![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Please stop proposing we replace the individual same-sex marriage articles with a wikilink. This proposal is being proposed way too many times, and has already failed here, here, here, here and was recently re-proposed here (and will probably fail). Thank you! -- Prcc27 ( talk) 11:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
“ | As it appears that you are in an edit war on the template I would suggest that you take a step back and confine yourself to the talk page. | ” |
@ Technical 13: "Insisting that places that do not currently recognize same sex marriage on a template that is specifically only for places that do currently recognize SSM" This again? How about adding a new section at the bottom of the template, or a part at the bottom of each section (like there are with the "recognised, not performed" states and countries) that lists countries, states, regions etc. where laws were signed, or the government decided not to appeal, or whatever, and the laws are due to go into effect at any time? It shows the legal status of SSM or similar unions in those locations, and sets them apart by showing there is some form of legality definitely pending there. Places where there is absolutely nothing pending will naturally be left out. But countries like Luxembourg, Scotland, and Estonia, and states like Florida and Wyoming must be mentioned in order to show progress with same-sex unions. The template is generally the first impression people get on this topic, and first impressions do matter, just as much on Wikipedia as outside of it, and they should give as complete a picture as possible. Kumorifox ( talk) 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As the person who made the most recent proposal (to switch from listing US states that permit SSM to listing those that do not), it might be useful for me to make a comment. I understand the reasons why some people feel that we have not yet reached the right time to make this change. However, there will come a time when not permitting SSM will be far more exceptional and noteworthy than permitting it. We perhaps haven't reached this point yet, but I suspect we can all see it coming. When there are only a few exceptional areas - perhaps Northern Ireland in the UK, and one or two states in the USA - it seems to me that the sensible thing to do will be to have articles on the absence of SSM in those areas, explaining why this has not happened, rather than to have pointers to the states where SSM has become a normal part of the legal and cultural landscape. As an encyclopedia we will certainly have articles on how SSM came to all the places where it is legal, but what our readers are likely to want in the future, at least in the first instance, is information about the hold-outs. At some point in the future the template should reflect this, because if you live in a place where SSM is the norm - and this is increasingly true for our readership - you're unlikely to question it, any more than anyone nowadays wonders why black people and white people can get married. In time, the question people are more likely to ask is "why doesn't this place permit people of the same sex to get married?". The time may not yet be ripe to make this change, but at some stage it will be. I see no harm in discussing this topic from time to time, and reviewing whether we've yet got to the stage that it will be more helpful to our readers to make the change from listing places where SSM is permitted to listing places where SSM is not permitted. I should also note that I feel that one or two editors may be taking this topic a little personally, and may be attempting to "own" this issue. I feel this is unwise and uncollegial, and hope that a calmer mindset will prevail. Thank you. RomanSpa ( talk) 17:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
OK folks, we're getting petty with the language now. Let's steer this conversation back on track.
From what I can tell, we have two camps, and everyone in each camp has their own reasons for wanting to keep the states or wanting to remove them, and I include myself in this as well. Let me list some reasons I managed to comprehend from the discussions above.
1/ Listing every state is messy.
2/ Listing every state puts undue emphasis on the US.
1/ It makes for easier access to each state where marriage equality is the legal rule.
2/ It is less confusing as people can see at a glance what regions have marriage equality.
Here's my personal take on this. Feel free to (dis)agree.
