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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Why is Israel in the recognition column when the article says "The ruling specifies that a record made by the Administration of Border Crossings, Population and Immigration is a statistical record which does not constitute official recognition of same-sex marriage by the state"? Maybe Israel should be removed from the recognition column unless someone has a source that Israel fully recognizes same-sex marriages.. Prcc27 ( talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Virgin Islands performs same-sex marriage but unless there's a reliable source that it also recognizes it then there should be a footnote! The judge only ordered performance, not recognition! [1] Prcc27 ( talk) 07:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
There are two reasons why I continue to remove the US tribal bullet point.
Therefore, I see no reason to keep adding a bullet point to what is already a clustered US listing. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 03:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This template is about civil rights, not tribal rights. It's outside of the scope of this file. Njsustain ( talk) 06:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There are several sovereign states within the boundaries of the United States that do not rec SSM, and which are not required to under the SCOTUS ruling. To make a blanket statement saying SSM is legal in the United States is therefor false. If we do not give a note about the tribes, then we cannot honestly say SSM is legal in the US. — kwami ( talk) 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The entire US has SSM except for American Samoa, and NMI which intends to comply. The "United States Proper" bullet is ludicrous... has anyone ever seen this term used anywhere else? So, how about we just have "United States", possibly with a footnote: "Not in effect in MP, and AS, [with links]"? The footnote could even be an appropriate place to mention some native tribes are not complying, if there is consensus to do so and it's referenced. I don't think the latter warrants inclusion though, even as a footnote here. Njsustain ( talk) 12:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
First same-sex marriage took place in Northern Mariana Islands on July 22, so we can remove the asterix. See [3], [4]. Ron 1987 ( talk) 06:54, 27 July 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. |
There is no reliable source that can confirm the existence of civil unions in the state of Mérida, Venezuela. There is no recognition of same-sex couples in this country. Can you delete it, please? TitoBRPA ( talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Textorus: Hey, when I removed Malta from the template a user shared this link to justify Malta being in the recognition column. Does that source suffice? Prcc27 ( talk) 06:09, 14 September 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. |
Same sex marriage is recognized in Malta when married overseas Renard98 ( talk) 07:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage in Greenland is legal, a law providing for same-sex marriage is yet in effect since 1 October.
What constitutes "now in effect"? The Marriage Bill is now the Marriage Act (signed into law as of 29 Oct. 2015), I would've thought that would remove the asterisk. Or do we wait fir the Minister to issue the first commencement order for same-sex couples already in a civil partnership, who can make use of a 5 day fast track provision. Jono52795 ( talk) 01:00, 30 October 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. |
Remove Malta. Own page clearly states it isn't recognised as being a "marriage". 5.179.66.114 ( talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Please could you take off the asterisk from Greece?The law was effective immediately .See /info/en/?search=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Greece Weatherextremes ( talk) 12:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I added Guernsey to the template given that reliable sources such as the BBC have reported that same-sex marriage has passed the legislature. However, this was removed by two editors. Should Guernsey be included, like other jurisdictions, with an asterisk indicatng 'not yet in effect'? AusLondonder ( talk) 22:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Same sex marriage is not legal in Guerrero. So can we take it out of the template, and Can someone please edit the map of Mexico because I don´t know how to change it. Thanks in advance. Can you help me User:Prcc27 I will really appreciate it. http://elbigdata.mx/diversidad/invalidos-20-matrimonios-gays-en-acapulco-registro-civil/ -- Allan120102 ( talk) 00:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
By the page's own description, Malta does not recognise them as "marriages" even if for all intents and purposes they may be the same thing. This should be removed. 5.179.66.114 ( talk) 09:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Removing a whole section with a SPER is a bit outside the scope. Please gather consensus from other editors, then open this again --
allthefoxes (
Talk)
16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Taiwan had less subentries than several other countries, I don't see the reason to change that to "Various Juristictions". Naraht ( talk) 18:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that say same-sex marriage is recognized in Israel and Malta..? Prcc27💋 ( talk) 05:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Prcc27: Hi, does this
[8] suffice as a reliable source to justify Malta being listed as recognizing same-sex marriages performed overseas. Article 18 of the Marriage Act points out that all marriages which are valid in the country in which they were performed are also valid in Malta:
"Validity and annulment of marriages
18. A marriage, whether celebrated in Malta or abroad, shall be
valid for all purposes of law in Malta if -
(a) as regards the formalities thereof, the formalities
required for its validity by the law of the country
where the marriage is celebrated are observed; and
(b) as regards the capacity of the parties, each of the
persons to be married is, by the law of the country of
his or her respective domicile, capable of contracting
marriage."
Jedi Friend (
talk)
16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the Associated Press, the Guardian and other sources, the Constitutional Court rejected the draft of the ruling to uphold the current definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, prepared by judge Jorge Pretelt. Judge Alberto Rojas Río was assigned to prepare the new draft of the ruling in line with a majority's view (i.e. to declare that prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married is unconstitutional). So, same-sex marriage is not legal yet. It will be legal, when the final ruling is issued. See
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13].
Ron 1987 (
talk)
00:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
EDIT:
Here is Constitutional Court's statement.
