature signatures are collected to force a referendum, the law won't take effect unless a majority vote to approve it in November. - Rrius ( talk) 20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
When this happened in New York, I remember that NY was listed immediately after Cuomo's signature. I think the same thing happened with Maine in '09 on this template. Houstonbuildings ( talk) 20:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I left this note at Same-sex marriage in the United States, but I think it will be of use here too:
Maryland's House just passed an SSM bill, and its Senate and Governor look set to join in the fun, but Maryland has a people's veto similar to Washington's. In Maryland's case, the deadline for signatures (and the earliest possible date for the law to take effect) is June 1. If one-third of the 55,737 signatures (based on the turnout figure at Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010) are in by June 1, the deadline will be extended to June 30. If the signatures are collected, the law won't "become a law or take effect until thirty days after its approval" in the referendum. Thus, assuming a petition is successful, the earliest the law would come into effect would be December 6, 2012. - Rrius ( talk) 00:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be made collapsible. An example of such a template is:
Part of a series on |
Evolutionary biology |
---|
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In all cases, until now, where marriage rights for gays and lesbians has been made law, Wikipedia has placed the state (or district) among those that currently perform the ceremonies in the sidebar. In cases such as those in DC, New Hampshire,Iowa, and California, the state's name was added and preceded by an asterisk noting the future time when the law will be fully implemented. The current law in both Maryland and Washington State affords same-sex couples the right to wed; Washington State's law to begin in less than 4 months. The Secretary of State in Washington has a page available for same-sex couples looking to marry. In both states, the law is clear yet on Wikipedia certain editors have prevented, by removing and blocking, those states from being listed because of possible future referendum. Wikipedia, to remain neutral, must post about laws as they currently exist and not how those laws might look in the future. The debate over the likelihood of these laws being put to a vote is irrelevant. Both Washington State and Maryland should be listed under the list of states where marriage is performed with the asterisk as is precedent at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSDgraduate2003 ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree with UCSDgraduate2003 and Nat Gertler here. As it currently stands, the law in Washington state will go into effect later this year. Until and unless signatures are collected and confirmed, it will go into effect. We can't predict that happening - we can only state the facts as they stand. So the template should reflect the current status - add in WA and MD, with their future dates. If the petitions come about and a referendum is scheduled, then the template can be changed to reflect the new sets of facts. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I propose that we should break away from previous precedent and adopt a simple standard: can a same-sex couple go, today, to the town hall/courthouse/registry office/whatever and get a marriage license (or get married; not all countries require a license)? This is a simple question that can be answered without getting involved in questions of the legislative process and when a law becomes a law, and it seems to me to be the most logical criterion. Indeed, a heading in the template says "Performed in some jurisdictions": SSM is not yet performed in MD or WA. We should, though, also have a "legislation pending" section or something like that. - htonl ( talk) 01:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
2012 in LGBT rights. This article states that all of Brazil recognizes Alagoas' marriages, putting the country in the same position as Mexico with Mexico City's marriages. I'm not familiar with this case at all, but can someone review it to see if this statement is fact, and if it is, correct the article? -- haha169 ( talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
A report dated May 2012 on the status of LGBT rights around the world was released by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. This report looks comprehensive and omits Alagoas. See here for a link to the report. Hekerui ( talk) 09:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Here are three sources from an ESL IP editor from below:
Google Translate gets the point across that a court case requires notaries throughout Alagoas to solemnize SSMs just as they would hetero sexual marriages. Can anyone provide a better reason to continue excluding the state than that some advocacy group produced a report, the accuracy of which we can't be sure of, that didn't happen to mention a relatively recent, and quiet development? - Rrius ( talk) 00:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It's lacking on the template same-sex marriage in the Brazilian state of Alagoas. I’m sorry guys but ILGA is not as reliable as some may think. They database is not very accurate. The State of Alagoas legalized same-sex marriage in January 2012 putting the country in the same position as Mexico with Mexico City's marriages. In fact it was the only state that had guts to do it. ILGA definitely has some research work to do and so they one who shut down the topic about same-sex marriage in the Brazilian state of Alagoas. Some links: http://aquiacontece.com.br/noticia/2011/12/20/provimento-autoriza-casamento-homoafetivo-em-alagoas