![]() | 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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
I have a compromise solution for how to present the fact that certain jurisdictions are going to allow same-sex marriage in the future per legal rulings. At the moment the asterisk marks laws "not yet in effect", as in the case of Austria (it's passed, it's immutable, it's finalised, just the marriages haven't started happening yet because the date hasn't arrived). This is slightly different in the case of Costa Rica and Taiwan, as the ruling has obliged another body to do something about it, but nothing's actually happened, nothing has passed, no date is known for when any hypothetical law will come into effect. So can't we just make that clear in the footnotes, eg. another symbol representing "Automatic deadline set by judicial body for legislation to be completed" (or whatever exact wording would be best). Rather than having to have this discussion about whether or not to include every time. I'll try to make the changes to indicate what I mean. Jdcooper ( talk) 10:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi User:Ron 1987, the sections I referred to from the Costa Rica article are:
That sounds a lot more like the Taiwan case to me, the way it's worded. If you are saying it's the same as the Austria case, then what's the deadline date? I will rewrite it if you like. Jdcooper ( talk) 22:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
There seems to have been agreement that Costa Rica would be like Austria when the decision was published, starting the official 18-month clock: that happened on Nov. 14 (media are imprecisely reporting the effective date as 'mid-2020' [1]). However, Taiwan has become even more ambiguous. With today's three referenda reportedly going against, we now have a constitutional conundrum that will have to be resolved. I previously favored removal of Taiwan before, and now even more so, but at a minimum the symbol-note should be modified to reflect the uncertainty (with a change of Costa Rica's status to '*', the '+' would only be used for Taiwan and could thus be optimized). 50.37.104.202 ( talk) 17:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami: Are the footnotes not sufficient? Do we really need countries like New Zealand and Netherlands further broken down into "New Zealand proper" and "Netherlands proper" and UK "3 out of 4 countries". The terms are unfamiliar, expand the literal size of the template and defeat the purpose of the footnotes. As I mentioned in the edit, a cleanup of this type of formatting was made 12 months ago ( /info/en/?search=Template_talk:Same-sex_unions/Archive_19#United_States_and_United_Kingdom_notes). Global-Cityzen ( talk) 12:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I moved the Mexican entities to a fn as well. SSM is not performed in the UK, just in GB, but I'll concede it's close enough if we treat states consistently. — kwami ( talk) 17:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
That's good, then. Since SSM is recognized across Mexico, it's more important to list the regions of the UK and NZ than of Mexico, the opposite of what we had. As you say, you can be married in Yucatan even if you can't get married there, but you can't be married in N.Ireland at all. — kwami ( talk) 18:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's really 15 states in Mexico, if we go by the standards of the country listing. But I can't think of a more concise way of saying 3 of them are judicial decrees not yet in effect. That would make the note a bit long. Any ideas? — kwami ( talk) 10:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sorry but the law and constitution specefically without doubt ban same sex marriages and uses man wome The law was not striken down by the suoreme or constitutional court of the country The statuoary ban still exist and as u know u doubt that the right conservative parliament and goverment will never change the law nor accept itvesides the same marriage was not recognised so
Is it wise to assume as many did like in marriages ban or recongnition in europe or european union pages that poland no longer still has a constitutional marriage ban I think it does have and will have it So editing wrongly other pages on that is wrong? Should we revert them to point that poland still has the ban it dasnt striken down or changed u know What do u think?
Thank u AdamPrideTN ( talk) 12:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Guys, Armenia has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and is one of the most conservative countries in Europe for LGBT people. How could it possibly be listed under 'recognized abroad'? Again, registration of a foreign certificate does not mean recognition of rights. We only have one very poor source about the registration of marriage certificates. As long as further clarification is provided, Armenia should be under 'limited or partial recognition' IMHO, or not listed at all as this is probably a mistake of the Armenian ministry with no intention of legalising marriage. Finedelledanze ( talk) 09:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The Armenia source I presented states: Armenia's Ministry of Justice declaring earlier this year that international marriage licenses, including for same-sex couples, are valid in Armenia. Then: It is time for Armenia to expend the same rights to its own citizens. This is as clear as it can be (note also that this is from an Armenian gay activist). As for Estonia, the source is also very clear, in that Estonia recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad, but decides each case individually. So I do believe a note should be added. Maybe Assessed on a case-by-case basis? Grouping these two countries in the limited and partial recognition section is misleading. For starters because we have no evidence whatsoever that Armenia and Estonia treat gay couples married abroad differently than straight couples married abroad. Assuming they do simply because they're "conservative" is extremely deceptive. And secondly because they are grouped with countries such as Taiwan or Japan which simply recognize hospital visitation rights and certain property rights, which again is misleading. Panda2018 0 ( talk) 09:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Both of these cases bother me, but we can only go by the sources we have. If they are inaccurate, please come up with other sources to indicate that. The fact that Armenia has a constitutional ban is irrelevant -- god knows how the law is interpreted. It could simply mean that SSM cannot be conducted in Armenia. We can't interpret the constitution ourselves, that would be OR.