Ron 1987 (
talk)
02:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is the Isle of Man being excluded from this template? @ Ron 1987: the sources, such as the BBC and PinkNews indicate the Isle has passed same-sex marriage. If it awaits royal assent (a formal process) why should it not be included with an asterisk? AusLondonder ( talk) 21:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Now that the Faroe Islands have passed gay marriage (of course, pending ratification by the Danish parliament) all constituent countries of the Realm of Denmark have marriage equality. Does the 'denmark split' in the template still make sense? Shall the items 'Denmark proper' and 'Greenland' disappear from the template and merge in one link to 'Denmark' where one can access the sections 'greenland' and 'faroe islands'? Intuitively I think this would be the most logical move to do since there is no longer the need to differentiate national subdivisions with same-sex marriage from other constituencies without it (which was the original purpose of the split). Finedelledanze ( talk) 18:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It is still premature to list Morelos on the template. Other Mexican states have been amending their family or civil code (where the bill must be passed and then published in the state's gazette), Morelos is legislating a state constitutional amendment. Step one is approval by Congress; step two is ratification by the states' municipalities. Until ratification is complete, Morelos should remain off the list. Andrew1444 ( talk) 00:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
see /info/en/?search=LGBT_rights_in_Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha#Recognition_of_same-sex_relationships signature/royal assent hopefully soon 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 09:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
see /info/en/?search=LGBT_rights_in_the_Philippines#Marriages_by_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Philippines ... should it be added to the template? 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 11:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Since Finland will have same-sex partnerships available up until same-sex marriage is legal there- I feel like it should be added to the partnership column. I was reverted when I added Finland to it. Prcc27🌍 ( talk) 04:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
any need to add the Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions#Osage_Nation separately? 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 09:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This template really should be converted to make use of {{ Sidebar with collapsible lists}}. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Japan has started partnership yet it was written on the side but now it's gone. It started in 5 areas already but I think no one likes Japan. I feel sad that someone has to delete the "Japan" part. I hope all of Japan section for LGBT won't be deleted then I will be very sad that Wiki has to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.187.101.117 ( talk) 15:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Here are the sources: http://life.letibee.com/partnership-japan-20160226/ http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/2015/11/04/lgbt-couple-shibuya-setagaya_n_8475140.html
The partnership allows a person over 20 years old or older in 5 cities which are Setagaya ward, Shibuya ward, Takarazuka city, Iga city, Naha city. And the merits to have this certificate is so the couples can rent a room, get insurance together, get mobile phone plans together, the person can visit the partner at a hospital when he/ she is hospitalized for emergencies with no questions asked, and inheritance for things when one of the partner passes away. The only down side for this certificate is that it doesn't allow the partner to get visa to stay easily but it can be negotiated through the government depending on how the other partner can work in Japan or not. And foreigners can get this certificate as well. Not just Japanese only. If there is more source needed I will write it down but it feels so awkward that other countries doesn't need so much source yet for certain countries you need a lot of source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.187.101.117 ( talk) 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added them to the template and have sources. The sources were located on the same-sex union legislation page. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] TenorTwelve ( talk) 05:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a question. Can we add that certain embassies perform same-sex marriages? I know the UK does that. [6] Could this be included in some way? I was not thinking of putting down each country but acknowledging that certain embassies across the world perform marriages. For example, the UK marriages I think should be listed under the UK if edits like this were adopted. Anyone have thoughts? Are there any other countries that do this? TenorTwelve ( talk) 23:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep! TenorTwelve ( talk) 05:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
And if anyone else has comments, feel free.
It sounds like Peru will recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of Peru. This was from a ruling from a Constitutional Court. This may be appealed (so we should keep an eye on this) but it doesn't have to and I hear it has "immediate nationwide impact," a commentator said. Sources [7] [8] English translation and commentary [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenorTwelve ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Today some sources like Politico, Reuters or Pink News incorrectly claimed that Slovenia has legalised same-sex marriage. The law, which was passed by the parliament in April 2016 and took effect today, significantly expanded the rights of same-sex partnerships. It's not marriage. See [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). Marriage is still available to opposite-sex couples only. See article 3 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act. Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I won't jump the gun like I did last time, but want to note that an appeals court in Estonia has ruled same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions must be recognized. I am not familiar with the court system, but I presume it will be appealed again, but I wanted to put this on our radar for a possible action to come. [10] TenorTwelve ( talk) 22:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC) This article suggests that it does apply to all couples as opposed to just the plaintiffs, but this is just one source. TenorTwelve ( talk) 23:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
More on Estonia: is it appropriate to say that civil unions are in force? No implementing legislation has been passed (therefore no instruction on how public officials should conduct ceremonies may be available, or on how to convert foreign marriages into civil unions, and so on), this could affect the law making it de facto void while being in force. Can any Estonian user confirm that civil unions are currently being performed? Thanks Finedelledanze ( talk) 17:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
References
The Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint Eustatius) are a part of the Netherlands proper. Separate listing makes no sense. Ron 1987 ( talk) 15:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
In legal terms recognition and transcription (or registration) of foreign marriages are not the same thing: whereas the former implies that the recognized foreign marriage is treated on a par with domestic marriage (obtaining all the rights that married opposite-sex couples enjoy), the latter is simply a public notification that the same-sex couple got married in another country, but without other effects than this. Reading the wiki pages on Estonia and Israel, it is not clear whether these countries recognize or simply register same-sex marriage. In my country, Italy, EU law has been applied and the right to have same-sex marriage registered has been won in many individual court proceedings. However, this carries a mostly symbolic value, since no other rights apply to these couples. Situation may vary still if the couple or one of them are foreign-national. I wonder whether Estonia and Israel are in the same situation as Italy. Estonia in particular seems ambiguous. Finedelledanze ( talk) 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The Keelung City approved sex-same partnership-- 190.124.155.112 ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Japan's same sex registration in the limited jurisdictions have no legal effect and therefore should be removed.