http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/1034007-cartorios-de-alagoas-sao-obrigados-a-registrar-casamento-gay.shtml http://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/alagoas-facilita-casamento-de-homossexuais/ PS: The last ones are very reliable media of Brazil. -- 201.50.30.157 ( talk) 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Same-sex marriages are always recognized, and performed, though not by standard, in Brazil, and they are supposed to be performed by standard in Alagoas. Alagoas, or Brazil as a whole, should be on the top in some way. Lguipontes ( talk) 02:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Today, October 10, 2012, the highest Court of the State of Bahia issued guidelines to all State Registrars/Notaries/Clerks for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full text of the opinion in the PDF file accessible via the following link at the Court's website: http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142
The state of Alagoas was the first to authorize. The template is outdated and ignoring the facts. I already had this discussion before, I brought it many people did not like it. The Court of the State of Alagoas ruled that the civil registration records of Alagoas are forced to file lawsuits to people of the same sex to marry, just as occurs in cases of heterosexual marriages. Here are the links for information:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.70.91 ( talk) 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I think if we can straighten this out, we can see if we can add or not! L.tak ( talk) 16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
So, Some clarification here... but I cannot judge the legal standing of this document... The article 44 for example is under "RECOMENDAÇÕES GERAIS" (general recommendations)... L.tak ( talk) 16:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
1- Yes. There are recent reports regarding the event. Here are some: globo.com ibahia sidneyrezende.com folha.uol.com.br jus.br
PS: This last one is the very own court’s website report
And here is the final document PDF link
2- The document which can be found on the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado da Bahia (Court of the State of Bahia) website ( http://www5.tjba.jus.br/index.php ) is a final document.
3-The provision 12/2012 of the Internal Affairs Division of Justice (CGJ) and the Magistrate of the Interior Districts (CCI) was published in the Journal of Electronic Justice (DJE) this Wednesday (10/10) and takes effect on 26 November 2012, time required for notification and system adequacy and the Court civil registry offices throughout the state.
The provision requires that the notary's offices of the State of Bahia Notes are allowed to perform the procedures of public deeds inventory and asset sharing, consensual divorce, with or without division of property, and restoration of conjugal society, as well as for homosexual couples the registries would qualify civil marriage also between same-sex. The decision of the Corregedorias -TJBA guarantees the right to equality for all.
4- The standard procedure for civil wedding held in registries, is attending the registry with the following documents:
- Identity card; - CPF (Registration of Persons) - Updated proof of residence; - For unmarried spouses, birth certificate; - For widowed spouses, marriage certificate and death certificate of the deceased spouse; - For divorced spouses, marriage certificate endorsed with the letter of divorce and the divorce judgment; - Identity, social security number and proof of residence of two witnesses;
The documentation required for qualification for marriage must be in perfect condition.
5- There will be no need for judges or judicial rulings to guarantee the rights to the homosexual couples anymore.
6- I did not understand the question.
7- The notaries will have a deadline for them to adapt to the new rules. Then the same procedure used for heterosexual couples should be used for homosexual couples. As of November 26, couples interested in formalizing the union must go to one of the registries of Bahia or requesting authorization of marriage on the website of the Court (TJ-BA). The standards for civil marriage are the same for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. The offices of the entire Bahia are now allowed to do the process and issue the certificate of civil marriage.
Additional information: The permission/provision was signed by federal judge Ivete Caldas, corregedora General of Justice and the Judge Person Antonio Cardoso, magistrate of the counties in the state. According to them the notaries/registries of the entire Bahia are now allowed to do the process and issue the certificate of civil marriage.
According to the magistrate Ivete Caldas, the basis of the decision was the decision of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), several decisions of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul (The most advanced State Court in Brazil, I have to say), besides the need to update the familiar design community. The federal judge also explains that permission only establishes what many judges have been applying the rule.
I hope it help you. If you need some more information just ask.-- 189.104.70.91 ( talk) 03:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see this as clear because of the unclear language in the source, I started a discussion on Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil. Hekerui ( talk) 13:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It's clear than same-sex marriage is fully legal in Bahia. In Alagoas is needed a judge at the final of the process, unlike than heterosexual couples. In Sao Paulo, like the rest of the country, several couples are married, but is case per case situation, if the judge authorizes. Paucazorla ( talk) 02:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)