![]() | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Backround discussion
Re Same-Sex marriage is not recognized by the state of Utah so while the marriages may be valid to the Federal government they are not in the state of Utah overall. That is just not correct. The federal judge ruled that the State of Utah must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize them and they did so for a brief period until SCOTUS put a temporary halt to them so the appeals court can hear the appeal(without ruling on the merits of the original ruling). I suggest further discussion take place on the template talk page. 331dot ( talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Continued discussion
The issue at hand: Are the marriages preformed in Utah legal? and if they are Should Utah be included on states that recognize same-sex relationships? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
(Pardon the lack of indentation). I agree with Nat Gertler and disagree with 331dot. Here are two (long) cents for me to drop in.
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Utah is allowing SS married couples to file joint state taxes. [2] I would submit that this might warrant a footnote much like the Ohio one(Ohio recognizes SSMs for death certificates) 331dot ( talk) 04:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought you said that you were giving up pending appeal? Utah has not place on the template. In Ohio, every OoS SSM will get recognition on death certificates until the law is changed. In Utah a small set of SSMs will get joint taxes in one circumstance (until the law is change). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
A federal judge has ruled Kentucky must recognize out-of-state SSM's: [3] [4] I'm not clear on if it takes effect immediately or not but when it does I think we can put Kentucky under "Recognized", much as Oregon is. 331dot ( talk) 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections, I think it's appropriate to include Scotland under the United Kingdom after it was passed by the parliament. Or is it best to wait for Royal Assent which could take anywhere from 1-30 days? Regardless when it does get included, the commencement date should read something like 'Not yet specified (Autumn 2014).' ( Jono52795 ( talk) 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC))
<!-- hidden comments -->
in the template text. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Judge has ruled that Cook County should start accepting same sex marriage applications immediately and the Cook County Clerk has said he will comply. Information over at Same-sex marriage in Illinois and links to [5]. Naraht ( talk) 19:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The way that I read the references (specifically http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/society/89082/same-sex-weddings-officially-permitted-in-vietnam.html) in the Same-sex marriage in Vietnam, what changed recently is that it used to be if two men (or two women) held a marriage ceremony, both could be fined. Now, while still not recognized or legal, the fine has been removed. Naraht ( talk) 02:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, guys, there is a problem; on this template Vietnam doesn't have recognition of same sex relationships, but according to these maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg, Vitnam has recognition of unregistered cohabitation . 187.34.250.232 ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it safe to add Champaign County? Even though ssm is being performed there does that necessarily mean it's legal there..? Same sex marriage was actually ruled to be legal in Cook County by a judge. and until June 1, 2014 the law banning ssm will be in effect for all of Illinois except Cook County. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, I made that edit. I was just trying to be helpful and update this (it's a rapidly developing situation). I have found other links to more official sources -like the County Clerk's office. As a matter of law, the clerk issuing the license may be illicit, but the marriage license itself would still be valid. That is my understand of acts of the state of Illinois. Example: Even if you "fail" to park properly during a driver's test, and the driving test instructor illicitly passes you, you still have a valid driver's license. I am not sure, if this principle holds true in family law though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.114.173 ( talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Should Kentucky be re-added..? The inclusion criteria states that "When marriage has been legalised through a US court decision, we wait until either the supreme court in the jurisdiction affirms the decision, or a stay upon appeal of a lower court's ruling has been denied." recognition has been put on a temporary hold in Kentucky. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Mexico be listed as recognizing same-sex marriage? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like same-sex marriage is only recognized when performed in Mexico though. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 17:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that some users wants to include countries/states in civil unions section, even though these jurisdictions legalized same-sex marriage. Listing only the highest level of recognition available in concrete jurisdiction is a long-standing policy proposed by Ronline in February 2009, see [6]. Changing the policy will lead to significant expantion of the template, since majority of countries with marriage allows civil unions at national or regional level, not to mention unregistered cohabitation, which is recognized in many countries with marriage and/or civil unions. Ron 1987 ( talk) 02:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it more sensible to register the UK under "Great Britain", as all the constituent countries of GB (ENG, SCOT, WAL) have legalised/will legalise SSM and are coming in to effect in the near future. It feels a bit more conclusive than having to list all the countries. We can then change it to United Kingdom if N Ireland decides to legalise it too. StJaBe ( talk) 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
United Kingdom is a country; Great Britain is not. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
For the United Kingdom entry in the Civil Unions section, should it be noted as either Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland/Scotland? Naraht ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
wikipedia's reputation... <full of (we want to be polite, so let's call it) half-truths>
---
Civil Union
Saying "United Kingdom" goes against "Listing only the highest level of recognition available in concrete jurisdiction" as England and Wales and Scotland have got that "highest level of recognition".
Saying "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland" would imply that the law covers Northern Ireland only.
---
This template could be accurate - could tell the truth - by adding just a few small words to the Civil union section - words like "Belgium", "France", "Netherlands", etc. Only a few small words are needed to make this template give accurate information about the "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships".
(Just to remind you - that's the template's title) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
but ...
The United Kingdom IS included in both lists - "marriage" and "civil union".
In the civil union section it doesn't say "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland".
It says "United Kingdom" only.
So by taking a look at this template people will know that the United Kingdom as a whole has got civil unions and that England and Wales and Scotland have got marriage in addition to civil unions.