So let's hear it, please. If you have a suggestion for improved aesthetics while keeping the access user-friendly, please make it. If you feel that improving aesthetics will worsen user-friendliness, say why you think this is. The main thing I want to know on this issue is why people say what they say. I can see a lot of reasons for each point listed above (and I'm sure I left out plenty of points, so feel free to add, but keep it comprehensible please, this discussion is getting confusing), and I can see the merits both for keeping and for removing the states. We just need to get to a compromising solution. Kumorifox ( talk) 15:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
We should include local govts. in the template. Many local govts. in Italy recognize same-sex marriage and should be included as well as local govts. in Italy and the U.S. that have same-sex unions. This template has had local govts. represented before (New Mexican counties) and before you argue "there was no law for or against same-sex marriage in New Mexico" well, there is no law for or against same-sex unions in Tenn. either. Prcc27 ( talk) 08:42, 29 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. |
Missouri judge has just overturned constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and the ruling was not stayed. Would like the page to be updated to reflect MO as performing same-sex marriage from previously recognizing marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/missouri-gay-marriage_n_6110348.html 2607:F140:400:A011:AD3B:1A2F:E95A:601F ( talk) 22:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if the ruling applies to St. Louis only or to all of Missouri. If it is state-wide, the template should be updated with Missouri, but if St. Louis only, there should be no change to the template just yet. Kumorifox ( talk) 00:19, 6 November 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. |
Australia now recognizes same sex marriage: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/13/australia-new-south-wales-legalises-recognition-of-overseas-same-sex-marriages/ 86.3.200.81 ( talk) 09:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Since Michigan's same-sex marriage ban was upheld, shouldn't it be removed from the "Previously performed and not invalidated" section..? [1] Prcc27 ( talk) 02:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/16/3592750/michigan-void-marriages/; this seems to suggest that the marriages are in a "limbo" state, and not necessarily invalid (they're still being recognized by the federal government remember). I think perhaps they should be included under a different heading.
please change from "10 tribes" to "11 tribes", see Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 10:06, 18 November 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. |
In the civil unions section, why are Gibraltar, Isle of Man, and Jersey listed separately and not under United Kingdom, as is the case with Greenland under Denmark, etc.? 104.174.8.144 ( talk) 14:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do we have the odd parenthetic comment on Kansas? We have not done this for other states that have had rulings against a ban where the circuit and SCOTUS have refused to hear the state's appeals. The ruling makes it clear that same-sex marriage must be allowed and recognized in Kansas. We should remove the count of counties that are actually following the ruling. Difbobatl ( talk) 03:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This vote does *not* legalize SSM in Finland, it is rather a vote to officially consider there is still a committee vote and then another vote of the entire parliament. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141128/world-europe/article/finland-takes-first-step-towards-legalising-gay-marriage Naraht ( talk) 19:50, 28 November 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 listing for New Zealand under "Marriage" should have bullets under it that read "New Zealand proper" and "Ross Dependency" since same-sex marriage is not legal in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. This information can be found on the "Same-sex marriage in New Zealand" page. 98.71.18.19 ( talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Good catch! I added NZ proper only, not the Ross Dependency, as it is doubtful any marriages will be performed there and it will just clog up the template.
Kumorifox (
talk)
20:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Aside from this ruling only being a preliminary injunction, the same-sex marriage performance part of this ruling is stayed indefinitely: "The Circuit Clerk of Hinds County shall continue to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex applicants and only those applicants until further word from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court." Thus, same-sex marriage recognition will go into effect in two weeks but same-sex marriage performance will not go in effect until we hear from a higher court [3]. Prcc27 ( talk) 07:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the point is moot, as the 5th granted a permanent stay. I took the liberty of removing MS from the template, so it is in line with TX with its permanent stay. Kumorifox ( talk) 21:16, 4 December 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 asterix following "Mexico" in the side-column reads "4" -- it should read "5". Thanks.