Paullb ( talk) 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Paullb ( talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see the same-sex marriage in Mexico page; reports that same-sex marriages are performed without amparos in Guerrero and Tamaulipas are erroneous. I removed those references for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsalerno ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
In the US only minor jurisdictions (in size/population) don't recognise/perform SSM, that being American Samoa the overseas territory and an indeterminate number of tribal jurisdictions scattered over the country, all located in states where it is legal. Obviously that's a little different to the UK, where Northern Ireland is one of the four home nations, but the remaining jurisdictions are all overseas territories. In short, why can't we just name United Kingdom and United States and attach small numbers to them, where a note on the situation is shown at the bottom of the template (just like what currently appears for Armenia and Israel). Thoughts? Jono52795 ( talk) 03:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Slovenia allows gay marriage. It should be displayed in the info box and on the map.
The only reason I can imagine for not identifying Slovenia is the lack of adoption/IVF rights. But this was the case originally in Portugal and probably other countries, and is not a valid reason to exclude accurate information about marital rights. 73.134.0.36 ( talk) 15:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Was reading http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/when-will-samesex-couples-be-able-to-marry-after-law-in-australia-changes/news-story/d5c5eecef4e5d9cb16df9abec0025c8d . So the steps are Royal Assent, at which point we add the country with a star. When the Government indicate that the law has commenced we add to the recognizes foreign marriages, and then since couples getting married in Australia need to give 1 month notice which can't actually happen until after the date of commencement, we actually take off the star when the first marriage occurs in Australia? These are my *guesses*, I'd like other comments. Naraht ( talk) 19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The star should now be removed. The law is in effect and recognizes overseas marriages. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So, between now and January 9 (or whenever the first date that a Same Sex Couple who filled out the paperwork first thing could actually tie the knot), do we list them with the star or not? As far as I can tell, there is complete equality now in Australia, the delay is exactly the same for Same Sex and Opposite Sex couples. Naraht ( talk) 13:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
How should we handle this Taiwan ruling? It's supposed to be be binding in two years, right? Isseubnida ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It's binding in two years, but as no bill has been passed yet, I don't think we should include it. It's more than just "not yet in effect" - there is no law. Jdcooper ( talk) 10:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The court ruling, to my rather uninformed eyes, appears to mirror the Taiwan case. A law banning same-sex marriage has essentially been struck down by court, telling the legislature to amend the law by a certain date into the future, and a fair bit of crystal gazing requires us to consider it simply "not in effect". If that was the basis for Taiwan not (yet) being included in the template, personally I think Austria should be treated the same. Thoughts? Pinging Prcc27, Jdcooper, Andrew1444 who all contributed to the Taiwan discussion. Jono52795 ( talk) 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Also Ron 1987 who added Austria in the first place. Jono52795 ( talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update recognition of same-sex unions in Poland as "unregistered cohabitation" similar as situation to San Marino? 80.51.136.158 ( talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the Recognition of same-sex unions in Jersey, it still hasn't passed the legislature. (It seems to be the opposite end of the scale from Australia in that *lots* of other marriage related changes to the law have gotten attached to it.) Also, I think the decision has been made to wait until royal assent to list it. Do we have any information that they are recognizing marriages from elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs)
A treaty is defined as law in almost all states in Western Hemisphere democracies. The Inter-American court ruling singles out Costa Rica. I will keep changing this back to a correct Costa Rica with an asterisk. Andrew1444 ( talk) 02:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there has been a change in Russia. Same-sex marriages established abroad are recognised, probably following Orlandi and Others vs Italy, as well as Oliari and Others vs Italy.-- 86.154.206.6 ( talk) 11:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It has passed the State of Jersey, now needs Royal Assent. So Jersey should continue to be listed in those that don't have it. And there is no Governor General to do it like Australia... Naraht ( talk) 23:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If Austria is listed under "marriage" with a remark saying it's not yet in effect, then Taiwan should also be dealt with in the same way. (I remember initially after the constitutional ruling in May last year, Taiwan was listed under "marriage" but was removed later on.)
Justification: Both Austria and Taiwan are currently in a very similar transition stage, where the constitutional court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and given a period of time before it automatically takes effect, if marriage laws are not amended. The deadlines are only a few months apart between the two countries (Austria: January 2019; Taiwan: May 2019). In short, I don't see any reason why the two countries are listed differently.