But they will not know that France, South Africa, etc. have got civil unions, too - in addition to marriage - as those countries are listed in the marriage section only - unlike the United Kingdom.
---
It is a fact that there are some countries that recognize (same-sex) couples by both - marriage and civil union. It has to be mentioned.
It could be done by simply adding an asterisk to the countries' names - and a side note - something like "A Civil union can also be entered into." Knisfo ( talk) 21:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Denmark is listed in both sections, too. In the marriage section as "Denmark proper" and in the civil union section as "Denmark - Greenland". Denmark proper has got marriage only and Greenland has got civil unions only. So in the case of Denmark it makes sense.
But mentioning the United Kingdom in the civil union section as "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland" would imply that there are no civil unions in the other parts of the UK. Mentioning the United Kingdom as "United Kingdom" is not fair towards the other countries that are in a similar situation.
2. Half of the countries that opened marriage to same-sex couples have got civil unions in addition to marriage. None of them have plans to repeal their civil union laws. In (e.g.) France and the Netherlands civil unions are actually very well-liked.
The number of countries will very likely even increase. Luxembourg is on its way to a gender-neutral marriage law - without repealing its civil union law. Malta's civil union bill will most likely be approved any day now - a bill by which Malta would also recognize marriage performed abroad.
Civil unions are not endangered. They are doing fine. They are here to stay.
Some asterisks and a side note would not make the size of this template explode.
3. Well ...better than nothing Knisfo ( talk) 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no jurisdiction called "Denmark proper", no jurisdiction called "Netherlands proper"...
"This formulation is the result [...] after much discussion."
Why is there much discussion needed ?
There is something called (constitutional) law. Take a look at it and you will know about the countries'/territories' (official) names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
for example ... Netherlands
The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the countries of Aruba, Curacao, Netherlands and Sint Maarten.
Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are not autonomous territories or colonies or ... - of the (European) Netherlands. All four countries have got the same status.
It may be confusing that the Kingdom and one of its constituent countries share the same name but ... calling the Netherlands "Netherlands proper" is like calling Aruba "Netherlands improper", "wannabe Netherlands". Calling the Netherlands "Netherlands proper" is offensive towards the other constituent countries.
For now it should simply be:
Netherlands:
- Netherlands
...and in ca. 100 years be changed to:
Netherlands:
- Curacao
- Netherlands Knisfo ( talk) 21:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Civil Unions Act
Article 1: [...] the Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" [...]
Article 6 (1): [...] with regard to a marriage celebrated abroad by two persons of the same sex, article 18 of the Act shall be construed in such a manner as to be applicable to such marriage.
---
Marriage Act
Article 18: A marriage, whether celebrated in Malta or abroad, shall be valid for all purposes of law in Malta [...] Knisfo ( talk) 07:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It does not "appear to be for actual marriage". Those are the articles by which Malta DOES recognize marriage celebrated abroad. - Civil unions perfomed abroad are recognized by:
Civil Unions Act
Article 1: [...] "union of equivalent status" means any of the unions found in the list which the Minister by regulations may issue under this Act.
Article 6 (2): [...] a union of equivalent status celebrated abroad shall be valid for all purposes of law in Malta [...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Gosh. Article 6 (1) recognizes foreign marriage, Article 6 (2) recognizes foreign civil unions. I am no native speaker of English but even i can understand the simple language of that law. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand a simple law.
You are a citizen of whatever-country, a resident of whatever-country, aren't you ? Your country passes laws every day - laws that affect your daily life. Are you trying to tell me that you don't know shit about the laws that rule your daily life ?!? Do you trust gaystarnews, pinknews, etc. more than the law ? No news article could ever be a better source than the law itself.
Find me a reliable source that explicitly states that Malta does NOT recognize marriage performed abroad - or stop reversing my edits !