99.232.70.85 ( talk) 21:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Vietnam has abolished the ban on same-sex marriages, even though the marriages are neither officially recognised nor protected by the government. But people can now get married in Vietnam. Should this be mentioned in the template? See [7] for the source. Kumorifox ( talk) 05:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage isn't necessarily legal in Alabama: [8] Prcc27 ( talk) 07:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Then at least add an asterisk after Alabama instead of removing it every time. The ban was struck, there is no stay, and no limitations were placed on the ruling itself. We are just waiting on clarification from the judge; until then, the ban is de jure struck and unenforceable. Kumorifox ( talk) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you add Chile in this List, please?. Chile approves same-sex civil unions. Thank you! http://news.yahoo.com/chilean-lawmakers-approve-same-sex-civil-unions-011329435.html
Cquezadam (
talk)
16:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
18:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 ( talk) 08:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I fine-tuned the wording for Missouri's footnote; switched it from "Only legal in St. Louis, Missouri" to "Only legalized in St. Louis city, Missouri". I believe it more accurately captures the intricacies of both the legal decision and the difference between St. Louis city and county. Thanks, Abe g92 contribs 17:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
SSM is legal in all 50 states. (No-where will you be convicted of a crime for SSM.) It is recognized in all of MO. But only in St. Louis is legally required to issue licenses, while two other counties issue them without being required. So neither "legal" or "legalized" are correct. — kwami ( talk) 06:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Removing the * from Michigan regarding recognition of previously preformed marriages. Recognition is no longer pending. It took effect February 5, 2016, 21 days after the January 15, 2015 ruling in Casper v. Snyder http://freemarry.3cdn.net/a23500c04c85189d47_50m6b90fz.pdf and the state is not appealing http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277--346819--,00.html
Toajones8 ( talk) 05:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
*
next to MI, so I can't remove it. Please be more clear with what you want or preferably show us by putting the desired change in the /sandbox per
WP:TESTCASES. Thanks. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
188.246.72.30 ( talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about what change you want done? I don't see a problem with the text in the template, myself. Kumorifox ( talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. In this line in the original template, the semicolon is after the quotation marks
{| class="collapsible collapsed plainlist" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #E6E6FA";
and it should be before it and then the "See more" section expands to the full width of the rest like so
{| class="collapsible collapsed plainlist" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #E6E6FA;"
You can try it in the template and you'll see that it affects it. --
188.246.72.30 (
talk)
22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
President of Finland just signed the gender-neutral marriage law. The map should be changed then. We usually don't wait the moment the law take effect.
2A02:1205:34CE:ED30:6525:BE10:E8FB:AD4B ( talk) 16:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Template changed and asterisk added. Not sure if a footnote is needed, as the law will not go into effect until March 2017.
Kumorifox (
talk)
17:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In Venezuela the recognition of same sex couples not exist. The information about of the state Mérida with the same sex couples is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJAJ55 ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what to do w AL. Technically legal, but apparently licenses are no longer being issued anywhere in the state. I added a fn; feel free to change. — kwami ( talk) 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Slovenia. 82.132.218.75 ( talk) 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that Sicily should be marked in light blue. Although civil unions in other Italian regions are symbolical, Sicily is semi-autonomous region and recently approved civil unions:
http://livesicilia.it/2015/03/21/registro-delle-unioni-civili-sicilia-modello-per-litalia_608641/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.100.211 ( talk) 14:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Guam recognizes all marriages legally performed outside of the territory. See page 3 of this document, and this secondary source. Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't Malta be removed from the recognition column per previous consensus and because there isn't a source that explicitly says Malta recognizes same-sex marriages? Prcc27 ( talk) 01:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to list St. Louis as issuing under court order, because the other two jurisdictions are technically rogue! Prcc27 ( talk) 19:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
update on the number of tribal jurisdictions to 23 + 1 necessary, see Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 09:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
According to this article, Mexico has complete access to SSM, even though couples may have to go to a judge to get an injunction if they are initially refused a license. Is this ready for inclusion in the template, or is it necessary for the Supreme Court in Mexico to rule outright on the ban? Kumorifox ( talk) 17:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the British overseas territory of Pitcairn Islands have legalized same-sex marriage via an ordinance issued by the Governor on 5 May and published on 13 May 2015. It took effect on the day after publication. See [9], [10], [11]. Ron 1987 ( talk) 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Should we treat the crown dependencies and overseas territories as a part of the UK? Ron 1987 ( talk) 02:57, 21 April 2015 (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 state of Chihuaha just turned blue.