Many thanks. :) LYTCHG ( talk) 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Per the recent ECJ ruling described here: Recognition of same-sex unions in Romania#2018 European Court of Justice ruling, shouldn't a few countries be added to the "Marriage recognized" section (albeit with a footnote stating that it's only when performed in an EU country etc)? Namely Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, and Italy. Or do we have to wait for confirmation from the individual countries that they will abide by the ruling? Or is there something else I've misinterpreted? If we are changing it then the table at Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe also needs updating. Jdcooper ( talk) 16:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
in situations where an EU citizen, who has been living in another EU member state, wants to return to their country of origin, their same-sex marriage must now be recognised under EU law. The same law applies for EU citizens moving to any other EU member state – so for example if Coman had wanted to move to Poland with his husband, he would be allowed to. Rights clarified: The ruling provides much-needed clarity and legal certainty for same-sex couples who get married in an EU member state. It makes clear that wherever they wish to move in the EU, their union should be recognised as a marriage for the purposes of family reunion, irrespective of whether the host state allows same-sex couples to formalise their relationship in its territory. Alina Tryfonidou, Associate Professor in EU Law, University of Reading ( Source)
I think this is pretty clear cut. Provided the relevant conditions are met (genuine move to permanent residence in another EU country, marriage was performed in an EU country and one of the partners is an EU citizen) the marriage is to be recognised equal to that of an opposite-sex couple for the purposes of family reunion. Not a single source I've come across says these countries are entitled to ignore the court's ruling. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and I think my edit will instigate a more expeditious conversation than the one we are currently having. I've made a change and will duplicate the section on the ECJ ruling currently in the Romania article to the other countries listed. Jono52795 ( talk) 07:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Reverting the additions. Yes, the ruling is supposed to be binding. But so is the IACHR decision (e.g. per the opinion of the president of the supreme court of Peru), but not even Costa Rica has implemented it yet. Slovakia says that they will, but of the others, who knows? Lithuania explicitly has not implemented it, at least not yet. See here. ("The Ministry of the Interior, controlling activity of the Migration Department, says it wants to get acquainted with the ECJ ruling before making any political decisions." And note the careful wording in the lead [if not in the title]: "Nongovernmental organizations hope the European Court of Justice's Tuesday ruling will pave the way for homosexuals from third countries, married to EU citizens, to get residency in Lithuania.") There may be a point where we can do this, but I don't think we're there yet. — kwami ( talk) 23:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
And yes, if/when we do this, I agree w Roentgenium & Naraht. Actually, I think we should go a step further, and make a single entry for "European Union". Wouldn't need to specify "all other states", since the ruling is binding on all states, including those that already have SSM: all EU states will rec marriages performed with an EU citizen for purposes of immigration (if not necessarily for anything else), so an entry for the EU would be accurate as well as concise. — kwami ( talk) 23:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
In no way the ECJ ruling implies recognition of same-sex marriage. It just says that EU countries shall grant residency status to same-sex non-EU spouses of non-national EU citizens. The ruling does not even say if these same-sex marriages shall be recorded in civil registries. It is just a prescription on one very specific right and each EU country will have to apply it to national law. Of course, countries with civil unions like Italy already have in place a mechanism with which residency status is granted to these marriages through recognition of the foreign marriage as a local civil union. I suggest that the 6 EU countries without SSM or CUs shall be added to the list 'unregistered cohabitation' if they pass legislation similar to San Marino, which grants the only right of residency to foreign same-sex partners. The ruling per se doesn't strike down any ban: that is why Slovakia should be removed from the list of foreign recognitions. Finedelledanze ( talk) 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, if you are going to remove all that information from so many articles, please could you explain your reasoning or your issues with the text on at least one of those articles' talk pages? I believe you that it contained errors but it was at least the result of an attempt to discuss everything together, and clearly there is at least something important in it that needs to be mentioned in each of those articles, no? I would say the most logical place to discuss it is Template_talk:Same-sex_unions#ECJ_ruling. If you don't have time yourself then you could at least identify what the main problems are and other editors can help.. Thanks. Jdcooper ( talk) 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear all, I think there is quite a lot of confusion of what 'recognition' means in legal terms. Recognition of a civil act such as marriage implies recording of the foreign act into the country's marriage register, thus transposing the FULL effects of the foreign marriage into the local legal framework. Basically, it means that couples that married abroad (or in a specific legislation) are treated as married couples are treated under local legislation.
In this regard, we can say that this definition certainly encompasses Israel (recognising all foreign civil marriages as domestic opposite-sex religious marriages), the Netherlands Caribbean (limited to Dutch marriages) and Mexico (limited to other Mexican SSMs). It is very dubious to include Armenia (where the source cites the fact that same-sex marriages can be recorded in local registries but no national law or sentence have ever codified how these marriages should grant rights according to domestic law) and Estonia (where the scope is limited to EU same-sex marriages and, similarly to Armenia, no source reports of full recognition of rights deriving from marriage). But in absolutely no way Slovakia and Hong Kong should be listed under 'recognition of marriage'. These countries are (or are about to) grant residency permits ONLY to same-sex spouses of domestic nationals (Slovakia even restricts this to non-EU nationals married to EU nationals). In this respect these countries should be listed along with San Marino under 'unregistered cohabitation': this is because foreign marriages cannot be registered (nor transposed) as marriages, however granting the only right of residency to foreign spouses. Finedelledanze ( talk) 13:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Does this mean Ecuador should be added? [26] We have a court decision that is specific in terms of remedy and is to take immediate effect. It is under appeal, but until/unless a stay has been issued, and I find no indication that is the case here, this appears to be 'the law' at the moment. 50.37.125.74 ( talk) 14:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm a fan of this new Limited/partial recognition section, as the jurisdictions listed can hardly be said to recognise in full SSM, rather there is a specific or series of specific aspects of a same-sex union (marriage or otherwise) that they recognise. In Armenia's case, overseas SSM would appear to be recognised in name only (essentially on statistical grounds). There are certainly no references saying their equally recognised to heterosexual marriages. With that in mind, I'm moving Armenia. Feel free to discuss here. Jono52795 ( talk) 04:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The Supreme Court ordered the parliament to amend the family law in order to allow same-sex marriage within 18 months. Once that time passes, same-sex marriage will become legal automatically, even if the parliament does not comply. See [27], [28]. Ron 1987 ( talk) 06:23, 9 August 2018 (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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Why is Israel in the recognition column when the article says "The ruling specifies that a record made by the Administration of Border Crossings, Population and Immigration is a statistical record which does not constitute official recognition of same-sex marriage by the state"? Maybe Israel should be removed from the recognition column unless someone has a source that Israel fully recognizes same-sex marriages.. Prcc27 ( talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Virgin Islands performs same-sex marriage but unless there's a reliable source that it also recognizes it then there should be a footnote! The judge only ordered performance, not recognition! [1] Prcc27 ( talk) 07:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
There are two reasons why I continue to remove the US tribal bullet point.