And your "I will ask to have you blocked for disruption." doesn't impress me. I know that I am on the right side of this fight. I am the one who gave arguments, who gave sources. It is YOU who hasn't given any source that explicitly proves you right when you say that Malta does NOT recognize marriage performed abroad. Knisfo ( talk) 10:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
(Copying what I said on File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg) We are looking for a problem where there is not necessarily one. Any jurisdiction recognises foreign same-sex unions to a status available in that country, be it marriage or a partnership. In most countries, partnerships give less rights than marriage so foreign same-sex marriages are recognised as partnerships (Germany, Ireland, ...). In the case of Malta, civil unions are identical to marriage in all but name, so foreign marriages are identical to both (Maltese) civil unions and (Maltese) marriages. This, in my opinion, doesn't require explicitly classifying Malta as recognising foreign marriages since it is equivalent to what other countries do. Other jurisdictions that we mark as recognising foreign SSM (Israel, Oregon, Mexico), do have a distinction: they do not grant unions with equal rights (Oregon does w.r.t. state law, but not federal law). So if we need to choose between recognition or civil unions, I would at least put Malta under civil unions, maybe under both. SPQRobin ( talk) 12:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point @ Kwamikagami:. In that case, Malta shouldn't be in the recognition column unless they are recognizing ssm performed in other jurisdictions as ssm rather then other partnerships. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 04:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll do a third attempt. Foreign same-sex marriages or other unions are recognised for what they are. Since Maltese civil unions are equal to marriage, it makes no difference whether you say foreign unions are recognised as marriages or civil unions – they are recognised, point. To the point Kwamikagami raised, federalism complicates it: US civil unions were equal in state law but aren’t in federal law. Whereas Malta is, as far as I know, in a unique situation where foreign unions are explicitly recognised and where civil unions are equal to marriage and as ChiZeroOne put it, the Civil Union Act is built around the Marriage Act. In e.g. the UK or Ireland, the partnerships are separate and inferior to marriage, and foreign same-sex unions are recognised under this separate and inferior status. Because of Malta’s unique situation, the question whether foreign SSM are recognised as civil unions or marriages is a moot question to which no-one will have the “answer” and neither will sources. Proving reliance to sources as not always helpful to the partnership/marriage question is the fact that many sources reported on Malta having legalised gay marriage, similar to whether Denmark and Norway in the 1980s/1990s legalised partnerships or gay marriage. SPQRobin ( talk) 14:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
First foreign gay marriage registered in Malta as marriage, first Civil unions from the 14th of June check it out but it is in Maltese. http://www.tvm.com.mt/news/aggornat-ryan-u-jamie-jirregistraw-l-ewwel-zwieg-gay-fmalta/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.109.77 ( talk) 08:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
How can you be in doubt? At the moment the Public registry in Malta can only deal with marriages as that is the only registry available at the moment so when a foreign same sex marriage is registered it can only be in that particular registry and as such it is listed as a marriage and full accepted as one. While the one of the Civil Unions it is not officially open as it's commencement is on 14 June 2014. It is clear and how it is just that you all cannot understand Maltese but you want the last word on it anyways. I cannot understand all this crap of yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethgrima ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen two other vertically oriented templates recently have "sidebar" added to their name. I propose that Template:Same-sex unions be moved to Template:Same-sex unions sidebar. Naraht ( talk) 07:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oaxaca 201.26.78.139 ( talk) 12:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Naraht ( talk) 04:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, from what I understand the constitution of Mexico makes a blanket decision affecting the country *very* difficult. It would have been like Brown vs. Board of Education if the Supreme Court would have had to judge lawsuits in 5 different counties in each state in order to make a blanket decision for *that* state. And *then* the same for the next state. Ich. Naraht ( talk) 17:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=18399&MediaType=1&Category=24
The implications of the ruling remain uncertain. That is, while officials may no longer use Article 143 to deny a marriage license to a gay couple, the state has not legalized such unions. But Alex Ali Mendez Diaz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the decision meant that gay couples in the state can marry through a court order.
So list or not? Naraht ( talk) 20:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a field to the marriage list, "previously performed", given the amount of states where same-sex marriages have been conducted but are currently not, most likely due to court stays. Given that the federal U.S. government recognises marriages before the stays in UT, AR, MI, I think it's inaccurate to claim that there are no legal same-sex marriages in those states. Sceptre ( talk) 14:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Sceptre: But it isn't made clear that all of the "Previously performed" marriages are currently valid... -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
On 22 May, the board of directors of the country's social security system has voted to grant some rights for same-sex couples. The decision will be implemented within three months. See [8], [9], [10]. In that case Costa Rica should be included in Unregistered cohabitation section. Objections? Ron 1987 ( talk) 22:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I think Costa Rica should be added with a TBD commencement date footnote. Yes it's possible people might try to "block" the decision, but that's possible for other decisions that haven't gone into effect as well. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 06:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we turn the greek letter into an asterisk instead..? Prcc27 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 30 June 2014
I am adding this because I would like opinions on the following: Malta created a union that is identical to marriage without the name, and it is considered of a lesser right than Portugal's "marriage" that is undefined on joint adoption by same-sex couples. Should not exactly the same right but under a different name, especially under the case of a Catholic nation such as Malta, be recognized compared to an ad hoc marriage that is available in Portugal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew1444 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Dralwik: I fixed the format for Colorado but I'm not sure Colorado should be listed since the top of the template reads "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships" and it doesn't seem to be legal.. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This template lists where same-sex marriages or similar unions are either performed or recognized by the state. I am aware that various religions perform same-sex weddings as part of their faith. Shall we create a new section on the template listing them?
Pros: 1. This directly relates to recognition of same-sex unions
2. It would be educational
3. It is involved in the legal debate as a federal lawsuit on religious freedom in North Carolina is being brought forward by the United Church of Christ and other ministers in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper http://www.ucc.org/news/free-religion-lawsuit-alliance-baptists-06052014.html http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/north-carolina
Cons: 1. May change the template, as there is currently a monopoly held on the template by legal issues in states, countries, and other sovereign states.
2. Certain denominations as a whole would definitely be listed, but confusion may ensue as many denominations (as a whole) that do not recognize/ bless same-sex unions have inside groups trying to change church policy and may independently perform them and bless them on their own without official denomination approval. The Reconciling Ministries Network within the United Methodist Church is one of many examples.
I think that if religious recognition is added, that these informal groups should not be included, for better or for worse. An alternative idea that is inclusive could involve creating a link that shows a list of informal religious sub-organizations that do bless unions, without full church support.
Note that since this template only includes places that recognize or perform unions, therefore listing churches that do recognize/ perform/bless same-sex unions not would not be necessary.
I also note that church changes on this subject are rare so it would not need frequent revisions, unlike pages like "Same-sex Marriage in the United States."