2A02:1205:505F:7050:ACA4:DA48:77DD:F3B0 ( talk) 11:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
So I noticed that all of the Mexican states have been changed to their full names. While I like the idea, things will probably be changing quickly there now that the Supreme Court has created the precedent necessary to force change across the states. I think that we should stick with the two letter abbreviations for the states, primarily because there simply won't be enough room to list all of them later. Thoughts or proposals? Chase1493 ( talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright well then I'm going to go ahead and make the change. Hopefully it doesn't get reverted. Thanks for the input. Chase1493 ( talk) 18:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
From looking at Administrative divisions of Mexico, it appears that the entire concept of which two letter abbreviations to use for each state represents Original Research. Should we use the three letter ISO codes instead? Naraht ( talk) 23:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The supreme court has ruled same sex marriage legal nation wide ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341) 87.112.206.54 ( talk) 14:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Stop adding a disclaimer about places that aren't following the law according to the SCOTUS! We don't list any given judge anywhere else that doesn't follow their own law. There is absolutely no consensus to change this on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The Inclusion Criteria for this template state: "When marriage has been legalized through a US court decision, we wait until either the supreme court in the jurisdiction affirms the decision" - this has occurred, and therefore there is no need for any additional notation on the US listing. No talk has been given to changing that! Difbobatl ( talk) 12:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And if anyone wants a citation, a quote from the opinion by Justice Kennedy: " The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize samesex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character." Difbobatl ( talk) 00:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Texas AG is telling county workers they don't have to issue SSM licenses, and tho they might face lawsuits if they have no-one to take over for them, the state has a bevy of lawyers to defend them. Sounds like marriage might not be open to SS couples across the state (tho presumably people can go to the next county over, as they can in Kansas). — kwami ( talk) 05:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I see that all states are licensing SSM now anyway. Difbobatl ( talk) 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There has not been enough time for a consensus. WP:No Deadline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The situation in the US has nothing to do with the situation in Greenland (other than American Samoa). This is why it would be a good idea to sublist the territories. There is no reason for an obsession about doing it "soon!"... Difbobatl ( talk) 04:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, now all 50 states and DC recognize SSM. If we want to be consistent with what we've done with other countries, and if we feel the need to further footnote the US, we need to sublist US Proper and Territories (with Tribal Jurisdictions as an additional if there is consensus). Then the footnotes can go to the section as appropriate. This is what was done with Greenland, UK, etc... Difbobatl ( talk) 17:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think, tribal jurisdictions should be included into the template because they are in a way sovereign jurisdictions sui generis not (yet) covered by US law in that particular field 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 09:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Last I saw with Puerto Rico, *everybody* involved is trying to get the commonwealth's "win" at the District level erased ASAP with the commonwealth committed to have all of its paperwork and regs ready for July 15. http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=21162&MediaType=1&Category=26
I think we should add Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius to Netherlands. SSM is legal in Caribbean Netherlands. -- Simon 015 ( talk) 11:03, 13 July 2015 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Please stop proposing we replace the individual same-sex marriage articles with a wikilink. This proposal is being proposed way too many times, and has already failed here, here, here, here and was recently re-proposed here (and will probably fail). Thank you! -- Prcc27 ( talk) 11:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
“ | As it appears that you are in an edit war on the template I would suggest that you take a step back and confine yourself to the talk page. | ” |
@ Technical 13: "Insisting that places that do not currently recognize same sex marriage on a template that is specifically only for places that do currently recognize SSM" This again? How about adding a new section at the bottom of the template, or a part at the bottom of each section (like there are with the "recognised, not performed" states and countries) that lists countries, states, regions etc. where laws were signed, or the government decided not to appeal, or whatever, and the laws are due to go into effect at any time? It shows the legal status of SSM or similar unions in those locations, and sets them apart by showing there is some form of legality definitely pending there. Places where there is absolutely nothing pending will naturally be left out. But countries like Luxembourg, Scotland, and Estonia, and states like Florida and Wyoming must be mentioned in order to show progress with same-sex unions. The template is generally the first impression people get on this topic, and first impressions do matter, just as much on Wikipedia as outside of it, and they should give as complete a picture as possible. Kumorifox ( talk) 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As the person who made the most recent proposal (to switch from listing US states that permit SSM to listing those that do not), it might be useful for me to make a comment. I understand the reasons why some people feel that we have not yet reached the right time to make this change. However, there will come a time when not permitting SSM will be far more exceptional and noteworthy than permitting it. We perhaps haven't reached this point yet, but I suspect we can all see it coming. When there are only a few exceptional areas - perhaps Northern Ireland in the UK, and one or two states in the USA - it seems to me that the sensible thing to do will be to have articles on the absence of SSM in those areas, explaining why this has not happened, rather than to have pointers to the states where SSM has become a normal part of the legal and cultural landscape. As an encyclopedia we will certainly have articles on how SSM came to all the places where it is legal, but what our readers are likely to want in the future, at least in the first instance, is information about the hold-outs. At some point in the future the template should reflect this, because if you live in a place where SSM is the norm - and this is increasingly true for our readership - you're unlikely to question it, any more than anyone nowadays wonders why black people and white people can get married. In time, the question people are more likely to ask is "why doesn't this place permit people of the same sex to get married?". The time may not yet be ripe to make this change, but at some stage it will be. I see no harm in discussing this topic from time to time, and reviewing whether we've yet got to the stage that it will be more helpful to our readers to make the change from listing places where SSM is permitted to listing places where SSM is not permitted. I should also note that I feel that one or two editors may be taking this topic a little personally, and may be attempting to "own" this issue. I feel this is unwise and uncollegial, and hope that a calmer mindset will prevail. Thank you. RomanSpa ( talk) 17:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
OK folks, we're getting petty with the language now. Let's steer this conversation back on track.