Therefore, I see no reason to keep adding a bullet point to what is already a clustered US listing. D ralwi k| Have a Chat 03:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This template is about civil rights, not tribal rights. It's outside of the scope of this file. Njsustain ( talk) 06:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
There are several sovereign states within the boundaries of the United States that do not rec SSM, and which are not required to under the SCOTUS ruling. To make a blanket statement saying SSM is legal in the United States is therefor false. If we do not give a note about the tribes, then we cannot honestly say SSM is legal in the US. — kwami ( talk) 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The entire US has SSM except for American Samoa, and NMI which intends to comply. The "United States Proper" bullet is ludicrous... has anyone ever seen this term used anywhere else? So, how about we just have "United States", possibly with a footnote: "Not in effect in MP, and AS, [with links]"? The footnote could even be an appropriate place to mention some native tribes are not complying, if there is consensus to do so and it's referenced. I don't think the latter warrants inclusion though, even as a footnote here. Njsustain ( talk) 12:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
First same-sex marriage took place in Northern Mariana Islands on July 22, so we can remove the asterix. See [3], [4]. Ron 1987 ( talk) 06:54, 27 July 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. |
There is no reliable source that can confirm the existence of civil unions in the state of Mérida, Venezuela. There is no recognition of same-sex couples in this country. Can you delete it, please? TitoBRPA ( talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Textorus: Hey, when I removed Malta from the template a user shared this link to justify Malta being in the recognition column. Does that source suffice? Prcc27 ( talk) 06:09, 14 September 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. |
Same sex marriage is recognized in Malta when married overseas Renard98 ( talk) 07:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage in Greenland is legal, a law providing for same-sex marriage is yet in effect since 1 October.
What constitutes "now in effect"? The Marriage Bill is now the Marriage Act (signed into law as of 29 Oct. 2015), I would've thought that would remove the asterisk. Or do we wait fir the Minister to issue the first commencement order for same-sex couples already in a civil partnership, who can make use of a 5 day fast track provision. Jono52795 ( talk) 01:00, 30 October 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. |
Remove Malta. Own page clearly states it isn't recognised as being a "marriage". 5.179.66.114 ( talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Please could you take off the asterisk from Greece?The law was effective immediately .See /info/en/?search=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Greece Weatherextremes ( talk) 12:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I added Guernsey to the template given that reliable sources such as the BBC have reported that same-sex marriage has passed the legislature. However, this was removed by two editors. Should Guernsey be included, like other jurisdictions, with an asterisk indicatng 'not yet in effect'? AusLondonder ( talk) 22:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Same sex marriage is not legal in Guerrero. So can we take it out of the template, and Can someone please edit the map of Mexico because I don´t know how to change it. Thanks in advance. Can you help me User:Prcc27 I will really appreciate it. http://elbigdata.mx/diversidad/invalidos-20-matrimonios-gays-en-acapulco-registro-civil/ -- Allan120102 ( talk) 00:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
By the page's own description, Malta does not recognise them as "marriages" even if for all intents and purposes they may be the same thing. This should be removed. 5.179.66.114 ( talk) 09:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Removing a whole section with a SPER is a bit outside the scope. Please gather consensus from other editors, then open this again --
allthefoxes (
Talk)
16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Taiwan had less subentries than several other countries, I don't see the reason to change that to "Various Juristictions". Naraht ( talk) 18:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that say same-sex marriage is recognized in Israel and Malta..? Prcc27💋 ( talk) 05:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Prcc27: Hi, does this
[8] suffice as a reliable source to justify Malta being listed as recognizing same-sex marriages performed overseas. Article 18 of the Marriage Act points out that all marriages which are valid in the country in which they were performed are also valid in Malta:
"Validity and annulment of marriages
18. A marriage, whether celebrated in Malta or abroad, shall be
valid for all purposes of law in Malta if -
(a) as regards the formalities thereof, the formalities
required for its validity by the law of the country
where the marriage is celebrated are observed; and
(b) as regards the capacity of the parties, each of the
persons to be married is, by the law of the country of
his or her respective domicile, capable of contracting
marriage."
Jedi Friend (
talk)
16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
According to the Associated Press, the Guardian and other sources, the Constitutional Court rejected the draft of the ruling to uphold the current definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, prepared by judge Jorge Pretelt. Judge Alberto Rojas Río was assigned to prepare the new draft of the ruling in line with a majority's view (i.e. to declare that prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married is unconstitutional). So, same-sex marriage is not legal yet. It will be legal, when the final ruling is issued. See
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13].
Ron 1987 (
talk)
00:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
EDIT:
Here is Constitutional Court's statement.