Proposed additions below:
Christian denominations
Episcopal Church
Friends General Conference (Quakers)
Metropolitan Community Churches
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ
Unity
Source http://www.believeoutloud.com/background/christianity-and-lgbt-equality
Jewish Movements:
Reform
Reconstructionist
Conservative
Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/07/religious-groups-official-positions-on-same-sex-marriage/
Note the above link iis from 2012, and there may be changes.
This is not a comprehensive list, as it is hard to research this topic, many religions exist, not all support, and some have no position or are in the midst of a debate. If anyone can improve this, please, go ahead and update it. I don't want to leave out religions that do affirm, for the sake of truth, inclusion, and political correctness. Please cite your source in any discussion.
I recognize this is a divisive idea to add this and I welcome respectful debate on this sensitive topic. The conditions following this apply:
1. Do not insult any religions mentioned
2. This is not a place to debate whether homosexuality should be religiously recognized, this is a debate over whether religions shall be included on the template that already bless same-sex unions.
I am aware that Wikipedia pages on this topic already exist, the question is whether to put it in the template or not.
Thank you all!
166.147.104.162 ( talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone have thoughts? I posted this about a month ago. Also, I'm not an editor, so I can't make the actual changes. 98.253.175.243 ( talk) 03:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how the legislative process works in Mexican states, but according to this source, the law takes effect in one week. It is unclear whether the governor has signed it, nor if he even has to at all. In any case, he supports it (this source doesn't mention anything on a governor's signature). The state's Civil Code can be found here, which should be updated soon I suppose (for example, article 253 will be changed to "El matrimonio es la unión libre y con el pleno consentimiento de dos personas [...]"). SPQRobin ( talk) 17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the template looks stupid now. Why are the 5 states under "Previously performed but not invalidated" not labeled "5 states"..? If we're going to use the "19 states", we should use it for the previously performed and for countries with more than one sub-jurisdiction as well. This template should be consistent. A big issue with the change though is that it doesn't link directly to the state's same-sex marriage page which is a big problem. The individual links are really important (I can not stress that enough). and I don't think the template was all that cluttered before and it didn't really bother me. Prcc★27 ( talk) 04:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, which discussion do you want to have? The one about wether we should have individual states of the US in the template by abbreviations? Or the one about consistency of the implementation? L.tak ( talk) 08:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Summarizing Australia's states decreases the amount of text though... If we are going to get rid of abbreviations it has to be consistent throughout the template. Also, UK's subjurisdictions are countries. I didn't like how the "19 states" was wikilinked; it didn't link to the states' articles. Prcc twenty-seven ( talk) 05:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a district court decision in Florida that has been stayed. This case has not yet gone to circuit court. We have not previously listed states under this circumstance. We need a circuit court ruling before we can list it. 76.105.127.56 ( talk) 11:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Since this Iist is about LGBT relationship recognition, shouldn't it also list the states, territories, and countries where lgbt adoption is recognized? Upside: Adoption is a significant step within a relationship and has the potential to be recognized or banned by a state/country/territory. Downside: The places on the template links to existing articles about the recognition within that governing land mass. The catch is that only the UK, the US, Brazil, and Europe (as a whole) have articles for it. Thoughts? Should we move forward with this? 98.253.175.243 ( talk) 21:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Is Estonia's recently passed law, actual marriage for same sex couples or is it a civil partnership scheme? I only ask because some news sources seem to imply its a change to the nation's marriage laws. See here:
Estonia becomes first former Soviet state to legalise gay marriage (The Independent)
Estonia first ex-Soviet state to legalise gay marriage (BBC News)
Every other source makes no mention of it being a change to the country's marriage laws. Can anyone confirm?
Jono52795 (
talk)
14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While most of the US states are ordered by the state's full name, the Ns seem to be ordered by their abbreviation (i.e. North Carolina before New Hampshire, Nevada in between New Mexico and New York.) FagusNigra ( talk) 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move DC to the end of the states, just before the tribal law listing, to keep it sort of separate. DC is not a true state, though it should be listed as it is a region with its own laws. Kumorifox ( talk) 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Changing the order of listing so that it goes against an established pattern should be discussed. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Pedantic, but it should be "Previously performed *and* not invalidated". There is no contradiction. Or, maybe better, "Previously performed and still valid". 207.192.243.66 ( talk) 04:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The list of U.S. states looks good when there are 6 states per line, but with 7, at least on my browser, one wraps and it's ugly. Also, it's almost but not quite in alphabetical order.
Currently the infobox lists:
DC, IA, MA, and NV are out of alphabetical order, and that second line has too many states. Even though the Is make it narrower than the Ms in the third line, MD still wraps onto a line of its own. Please alphabetize it and break it up so so it looks like
The edited wikitext (for ease of cut & paste) is:
·
AK,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DC,
DE,
·
HI,
IA,
ID*,
IL,
IN,
MA,
·
MD,
ME,
MN,
NC,
NH,
NJ,
·
NM,
NV,
NY,
OK,
OR,
PA,
·
RI,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
·
WI,
10 tribes
71.41.210.146 ( talk) 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
·
AK,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
·
HI,
ID*,
IL,
IN,
IA,
ME,
·
MD,
MA,
MN,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
·
NM,
NY,
NC,
OK,
OR,
PA,
·
RI,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
·
WI,
10 tribes
![]() | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Backround discussion
Re Same-Sex marriage is not recognized by the state of Utah so while the marriages may be valid to the Federal government they are not in the state of Utah overall. That is just not correct. The federal judge ruled that the State of Utah must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize them and they did so for a brief period until SCOTUS put a temporary halt to them so the appeals court can hear the appeal(without ruling on the merits of the original ruling). I suggest further discussion take place on the template talk page. 331dot ( talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Continued discussion
The issue at hand: Are the marriages preformed in Utah legal? and if they are Should Utah be included on states that recognize same-sex relationships? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
(Pardon the lack of indentation). I agree with Nat Gertler and disagree with 331dot. Here are two (long) cents for me to drop in.
Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Utah is allowing SS married couples to file joint state taxes. [2] I would submit that this might warrant a footnote much like the Ohio one(Ohio recognizes SSMs for death certificates) 331dot ( talk) 04:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought you said that you were giving up pending appeal? Utah has not place on the template. In Ohio, every OoS SSM will get recognition on death certificates until the law is changed. In Utah a small set of SSMs will get joint taxes in one circumstance (until the law is change). Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 04:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
A federal judge has ruled Kentucky must recognize out-of-state SSM's: [3] [4] I'm not clear on if it takes effect immediately or not but when it does I think we can put Kentucky under "Recognized", much as Oregon is. 331dot ( talk) 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections, I think it's appropriate to include Scotland under the United Kingdom after it was passed by the parliament. Or is it best to wait for Royal Assent which could take anywhere from 1-30 days? Regardless when it does get included, the commencement date should read something like 'Not yet specified (Autumn 2014).' ( Jono52795 ( talk) 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC))
<!-- hidden comments -->
in the template text. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Judge has ruled that Cook County should start accepting same sex marriage applications immediately and the Cook County Clerk has said he will comply. Information over at Same-sex marriage in Illinois and links to [5]. Naraht ( talk) 19:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The way that I read the references (specifically http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/society/89082/same-sex-weddings-officially-permitted-in-vietnam.html) in the Same-sex marriage in Vietnam, what changed recently is that it used to be if two men (or two women) held a marriage ceremony, both could be fined. Now, while still not recognized or legal, the fine has been removed. Naraht ( talk) 02:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, guys, there is a problem; on this template Vietnam doesn't have recognition of same sex relationships, but according to these maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg, Vitnam has recognition of unregistered cohabitation . 187.34.250.232 ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it safe to add Champaign County? Even though ssm is being performed there does that necessarily mean it's legal there..? Same sex marriage was actually ruled to be legal in Cook County by a judge. and until June 1, 2014 the law banning ssm will be in effect for all of Illinois except Cook County. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 00:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, I made that edit. I was just trying to be helpful and update this (it's a rapidly developing situation). I have found other links to more official sources -like the County Clerk's office. As a matter of law, the clerk issuing the license may be illicit, but the marriage license itself would still be valid. That is my understand of acts of the state of Illinois. Example: Even if you "fail" to park properly during a driver's test, and the driving test instructor illicitly passes you, you still have a valid driver's license. I am not sure, if this principle holds true in family law though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.114.173 ( talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Should Kentucky be re-added..? The inclusion criteria states that "When marriage has been legalised through a US court decision, we wait until either the supreme court in the jurisdiction affirms the decision, or a stay upon appeal of a lower court's ruling has been denied." recognition has been put on a temporary hold in Kentucky. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Mexico be listed as recognizing same-sex marriage? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like same-sex marriage is only recognized when performed in Mexico though. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 17:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that some users wants to include countries/states in civil unions section, even though these jurisdictions legalized same-sex marriage. Listing only the highest level of recognition available in concrete jurisdiction is a long-standing policy proposed by Ronline in February 2009, see [6]. Changing the policy will lead to significant expantion of the template, since majority of countries with marriage allows civil unions at national or regional level, not to mention unregistered cohabitation, which is recognized in many countries with marriage and/or civil unions. Ron 1987 ( talk) 02:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it more sensible to register the UK under "Great Britain", as all the constituent countries of GB (ENG, SCOT, WAL) have legalised/will legalise SSM and are coming in to effect in the near future. It feels a bit more conclusive than having to list all the countries. We can then change it to United Kingdom if N Ireland decides to legalise it too. StJaBe ( talk) 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
United Kingdom is a country; Great Britain is not. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
For the United Kingdom entry in the Civil Unions section, should it be noted as either Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland/Scotland? Naraht ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
wikipedia's reputation... <full of (we want to be polite, so let's call it) half-truths>
---
Civil Union
Saying "United Kingdom" goes against "Listing only the highest level of recognition available in concrete jurisdiction" as England and Wales and Scotland have got that "highest level of recognition".
Saying "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland" would imply that the law covers Northern Ireland only.
---
This template could be accurate - could tell the truth - by adding just a few small words to the Civil union section - words like "Belgium", "France", "Netherlands", etc. Only a few small words are needed to make this template give accurate information about the "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships".
(Just to remind you - that's the template's title) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
but ...
The United Kingdom IS included in both lists - "marriage" and "civil union".
In the civil union section it doesn't say "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland".
It says "United Kingdom" only.
So by taking a look at this template people will know that the United Kingdom as a whole has got civil unions and that England and Wales and Scotland have got marriage in addition to civil unions.