From what I can tell, we have two camps, and everyone in each camp has their own reasons for wanting to keep the states or wanting to remove them, and I include myself in this as well. Let me list some reasons I managed to comprehend from the discussions above.
1/ Listing every state is messy.
2/ Listing every state puts undue emphasis on the US.
1/ It makes for easier access to each state where marriage equality is the legal rule.
2/ It is less confusing as people can see at a glance what regions have marriage equality.
Here's my personal take on this. Feel free to (dis)agree.
So let's hear it, please. If you have a suggestion for improved aesthetics while keeping the access user-friendly, please make it. If you feel that improving aesthetics will worsen user-friendliness, say why you think this is. The main thing I want to know on this issue is why people say what they say. I can see a lot of reasons for each point listed above (and I'm sure I left out plenty of points, so feel free to add, but keep it comprehensible please, this discussion is getting confusing), and I can see the merits both for keeping and for removing the states. We just need to get to a compromising solution. Kumorifox ( talk) 15:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
We should include local govts. in the template. Many local govts. in Italy recognize same-sex marriage and should be included as well as local govts. in Italy and the U.S. that have same-sex unions. This template has had local govts. represented before (New Mexican counties) and before you argue "there was no law for or against same-sex marriage in New Mexico" well, there is no law for or against same-sex unions in Tenn. either. Prcc27 ( talk) 08:42, 29 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. |
Missouri judge has just overturned constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and the ruling was not stayed. Would like the page to be updated to reflect MO as performing same-sex marriage from previously recognizing marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/missouri-gay-marriage_n_6110348.html 2607:F140:400:A011:AD3B:1A2F:E95A:601F ( talk) 22:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if the ruling applies to St. Louis only or to all of Missouri. If it is state-wide, the template should be updated with Missouri, but if St. Louis only, there should be no change to the template just yet. Kumorifox ( talk) 00:19, 6 November 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. |
Australia now recognizes same sex marriage: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/13/australia-new-south-wales-legalises-recognition-of-overseas-same-sex-marriages/ 86.3.200.81 ( talk) 09:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Since Michigan's same-sex marriage ban was upheld, shouldn't it be removed from the "Previously performed and not invalidated" section..? [1] Prcc27 ( talk) 02:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/16/3592750/michigan-void-marriages/; this seems to suggest that the marriages are in a "limbo" state, and not necessarily invalid (they're still being recognized by the federal government remember). I think perhaps they should be included under a different heading.
please change from "10 tribes" to "11 tribes", see Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 10:06, 18 November 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. |
In the civil unions section, why are Gibraltar, Isle of Man, and Jersey listed separately and not under United Kingdom, as is the case with Greenland under Denmark, etc.? 104.174.8.144 ( talk) 14:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Why do we have the odd parenthetic comment on Kansas? We have not done this for other states that have had rulings against a ban where the circuit and SCOTUS have refused to hear the state's appeals. The ruling makes it clear that same-sex marriage must be allowed and recognized in Kansas. We should remove the count of counties that are actually following the ruling. Difbobatl ( talk) 03:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This vote does *not* legalize SSM in Finland, it is rather a vote to officially consider there is still a committee vote and then another vote of the entire parliament. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141128/world-europe/article/finland-takes-first-step-towards-legalising-gay-marriage Naraht ( talk) 19:50, 28 November 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 listing for New Zealand under "Marriage" should have bullets under it that read "New Zealand proper" and "Ross Dependency" since same-sex marriage is not legal in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. This information can be found on the "Same-sex marriage in New Zealand" page. 98.71.18.19 ( talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Good catch! I added NZ proper only, not the Ross Dependency, as it is doubtful any marriages will be performed there and it will just clog up the template.