Ron 1987 (
talk)
02:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is the Isle of Man being excluded from this template? @ Ron 1987: the sources, such as the BBC and PinkNews indicate the Isle has passed same-sex marriage. If it awaits royal assent (a formal process) why should it not be included with an asterisk? AusLondonder ( talk) 21:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Now that the Faroe Islands have passed gay marriage (of course, pending ratification by the Danish parliament) all constituent countries of the Realm of Denmark have marriage equality. Does the 'denmark split' in the template still make sense? Shall the items 'Denmark proper' and 'Greenland' disappear from the template and merge in one link to 'Denmark' where one can access the sections 'greenland' and 'faroe islands'? Intuitively I think this would be the most logical move to do since there is no longer the need to differentiate national subdivisions with same-sex marriage from other constituencies without it (which was the original purpose of the split). Finedelledanze ( talk) 18:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It is still premature to list Morelos on the template. Other Mexican states have been amending their family or civil code (where the bill must be passed and then published in the state's gazette), Morelos is legislating a state constitutional amendment. Step one is approval by Congress; step two is ratification by the states' municipalities. Until ratification is complete, Morelos should remain off the list. Andrew1444 ( talk) 00:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
see /info/en/?search=LGBT_rights_in_Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha#Recognition_of_same-sex_relationships signature/royal assent hopefully soon 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 09:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
see /info/en/?search=LGBT_rights_in_the_Philippines#Marriages_by_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Philippines ... should it be added to the template? 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 11:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Since Finland will have same-sex partnerships available up until same-sex marriage is legal there- I feel like it should be added to the partnership column. I was reverted when I added Finland to it. Prcc27🌍 ( talk) 04:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
any need to add the Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions#Osage_Nation separately? 155.245.69.178 ( talk) 09:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
This template really should be converted to make use of {{ Sidebar with collapsible lists}}. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Japan has started partnership yet it was written on the side but now it's gone. It started in 5 areas already but I think no one likes Japan. I feel sad that someone has to delete the "Japan" part. I hope all of Japan section for LGBT won't be deleted then I will be very sad that Wiki has to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.187.101.117 ( talk) 15:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Here are the sources: http://life.letibee.com/partnership-japan-20160226/ http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/2015/11/04/lgbt-couple-shibuya-setagaya_n_8475140.html
The partnership allows a person over 20 years old or older in 5 cities which are Setagaya ward, Shibuya ward, Takarazuka city, Iga city, Naha city. And the merits to have this certificate is so the couples can rent a room, get insurance together, get mobile phone plans together, the person can visit the partner at a hospital when he/ she is hospitalized for emergencies with no questions asked, and inheritance for things when one of the partner passes away. The only down side for this certificate is that it doesn't allow the partner to get visa to stay easily but it can be negotiated through the government depending on how the other partner can work in Japan or not. And foreigners can get this certificate as well. Not just Japanese only. If there is more source needed I will write it down but it feels so awkward that other countries doesn't need so much source yet for certain countries you need a lot of source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.187.101.117 ( talk) 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added them to the template and have sources. The sources were located on the same-sex union legislation page. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] TenorTwelve ( talk) 05:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a question. Can we add that certain embassies perform same-sex marriages? I know the UK does that. [6] Could this be included in some way? I was not thinking of putting down each country but acknowledging that certain embassies across the world perform marriages. For example, the UK marriages I think should be listed under the UK if edits like this were adopted. Anyone have thoughts? Are there any other countries that do this? TenorTwelve ( talk) 23:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep! TenorTwelve ( talk) 05:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
And if anyone else has comments, feel free.
It sounds like Peru will recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of Peru. This was from a ruling from a Constitutional Court. This may be appealed (so we should keep an eye on this) but it doesn't have to and I hear it has "immediate nationwide impact," a commentator said. Sources [7] [8] English translation and commentary [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenorTwelve ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Today some sources like Politico, Reuters or Pink News incorrectly claimed that Slovenia has legalised same-sex marriage. The law, which was passed by the parliament in April 2016 and took effect today, significantly expanded the rights of same-sex partnerships. It's not marriage. See [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). Marriage is still available to opposite-sex couples only. See article 3 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act. Ron 1987 ( talk) 00:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I won't jump the gun like I did last time, but want to note that an appeals court in Estonia has ruled same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions must be recognized. I am not familiar with the court system, but I presume it will be appealed again, but I wanted to put this on our radar for a possible action to come. [10] TenorTwelve ( talk) 22:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC) This article suggests that it does apply to all couples as opposed to just the plaintiffs, but this is just one source. TenorTwelve ( talk) 23:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
More on Estonia: is it appropriate to say that civil unions are in force? No implementing legislation has been passed (therefore no instruction on how public officials should conduct ceremonies may be available, or on how to convert foreign marriages into civil unions, and so on), this could affect the law making it de facto void while being in force. Can any Estonian user confirm that civil unions are currently being performed? Thanks Finedelledanze ( talk) 17:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
References
The Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint Eustatius) are a part of the Netherlands proper. Separate listing makes no sense. Ron 1987 ( talk) 15:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
In legal terms recognition and transcription (or registration) of foreign marriages are not the same thing: whereas the former implies that the recognized foreign marriage is treated on a par with domestic marriage (obtaining all the rights that married opposite-sex couples enjoy), the latter is simply a public notification that the same-sex couple got married in another country, but without other effects than this. Reading the wiki pages on Estonia and Israel, it is not clear whether these countries recognize or simply register same-sex marriage. In my country, Italy, EU law has been applied and the right to have same-sex marriage registered has been won in many individual court proceedings. However, this carries a mostly symbolic value, since no other rights apply to these couples. Situation may vary still if the couple or one of them are foreign-national. I wonder whether Estonia and Israel are in the same situation as Italy. Estonia in particular seems ambiguous. Finedelledanze ( talk) 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The Keelung City approved sex-same partnership-- 190.124.155.112 ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Japan's same sex registration in the limited jurisdictions have no legal effect and therefore should be removed.