But they will not know that France, South Africa, etc. have got civil unions, too - in addition to marriage - as those countries are listed in the marriage section only - unlike the United Kingdom.
---
It is a fact that there are some countries that recognize (same-sex) couples by both - marriage and civil union. It has to be mentioned.
It could be done by simply adding an asterisk to the countries' names - and a side note - something like "A Civil union can also be entered into." Knisfo ( talk) 21:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Denmark is listed in both sections, too. In the marriage section as "Denmark proper" and in the civil union section as "Denmark - Greenland". Denmark proper has got marriage only and Greenland has got civil unions only. So in the case of Denmark it makes sense.
But mentioning the United Kingdom in the civil union section as "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland" would imply that there are no civil unions in the other parts of the UK. Mentioning the United Kingdom as "United Kingdom" is not fair towards the other countries that are in a similar situation.
2. Half of the countries that opened marriage to same-sex couples have got civil unions in addition to marriage. None of them have plans to repeal their civil union laws. In (e.g.) France and the Netherlands civil unions are actually very well-liked.
The number of countries will very likely even increase. Luxembourg is on its way to a gender-neutral marriage law - without repealing its civil union law. Malta's civil union bill will most likely be approved any day now - a bill by which Malta would also recognize marriage performed abroad.
Civil unions are not endangered. They are doing fine. They are here to stay.
Some asterisks and a side note would not make the size of this template explode.
3. Well ...better than nothing Knisfo ( talk) 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no jurisdiction called "Denmark proper", no jurisdiction called "Netherlands proper"...
"This formulation is the result [...] after much discussion."
Why is there much discussion needed ?
There is something called (constitutional) law. Take a look at it and you will know about the countries'/territories' (official) names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
for example ... Netherlands
The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the countries of Aruba, Curacao, Netherlands and Sint Maarten.
Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are not autonomous territories or colonies or ... - of the (European) Netherlands. All four countries have got the same status.
It may be confusing that the Kingdom and one of its constituent countries share the same name but ... calling the Netherlands "Netherlands proper" is like calling Aruba "Netherlands improper", "wannabe Netherlands". Calling the Netherlands "Netherlands proper" is offensive towards the other constituent countries.
For now it should simply be:
Netherlands:
- Netherlands
...and in ca. 100 years be changed to:
Netherlands:
- Curacao
- Netherlands Knisfo ( talk) 21:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Civil Unions Act
Article 1: [...] the Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" [...]
Article 6 (1): [...] with regard to a marriage celebrated abroad by two persons of the same sex, article 18 of the Act shall be construed in such a manner as to be applicable to such marriage.
---
Marriage Act
Article 18: A marriage, whether celebrated in Malta or abroad, shall be valid for all purposes of law in Malta [...] Knisfo ( talk) 07:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It does not "appear to be for actual marriage". Those are the articles by which Malta DOES recognize marriage celebrated abroad. - Civil unions perfomed abroad are recognized by:
Civil Unions Act
Article 1: [...] "union of equivalent status" means any of the unions found in the list which the Minister by regulations may issue under this Act.
Article 6 (2): [...] a union of equivalent status celebrated abroad shall be valid for all purposes of law in Malta [...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Gosh. Article 6 (1) recognizes foreign marriage, Article 6 (2) recognizes foreign civil unions. I am no native speaker of English but even i can understand the simple language of that law. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand a simple law.
You are a citizen of whatever-country, a resident of whatever-country, aren't you ? Your country passes laws every day - laws that affect your daily life. Are you trying to tell me that you don't know shit about the laws that rule your daily life ?!? Do you trust gaystarnews, pinknews, etc. more than the law ? No news article could ever be a better source than the law itself.
Find me a reliable source that explicitly states that Malta does NOT recognize marriage performed abroad - or stop reversing my edits !