Kumorifox (
talk)
20:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Aside from this ruling only being a preliminary injunction, the same-sex marriage performance part of this ruling is stayed indefinitely: "The Circuit Clerk of Hinds County shall continue to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex applicants and only those applicants until further word from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court." Thus, same-sex marriage recognition will go into effect in two weeks but same-sex marriage performance will not go in effect until we hear from a higher court [3]. Prcc27 ( talk) 07:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the point is moot, as the 5th granted a permanent stay. I took the liberty of removing MS from the template, so it is in line with TX with its permanent stay. Kumorifox ( talk) 21:16, 4 December 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 asterix following "Mexico" in the side-column reads "4" -- it should read "5". Thanks.
99.232.70.85 ( talk) 21:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Vietnam has abolished the ban on same-sex marriages, even though the marriages are neither officially recognised nor protected by the government. But people can now get married in Vietnam. Should this be mentioned in the template? See [7] for the source. Kumorifox ( talk) 05:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage isn't necessarily legal in Alabama: [8] Prcc27 ( talk) 07:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Then at least add an asterisk after Alabama instead of removing it every time. The ban was struck, there is no stay, and no limitations were placed on the ruling itself. We are just waiting on clarification from the judge; until then, the ban is de jure struck and unenforceable. Kumorifox ( talk) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you add Chile in this List, please?. Chile approves same-sex civil unions. Thank you! http://news.yahoo.com/chilean-lawmakers-approve-same-sex-civil-unions-011329435.html
Cquezadam (
talk)
16:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
18:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 ( talk) 08:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I fine-tuned the wording for Missouri's footnote; switched it from "Only legal in St. Louis, Missouri" to "Only legalized in St. Louis city, Missouri". I believe it more accurately captures the intricacies of both the legal decision and the difference between St. Louis city and county. Thanks, Abe g92 contribs 17:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
SSM is legal in all 50 states. (No-where will you be convicted of a crime for SSM.) It is recognized in all of MO. But only in St. Louis is legally required to issue licenses, while two other counties issue them without being required. So neither "legal" or "legalized" are correct. — kwami ( talk) 06:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Removing the * from Michigan regarding recognition of previously preformed marriages. Recognition is no longer pending. It took effect February 5, 2016, 21 days after the January 15, 2015 ruling in Casper v. Snyder http://freemarry.3cdn.net/a23500c04c85189d47_50m6b90fz.pdf and the state is not appealing http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277--346819--,00.html
Toajones8 ( talk) 05:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
*
next to MI, so I can't remove it. Please be more clear with what you want or preferably show us by putting the desired change in the /sandbox per
WP:TESTCASES. Thanks. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
188.246.72.30 ( talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about what change you want done? I don't see a problem with the text in the template, myself. Kumorifox ( talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. In this line in the original template, the semicolon is after the quotation marks
{| class="collapsible collapsed plainlist" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #E6E6FA";
and it should be before it and then the "See more" section expands to the full width of the rest like so
{| class="collapsible collapsed plainlist" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #E6E6FA;"
You can try it in the template and you'll see that it affects it. --
188.246.72.30 (
talk)
22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
President of Finland just signed the gender-neutral marriage law. The map should be changed then. We usually don't wait the moment the law take effect.
2A02:1205:34CE:ED30:6525:BE10:E8FB:AD4B ( talk) 16:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Template changed and asterisk added. Not sure if a footnote is needed, as the law will not go into effect until March 2017.