Paullb ( talk) 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Paullb ( talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see the same-sex marriage in Mexico page; reports that same-sex marriages are performed without amparos in Guerrero and Tamaulipas are erroneous. I removed those references for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsalerno ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
In the US only minor jurisdictions (in size/population) don't recognise/perform SSM, that being American Samoa the overseas territory and an indeterminate number of tribal jurisdictions scattered over the country, all located in states where it is legal. Obviously that's a little different to the UK, where Northern Ireland is one of the four home nations, but the remaining jurisdictions are all overseas territories. In short, why can't we just name United Kingdom and United States and attach small numbers to them, where a note on the situation is shown at the bottom of the template (just like what currently appears for Armenia and Israel). Thoughts? Jono52795 ( talk) 03:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Slovenia allows gay marriage. It should be displayed in the info box and on the map.
The only reason I can imagine for not identifying Slovenia is the lack of adoption/IVF rights. But this was the case originally in Portugal and probably other countries, and is not a valid reason to exclude accurate information about marital rights. 73.134.0.36 ( talk) 15:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Was reading http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/when-will-samesex-couples-be-able-to-marry-after-law-in-australia-changes/news-story/d5c5eecef4e5d9cb16df9abec0025c8d . So the steps are Royal Assent, at which point we add the country with a star. When the Government indicate that the law has commenced we add to the recognizes foreign marriages, and then since couples getting married in Australia need to give 1 month notice which can't actually happen until after the date of commencement, we actually take off the star when the first marriage occurs in Australia? These are my *guesses*, I'd like other comments. Naraht ( talk) 19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The star should now be removed. The law is in effect and recognizes overseas marriages. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So, between now and January 9 (or whenever the first date that a Same Sex Couple who filled out the paperwork first thing could actually tie the knot), do we list them with the star or not? As far as I can tell, there is complete equality now in Australia, the delay is exactly the same for Same Sex and Opposite Sex couples. Naraht ( talk) 13:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
How should we handle this Taiwan ruling? It's supposed to be be binding in two years, right? Isseubnida ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It's binding in two years, but as no bill has been passed yet, I don't think we should include it. It's more than just "not yet in effect" - there is no law. Jdcooper ( talk) 10:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The court ruling, to my rather uninformed eyes, appears to mirror the Taiwan case. A law banning same-sex marriage has essentially been struck down by court, telling the legislature to amend the law by a certain date into the future, and a fair bit of crystal gazing requires us to consider it simply "not in effect". If that was the basis for Taiwan not (yet) being included in the template, personally I think Austria should be treated the same. Thoughts? Pinging Prcc27, Jdcooper, Andrew1444 who all contributed to the Taiwan discussion. Jono52795 ( talk) 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Also Ron 1987 who added Austria in the first place. Jono52795 ( talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update recognition of same-sex unions in Poland as "unregistered cohabitation" similar as situation to San Marino? 80.51.136.158 ( talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
According to the Recognition of same-sex unions in Jersey, it still hasn't passed the legislature. (It seems to be the opposite end of the scale from Australia in that *lots* of other marriage related changes to the law have gotten attached to it.) Also, I think the decision has been made to wait until royal assent to list it. Do we have any information that they are recognizing marriages from elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs)
A treaty is defined as law in almost all states in Western Hemisphere democracies. The Inter-American court ruling singles out Costa Rica. I will keep changing this back to a correct Costa Rica with an asterisk. Andrew1444 ( talk) 02:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there has been a change in Russia. Same-sex marriages established abroad are recognised, probably following Orlandi and Others vs Italy, as well as Oliari and Others vs Italy.-- 86.154.206.6 ( talk) 11:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It has passed the State of Jersey, now needs Royal Assent. So Jersey should continue to be listed in those that don't have it. And there is no Governor General to do it like Australia... Naraht ( talk) 23:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Same-sex unions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If Austria is listed under "marriage" with a remark saying it's not yet in effect, then Taiwan should also be dealt with in the same way. (I remember initially after the constitutional ruling in May last year, Taiwan was listed under "marriage" but was removed later on.)
Justification: Both Austria and Taiwan are currently in a very similar transition stage, where the constitutional court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and given a period of time before it automatically takes effect, if marriage laws are not amended. The deadlines are only a few months apart between the two countries (Austria: January 2019; Taiwan: May 2019). In short, I don't see any reason why the two countries are listed differently.