And your "I will ask to have you blocked for disruption." doesn't impress me. I know that I am on the right side of this fight. I am the one who gave arguments, who gave sources. It is YOU who hasn't given any source that explicitly proves you right when you say that Malta does NOT recognize marriage performed abroad. Knisfo ( talk) 10:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
(Copying what I said on File talk:World marriage-equality laws.svg) We are looking for a problem where there is not necessarily one. Any jurisdiction recognises foreign same-sex unions to a status available in that country, be it marriage or a partnership. In most countries, partnerships give less rights than marriage so foreign same-sex marriages are recognised as partnerships (Germany, Ireland, ...). In the case of Malta, civil unions are identical to marriage in all but name, so foreign marriages are identical to both (Maltese) civil unions and (Maltese) marriages. This, in my opinion, doesn't require explicitly classifying Malta as recognising foreign marriages since it is equivalent to what other countries do. Other jurisdictions that we mark as recognising foreign SSM (Israel, Oregon, Mexico), do have a distinction: they do not grant unions with equal rights (Oregon does w.r.t. state law, but not federal law). So if we need to choose between recognition or civil unions, I would at least put Malta under civil unions, maybe under both. SPQRobin ( talk) 12:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point @ Kwamikagami:. In that case, Malta shouldn't be in the recognition column unless they are recognizing ssm performed in other jurisdictions as ssm rather then other partnerships. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 04:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll do a third attempt. Foreign same-sex marriages or other unions are recognised for what they are. Since Maltese civil unions are equal to marriage, it makes no difference whether you say foreign unions are recognised as marriages or civil unions – they are recognised, point. To the point Kwamikagami raised, federalism complicates it: US civil unions were equal in state law but aren’t in federal law. Whereas Malta is, as far as I know, in a unique situation where foreign unions are explicitly recognised and where civil unions are equal to marriage and as ChiZeroOne put it, the Civil Union Act is built around the Marriage Act. In e.g. the UK or Ireland, the partnerships are separate and inferior to marriage, and foreign same-sex unions are recognised under this separate and inferior status. Because of Malta’s unique situation, the question whether foreign SSM are recognised as civil unions or marriages is a moot question to which no-one will have the “answer” and neither will sources. Proving reliance to sources as not always helpful to the partnership/marriage question is the fact that many sources reported on Malta having legalised gay marriage, similar to whether Denmark and Norway in the 1980s/1990s legalised partnerships or gay marriage. SPQRobin ( talk) 14:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
First foreign gay marriage registered in Malta as marriage, first Civil unions from the 14th of June check it out but it is in Maltese. http://www.tvm.com.mt/news/aggornat-ryan-u-jamie-jirregistraw-l-ewwel-zwieg-gay-fmalta/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.109.77 ( talk) 08:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
How can you be in doubt? At the moment the Public registry in Malta can only deal with marriages as that is the only registry available at the moment so when a foreign same sex marriage is registered it can only be in that particular registry and as such it is listed as a marriage and full accepted as one. While the one of the Civil Unions it is not officially open as it's commencement is on 14 June 2014. It is clear and how it is just that you all cannot understand Maltese but you want the last word on it anyways. I cannot understand all this crap of yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethgrima ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen two other vertically oriented templates recently have "sidebar" added to their name. I propose that Template:Same-sex unions be moved to Template:Same-sex unions sidebar. Naraht ( talk) 07:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oaxaca 201.26.78.139 ( talk) 12:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Naraht ( talk) 04:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, from what I understand the constitution of Mexico makes a blanket decision affecting the country *very* difficult. It would have been like Brown vs. Board of Education if the Supreme Court would have had to judge lawsuits in 5 different counties in each state in order to make a blanket decision for *that* state. And *then* the same for the next state. Ich. Naraht ( talk) 17:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=18399&MediaType=1&Category=24
The implications of the ruling remain uncertain. That is, while officials may no longer use Article 143 to deny a marriage license to a gay couple, the state has not legalized such unions. But Alex Ali Mendez Diaz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the decision meant that gay couples in the state can marry through a court order.
So list or not? Naraht ( talk) 20:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a field to the marriage list, "previously performed", given the amount of states where same-sex marriages have been conducted but are currently not, most likely due to court stays. Given that the federal U.S. government recognises marriages before the stays in UT, AR, MI, I think it's inaccurate to claim that there are no legal same-sex marriages in those states. Sceptre ( talk) 14:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Sceptre: But it isn't made clear that all of the "Previously performed" marriages are currently valid... -- Prcc27 ( talk) 21:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
On 22 May, the board of directors of the country's social security system has voted to grant some rights for same-sex couples. The decision will be implemented within three months. See [8], [9], [10]. In that case Costa Rica should be included in Unregistered cohabitation section. Objections? Ron 1987 ( talk) 22:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I think Costa Rica should be added with a TBD commencement date footnote. Yes it's possible people might try to "block" the decision, but that's possible for other decisions that haven't gone into effect as well. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 06:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we turn the greek letter into an asterisk instead..? Prcc27 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 30 June 2014
I am adding this because I would like opinions on the following: Malta created a union that is identical to marriage without the name, and it is considered of a lesser right than Portugal's "marriage" that is undefined on joint adoption by same-sex couples. Should not exactly the same right but under a different name, especially under the case of a Catholic nation such as Malta, be recognized compared to an ad hoc marriage that is available in Portugal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew1444 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Dralwik: I fixed the format for Colorado but I'm not sure Colorado should be listed since the top of the template reads "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships" and it doesn't seem to be legal.. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This template lists where same-sex marriages or similar unions are either performed or recognized by the state. I am aware that various religions perform same-sex weddings as part of their faith. Shall we create a new section on the template listing them?
Pros: 1. This directly relates to recognition of same-sex unions
2. It would be educational
3. It is involved in the legal debate as a federal lawsuit on religious freedom in North Carolina is being brought forward by the United Church of Christ and other ministers in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper http://www.ucc.org/news/free-religion-lawsuit-alliance-baptists-06052014.html http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/north-carolina
Cons: 1. May change the template, as there is currently a monopoly held on the template by legal issues in states, countries, and other sovereign states.
2. Certain denominations as a whole would definitely be listed, but confusion may ensue as many denominations (as a whole) that do not recognize/ bless same-sex unions have inside groups trying to change church policy and may independently perform them and bless them on their own without official denomination approval. The Reconciling Ministries Network within the United Methodist Church is one of many examples.
I think that if religious recognition is added, that these informal groups should not be included, for better or for worse. An alternative idea that is inclusive could involve creating a link that shows a list of informal religious sub-organizations that do bless unions, without full church support.
Note that since this template only includes places that recognize or perform unions, therefore listing churches that do recognize/ perform/bless same-sex unions not would not be necessary.
I also note that church changes on this subject are rare so it would not need frequent revisions, unlike pages like "Same-sex Marriage in the United States."