Kumorifox (
talk)
17:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In Venezuela the recognition of same sex couples not exist. The information about of the state Mérida with the same sex couples is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJAJ55 ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what to do w AL. Technically legal, but apparently licenses are no longer being issued anywhere in the state. I added a fn; feel free to change. — kwami ( talk) 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Slovenia. 82.132.218.75 ( talk) 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that Sicily should be marked in light blue. Although civil unions in other Italian regions are symbolical, Sicily is semi-autonomous region and recently approved civil unions:
http://livesicilia.it/2015/03/21/registro-delle-unioni-civili-sicilia-modello-per-litalia_608641/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.100.211 ( talk) 14:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Guam recognizes all marriages legally performed outside of the territory. See page 3 of this document, and this secondary source. Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't Malta be removed from the recognition column per previous consensus and because there isn't a source that explicitly says Malta recognizes same-sex marriages? Prcc27 ( talk) 01:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to list St. Louis as issuing under court order, because the other two jurisdictions are technically rogue! Prcc27 ( talk) 19:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
update on the number of tribal jurisdictions to 23 + 1 necessary, see Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 09:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
According to this article, Mexico has complete access to SSM, even though couples may have to go to a judge to get an injunction if they are initially refused a license. Is this ready for inclusion in the template, or is it necessary for the Supreme Court in Mexico to rule outright on the ban? Kumorifox ( talk) 17:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the British overseas territory of Pitcairn Islands have legalized same-sex marriage via an ordinance issued by the Governor on 5 May and published on 13 May 2015. It took effect on the day after publication. See [9], [10], [11]. Ron 1987 ( talk) 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Should we treat the crown dependencies and overseas territories as a part of the UK? Ron 1987 ( talk) 02:57, 21 April 2015 (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 state of Chihuaha just turned blue.
2A02:1205:505F:7050:ACA4:DA48:77DD:F3B0 ( talk) 11:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
So I noticed that all of the Mexican states have been changed to their full names. While I like the idea, things will probably be changing quickly there now that the Supreme Court has created the precedent necessary to force change across the states. I think that we should stick with the two letter abbreviations for the states, primarily because there simply won't be enough room to list all of them later. Thoughts or proposals? Chase1493 ( talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright well then I'm going to go ahead and make the change. Hopefully it doesn't get reverted. Thanks for the input. Chase1493 ( talk) 18:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
From looking at Administrative divisions of Mexico, it appears that the entire concept of which two letter abbreviations to use for each state represents Original Research. Should we use the three letter ISO codes instead? Naraht ( talk) 23:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The supreme court has ruled same sex marriage legal nation wide ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341) 87.112.206.54 ( talk) 14:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Stop adding a disclaimer about places that aren't following the law according to the SCOTUS! We don't list any given judge anywhere else that doesn't follow their own law. There is absolutely no consensus to change this on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The Inclusion Criteria for this template state: "When marriage has been legalized through a US court decision, we wait until either the supreme court in the jurisdiction affirms the decision" - this has occurred, and therefore there is no need for any additional notation on the US listing. No talk has been given to changing that! Difbobatl ( talk) 12:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And if anyone wants a citation, a quote from the opinion by Justice Kennedy: " The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize samesex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character." Difbobatl ( talk) 00:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Texas AG is telling county workers they don't have to issue SSM licenses, and tho they might face lawsuits if they have no-one to take over for them, the state has a bevy of lawyers to defend them. Sounds like marriage might not be open to SS couples across the state (tho presumably people can go to the next county over, as they can in Kansas). — kwami ( talk) 05:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I see that all states are licensing SSM now anyway. Difbobatl ( talk) 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There has not been enough time for a consensus. WP:No Deadline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The situation in the US has nothing to do with the situation in Greenland (other than American Samoa). This is why it would be a good idea to sublist the territories. There is no reason for an obsession about doing it "soon!"... Difbobatl ( talk) 04:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, now all 50 states and DC recognize SSM. If we want to be consistent with what we've done with other countries, and if we feel the need to further footnote the US, we need to sublist US Proper and Territories (with Tribal Jurisdictions as an additional if there is consensus). Then the footnotes can go to the section as appropriate. This is what was done with Greenland, UK, etc... Difbobatl ( talk) 17:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think, tribal jurisdictions should be included into the template because they are in a way sovereign jurisdictions sui generis not (yet) covered by US law in that particular field 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 09:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Last I saw with Puerto Rico, *everybody* involved is trying to get the commonwealth's "win" at the District level erased ASAP with the commonwealth committed to have all of its paperwork and regs ready for July 15. http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=21162&MediaType=1&Category=26
I think we should add Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius to Netherlands. SSM is legal in Caribbean Netherlands. -- Simon 015 ( talk) 11:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)