Many thanks. :) LYTCHG ( talk) 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Per the recent ECJ ruling described here: Recognition of same-sex unions in Romania#2018 European Court of Justice ruling, shouldn't a few countries be added to the "Marriage recognized" section (albeit with a footnote stating that it's only when performed in an EU country etc)? Namely Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, and Italy. Or do we have to wait for confirmation from the individual countries that they will abide by the ruling? Or is there something else I've misinterpreted? If we are changing it then the table at Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe also needs updating. Jdcooper ( talk) 16:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
in situations where an EU citizen, who has been living in another EU member state, wants to return to their country of origin, their same-sex marriage must now be recognised under EU law. The same law applies for EU citizens moving to any other EU member state – so for example if Coman had wanted to move to Poland with his husband, he would be allowed to. Rights clarified: The ruling provides much-needed clarity and legal certainty for same-sex couples who get married in an EU member state. It makes clear that wherever they wish to move in the EU, their union should be recognised as a marriage for the purposes of family reunion, irrespective of whether the host state allows same-sex couples to formalise their relationship in its territory. Alina Tryfonidou, Associate Professor in EU Law, University of Reading ( Source)
I think this is pretty clear cut. Provided the relevant conditions are met (genuine move to permanent residence in another EU country, marriage was performed in an EU country and one of the partners is an EU citizen) the marriage is to be recognised equal to that of an opposite-sex couple for the purposes of family reunion. Not a single source I've come across says these countries are entitled to ignore the court's ruling. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and I think my edit will instigate a more expeditious conversation than the one we are currently having. I've made a change and will duplicate the section on the ECJ ruling currently in the Romania article to the other countries listed. Jono52795 ( talk) 07:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Reverting the additions. Yes, the ruling is supposed to be binding. But so is the IACHR decision (e.g. per the opinion of the president of the supreme court of Peru), but not even Costa Rica has implemented it yet. Slovakia says that they will, but of the others, who knows? Lithuania explicitly has not implemented it, at least not yet. See here. ("The Ministry of the Interior, controlling activity of the Migration Department, says it wants to get acquainted with the ECJ ruling before making any political decisions." And note the careful wording in the lead [if not in the title]: "Nongovernmental organizations hope the European Court of Justice's Tuesday ruling will pave the way for homosexuals from third countries, married to EU citizens, to get residency in Lithuania.") There may be a point where we can do this, but I don't think we're there yet. — kwami ( talk) 23:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
And yes, if/when we do this, I agree w Roentgenium & Naraht. Actually, I think we should go a step further, and make a single entry for "European Union". Wouldn't need to specify "all other states", since the ruling is binding on all states, including those that already have SSM: all EU states will rec marriages performed with an EU citizen for purposes of immigration (if not necessarily for anything else), so an entry for the EU would be accurate as well as concise. — kwami ( talk) 23:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
In no way the ECJ ruling implies recognition of same-sex marriage. It just says that EU countries shall grant residency status to same-sex non-EU spouses of non-national EU citizens. The ruling does not even say if these same-sex marriages shall be recorded in civil registries. It is just a prescription on one very specific right and each EU country will have to apply it to national law. Of course, countries with civil unions like Italy already have in place a mechanism with which residency status is granted to these marriages through recognition of the foreign marriage as a local civil union. I suggest that the 6 EU countries without SSM or CUs shall be added to the list 'unregistered cohabitation' if they pass legislation similar to San Marino, which grants the only right of residency to foreign same-sex partners. The ruling per se doesn't strike down any ban: that is why Slovakia should be removed from the list of foreign recognitions. Finedelledanze ( talk) 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kwami, if you are going to remove all that information from so many articles, please could you explain your reasoning or your issues with the text on at least one of those articles' talk pages? I believe you that it contained errors but it was at least the result of an attempt to discuss everything together, and clearly there is at least something important in it that needs to be mentioned in each of those articles, no? I would say the most logical place to discuss it is Template_talk:Same-sex_unions#ECJ_ruling. If you don't have time yourself then you could at least identify what the main problems are and other editors can help.. Thanks. Jdcooper ( talk) 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear all, I think there is quite a lot of confusion of what 'recognition' means in legal terms. Recognition of a civil act such as marriage implies recording of the foreign act into the country's marriage register, thus transposing the FULL effects of the foreign marriage into the local legal framework. Basically, it means that couples that married abroad (or in a specific legislation) are treated as married couples are treated under local legislation.
In this regard, we can say that this definition certainly encompasses Israel (recognising all foreign civil marriages as domestic opposite-sex religious marriages), the Netherlands Caribbean (limited to Dutch marriages) and Mexico (limited to other Mexican SSMs). It is very dubious to include Armenia (where the source cites the fact that same-sex marriages can be recorded in local registries but no national law or sentence have ever codified how these marriages should grant rights according to domestic law) and Estonia (where the scope is limited to EU same-sex marriages and, similarly to Armenia, no source reports of full recognition of rights deriving from marriage). But in absolutely no way Slovakia and Hong Kong should be listed under 'recognition of marriage'. These countries are (or are about to) grant residency permits ONLY to same-sex spouses of domestic nationals (Slovakia even restricts this to non-EU nationals married to EU nationals). In this respect these countries should be listed along with San Marino under 'unregistered cohabitation': this is because foreign marriages cannot be registered (nor transposed) as marriages, however granting the only right of residency to foreign spouses. Finedelledanze ( talk) 13:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Does this mean Ecuador should be added? [26] We have a court decision that is specific in terms of remedy and is to take immediate effect. It is under appeal, but until/unless a stay has been issued, and I find no indication that is the case here, this appears to be 'the law' at the moment. 50.37.125.74 ( talk) 14:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm a fan of this new Limited/partial recognition section, as the jurisdictions listed can hardly be said to recognise in full SSM, rather there is a specific or series of specific aspects of a same-sex union (marriage or otherwise) that they recognise. In Armenia's case, overseas SSM would appear to be recognised in name only (essentially on statistical grounds). There are certainly no references saying their equally recognised to heterosexual marriages. With that in mind, I'm moving Armenia. Feel free to discuss here. Jono52795 ( talk) 04:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The Supreme Court ordered the parliament to amend the family law in order to allow same-sex marriage within 18 months. Once that time passes, same-sex marriage will become legal automatically, even if the parliament does not comply. See [27], [28]. Ron 1987 ( talk) 06:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)