Proposed additions below:
Christian denominations
Episcopal Church
Friends General Conference (Quakers)
Metropolitan Community Churches
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ
Unity
Source http://www.believeoutloud.com/background/christianity-and-lgbt-equality
Jewish Movements:
Reform
Reconstructionist
Conservative
Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/07/religious-groups-official-positions-on-same-sex-marriage/
Note the above link iis from 2012, and there may be changes.
This is not a comprehensive list, as it is hard to research this topic, many religions exist, not all support, and some have no position or are in the midst of a debate. If anyone can improve this, please, go ahead and update it. I don't want to leave out religions that do affirm, for the sake of truth, inclusion, and political correctness. Please cite your source in any discussion.
I recognize this is a divisive idea to add this and I welcome respectful debate on this sensitive topic. The conditions following this apply:
1. Do not insult any religions mentioned
2. This is not a place to debate whether homosexuality should be religiously recognized, this is a debate over whether religions shall be included on the template that already bless same-sex unions.
I am aware that Wikipedia pages on this topic already exist, the question is whether to put it in the template or not.
Thank you all!
166.147.104.162 ( talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone have thoughts? I posted this about a month ago. Also, I'm not an editor, so I can't make the actual changes. 98.253.175.243 ( talk) 03:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how the legislative process works in Mexican states, but according to this source, the law takes effect in one week. It is unclear whether the governor has signed it, nor if he even has to at all. In any case, he supports it (this source doesn't mention anything on a governor's signature). The state's Civil Code can be found here, which should be updated soon I suppose (for example, article 253 will be changed to "El matrimonio es la unión libre y con el pleno consentimiento de dos personas [...]"). SPQRobin ( talk) 17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the template looks stupid now. Why are the 5 states under "Previously performed but not invalidated" not labeled "5 states"..? If we're going to use the "19 states", we should use it for the previously performed and for countries with more than one sub-jurisdiction as well. This template should be consistent. A big issue with the change though is that it doesn't link directly to the state's same-sex marriage page which is a big problem. The individual links are really important (I can not stress that enough). and I don't think the template was all that cluttered before and it didn't really bother me. Prcc★27 ( talk) 04:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, which discussion do you want to have? The one about wether we should have individual states of the US in the template by abbreviations? Or the one about consistency of the implementation? L.tak ( talk) 08:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Summarizing Australia's states decreases the amount of text though... If we are going to get rid of abbreviations it has to be consistent throughout the template. Also, UK's subjurisdictions are countries. I didn't like how the "19 states" was wikilinked; it didn't link to the states' articles. Prcc twenty-seven ( talk) 05:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a district court decision in Florida that has been stayed. This case has not yet gone to circuit court. We have not previously listed states under this circumstance. We need a circuit court ruling before we can list it. 76.105.127.56 ( talk) 11:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Since this Iist is about LGBT relationship recognition, shouldn't it also list the states, territories, and countries where lgbt adoption is recognized? Upside: Adoption is a significant step within a relationship and has the potential to be recognized or banned by a state/country/territory. Downside: The places on the template links to existing articles about the recognition within that governing land mass. The catch is that only the UK, the US, Brazil, and Europe (as a whole) have articles for it. Thoughts? Should we move forward with this? 98.253.175.243 ( talk) 21:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Is Estonia's recently passed law, actual marriage for same sex couples or is it a civil partnership scheme? I only ask because some news sources seem to imply its a change to the nation's marriage laws. See here:
Estonia becomes first former Soviet state to legalise gay marriage (The Independent)
Estonia first ex-Soviet state to legalise gay marriage (BBC News)
Every other source makes no mention of it being a change to the country's marriage laws. Can anyone confirm?
Jono52795 (
talk)
14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While most of the US states are ordered by the state's full name, the Ns seem to be ordered by their abbreviation (i.e. North Carolina before New Hampshire, Nevada in between New Mexico and New York.) FagusNigra ( talk) 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Move DC to the end of the states, just before the tribal law listing, to keep it sort of separate. DC is not a true state, though it should be listed as it is a region with its own laws. Kumorifox ( talk) 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Changing the order of listing so that it goes against an established pattern should be discussed. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Pedantic, but it should be "Previously performed *and* not invalidated". There is no contradiction. Or, maybe better, "Previously performed and still valid". 207.192.243.66 ( talk) 04:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The list of U.S. states looks good when there are 6 states per line, but with 7, at least on my browser, one wraps and it's ugly. Also, it's almost but not quite in alphabetical order.
Currently the infobox lists:
DC, IA, MA, and NV are out of alphabetical order, and that second line has too many states. Even though the Is make it narrower than the Ms in the third line, MD still wraps onto a line of its own. Please alphabetize it and break it up so so it looks like
The edited wikitext (for ease of cut & paste) is:
·
AK,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DC,
DE,
·
HI,
IA,
ID*,
IL,
IN,
MA,
·
MD,
ME,
MN,
NC,
NH,
NJ,
·
NM,
NV,
NY,
OK,
OR,
PA,
·
RI,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
·
WI,
10 tribes
71.41.210.146 ( talk) 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
·
AK,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
·
HI,
ID*,
IL,
IN,
IA,
ME,
·
MD,
MA,
MN,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
·
NM,
NY,
NC,
OK,
OR,
PA,
·
RI,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
·
WI,
10 tribes