On the other hand, both may 'recognize' SSM couple without accepting them as married, e.g. for residency rights as is the case in Romania. If that's the case, we'd presumably remove them from this table and change the coloring in the map from solid to striped. But it would be OR to do that without sources. — kwami ( talk) 07:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not trying to pass this off as a source, and I don't read Armenian anyway (I'm plugging into Google Translate, which is giving surprisingly coherent results), but the Armenian WP article states,
The article is clearly just a translation of some other wiki, but the 'not' seemed odd, especially give the following 'similarly'. Turns out that it was changed, without sources or even an edit summary, from,
So, WP-hy would seem to be just like here, w people insisting on the 'truth' without providing any evidence. If anyone should be able to dig up evidence that the reports are inaccurate, it should be the people at WP-hy. I've also asked on the talk page for them to let us know. I do suspect that Armenia is more like Hong Kong than like Israel, but we do need sources. — kwami ( talk) 18:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
followup - evidently no actual cases are known, so so far this is a theoretical point. — kwami ( talk) 20:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, getting another nation to have SSM is *one* way to balance to columns. :) Naraht ( talk) 17:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Under "Marriage", we have "performed" and "recognized". Israel, Mexico and theoretically Armenia recognize out-of-state marriage as marriage, so it makes sense to have them under "Marriage". Estonia, Aruba, Italy, Switzerland etc. etc. also recognize out-of-state marriage, but do not treat them as marriages. To me, it does not make sense to include them under "marriage", but under the category they treat them as. After all, this is about people's rights, and the higher in the chart a state is, the more rights it accords. St Maartin does not give you the rights than Israel or even Italy does, so IMO it should not be above them in the chart. Also, if we're not going to restrict "recognized" under "marriage" to mean treatment as marriage, what is the cut-off? Romania and Lithuania "recognize" out-of-state marriage, so if we're going to do that, shouldn't both the CU and 'limited rec' sections simply be merged into the "recognition" section? What other non-arbitrary cut-off is there? — kwami ( talk) 17:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Then why do we say "partially recognized by Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten"? From what you just said, it sounds like they're fully recognized. Similarly, in the lead of the article we say, "they don't have to give same-sex marriages the same legal effect as opposite-sex marriages", directly contradicting what you just quoted. We even have a section "Non-equal treatment of married couples", where we summarize a court statment that such marriages do not have the same legally force as opposite-sex marriages. So, did we get it wrong in the article and footnote here? Has the ruling you cited overridden the ruling our article and fn ref? — kwami ( talk) 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the claim that moving the islands to 'limited recognition' is "ludicrous" because they have more rights thn the residency-only rec of Romania etc is silly -- we could just as easily compare them to Israel, Cambodia, the Caymans and Taiwan, all of which are in that category and all of which would seem to offer rights that Romania etc do not. The table is crudely divided, but it seems obvious to me that a country should not appear under 'marriage' if it does not allow marriage (counting recognition of out-of-state marriage), and if Aruba et al. do allow marriage, then yes, they belong at the top under 'marriage', but we need a good 2ary ref and then we need to reword the footnote and correct the article. If they do not allow marriage -- if they register it and file it away and don't act on it, as our article currently implies -- then they don't belong under 'marriage'. Their recognition should be listed in the section appropriate for the actual rights conferred. Northern Ireland and Italy also recognize out-of-state marriage. The CU's in Italy were partly designed for just that, and the CU's of Ireland are partly intended to accommodate SSM from elsewhere in the UK. Since that's similar to how our article describes Aruba, then if the article is correct and we include Aruba, we need to include N.Ireland, Italy et al. And if we include Curacao and St Maarten, which apparently don't even confer the rights of CU's, then we need to include Romania, Latvia and the rest. Either that or clarify in their article how Curacao and St Maarten confer all the rights of marriage. — kwami ( talk) 02:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, this is from the LGBT org in Curacao.
When I asked for what rights you get (taxes, adoption, inheritance, medical decisions, etc.) by registering as a married couple,
When I asked for clarification (translation problem of 'until' with or without a negative),
So it sounds like Curacao only recognizes you marriage in the literal sense, the way the US might recognize a plural marriage conducted where it's legal, but without according it the status of a marriage. This is more like Romania 'recognizing' a SSM conducted in the EU. I'll move Curacao to the 'minimal rights' list (though I don't know if there's even that). Presumably Aruba would recognize them as the local equivalent, a civil union, so that's already covered. — kwami ( talk) 02:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
As Japan has no legal recongition of same sex partnerships. I removed it from the list. (certificates issued have no legal value)
-- Paullb ( talk) 03:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The registries are inscribed in local law, and provide certain limited legal rights, such as hospital visitation. Panda2018 0 ( talk) 16:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The registries are inscribed in local law but provide no legal benefits, they are purely symbolic. Shibuya City forces registrants to have a contractual relationship between the partners but that is not bestowed by Shibuya City but rather by the contract entered by the two parties. Hospitals are under no obligation to respect the certificates. The English language media often gets it wrong. Please do not put Japan back as there is no legal recognition of relationships
Paullb ( talk) 11:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how you call restoring Japan "unilateral" when you removed it despite no-one agreeing with you.
From our description of Cambodia, it sounds like things there are much like Japan. An LGBT group facilitates civil contracts, and a few communes accept them, though what they accept them for is unclear. But we list Cambodia.
We list states in the EU, and cities in China, where the only legal consequence is that your foreign spouse can get a residency permit, but you have no rights as a married couple otherwise. For people already living there, there's nothing at all. Is some hospitals allowing you to make medical decisions, or getting public housing together in Japan any more minimal than that? — kwami ( talk) 06:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
From this, it sounds like local institutions in Cambodia may accept the certificates if they like, but there's no legal requirement for them to do so. Sounds like local institutions in Japan that may choose to accept the certificates without any legal requirement to do so. — kwami ( talk) 07:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find a ref that Estonia recognizes SSM performed abroad. The claim in our article that they do is ref'd to this article from 2017, but that's a single case, not a general right. Also, this article from 2018 says that such unions are in general not recognized. I have therefore removed Estonia from the SSM list (but left it in the CU list). — kwami ( talk) 03:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Being listed in the registry if you're already a resident doesn't seem to correlate to getting residency even if your spouse is a citizen. If you have to get a CU to be seen as a couple to get residency, even if you were already married abroad, then the 'recognition' of the marriage doesn't amount to what we imply by listing Estonia on this chart. So, I've removed Estonia. As for Armenia, indeed -- a couple sources about the ruling, but no evidence that it's actually been used. And the govt might balk if someone tried. But that's all OR and CRYSTAL. — kwami ( talk) 07:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I wrote to the Estonian Human Rights Centre to ask them if Estonia recognizes foreign SSM as marriage, or as equivalent to domestic CUs (kooselulepingu), as e.g. Italy does (except of course that Estonian domestic kooselulepingu have not been properly implemented). My specific wording was "I am not concerned about residency rights, which I think I understand, but whether a foreign same-sex marriage is legally treated as equivalent to domestic opposite-sex marriage in all other respects." I also asked a question per who can get married abroad, due to a ruling from 2009 that Estonian citizens did not qualify, but was told that currently an Estonian citizen can't get SSM'd abroad as a tourist, but can if they are a resident of the country. (As expected.) I can copy you on their response of February 24, 2019, if you have your WP email enabled.
There is no simple answer to your question, nor is there one right answer to this question. There is a lot of confusion around the topic due to missing implementation acts. ... these answers are provided based on some court rulings and since we are not a common law country, these practices can be changed by other rulings. Estonia recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. There is no uniform approach, it recognizes some and in some contexts. There have indeed been some cases when foreign concluded gay marriages have been entered into the national population register but there is no clear understanding if they have the same rights as married couples or as couples who have signed registered partnership contract. [2] There is ongoing constitutional review at the Supreme Court of Estonia about the Aliens Act so as to grant residence permits to the same-sex partners of Estonian citizens. That ruling may change a lot in terms of residence permits.
It sounds like there have been case-by-case recognition, as in Italy, and otherwise it's not clear if foreign rec is any more than in e.g. Italy. Since Italy is not listed as recognizing SSM, just as having CUs, I think the same treatment should be given to Estonia. Actually, they arguably don't really have CU's apart for those SSM they recognize from abroad. — kwami ( talk) 20:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
From what I can tell from our article and the few sources I can find, those aren't CU's in Estonia but registered cohab, and it any case haven't yet been implemented. So the only current recognition is of marriages conducted abroad. Those are recorded in the registry, but what does that mean to the couple? AFAICT, it's quite minimal, like Curacao or Romania. — kwami ( talk) 22:34, 27 June 2019 (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 Bulgaria to the countries recognizing same-sex marriage. 98.202.22.21 ( talk) 05:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I went through and looked at the bill. It appears to give the NI Executive until and including Monday October 21. The chance they will assemble on Monday is Tiny, but as such, changing it today appears to be WP:Crystal. Naraht ( talk) 02:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
You're right. Everything I'd seen up to now said "by" the 21st. Though if there's no call to convene tomorrow AM, I can't see how it could possibly happen. — kwami ( talk) 19:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace the current code with the code in the sandbox ( Template:Same-sex unions/sandbox). The sandbox code converts the template to use {{ Sidebar with collapsible lists}} as per the notice on the template. I'm unable to perform these actions due to restrictions. – BrandonXLF ( talk) 03:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Costa Rica is still in Limited or partial recognition-- 190.5.179.180 ( talk) 00:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Registered cohabitation is basically just the state recognizing that you cohabit, right? So Uttarakhand should be listed? For that matter, shouldn't we add Vietnam? The police aren't going to break up your home once the state recognizes your right to live together as a couple, even if you have none of the other rights of marriage. That might seem minimal in Europe or America, but it's a big deal in a country like India, where being gay was illegal just a couple years ago. — kwami ( talk) 10:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
If you have evidence for those other states, we should add them as well. This isn't about getting a roommate. Even with formally registered cohabitation, there is often no legal obligation from the state. But this is still about a homosexual couple living together as a sexual couple. That is perhaps the most basic right of marriage -- to live together as a couple. It's more than just sex not being illegal. The state is granting SS couples that most basic right of marriage. Traditionally in human society that's all marriage is -- moving in together as a sexual couple. All the rest is just bureaucratic and religious fluff. — kwami ( talk) 10:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Why was the "Recognized" section removed? Aren't foreign marriages recognised by the State in Israel? Why is only Tel Aviv mentioned? And where are the sources for Cuba? There's no mention of this whatsoever on the "recognition of same-sex unions in Cuba" article. Jedi Friend ( talk) 08:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Foreign marriage is 'recognized' in Israel, but not as marriage, and couples are not granted the rights of marriage. Only in Tel Aviv are SS couples recognized as married, with the full (local) rights of marriage. That ordnance was recently passed as a thumb in the eye of the state specifically because Israel does not recognize SSM.
We've been uncertain of Israel for years, with no good RS's either way -- recognition of foreign SSM was only ever demonstrated to be a rather minimal legal formality, but there were hints that informally it meant more than that. But it was never clear what exactly the reality was. The developments in Tel Aviv finally clarified the situation. There are some marriage or marriage-like rights conferred to couples married abroad, but they're due to independent decisions by various authorities and are not legally required by the recognition of the marriage itself. BTW, it's the same situation for interfaith couples, or for any Jewish couples who don't want to be bound by Orthodox law.
The only country that would be in the 'recognized' section would be Mexico, but that's only for domestic marriage, and so is redundant with the entry for Mexico in the 'marriage' section. So there's no longer any purpose to the 'recognized' section, unless Armenia qualifies, but we have no evidence for that. (Presumably, if it had to, Armenia would 'recognize' a foreign SSM the way Estonia and Israel do -- enter it into a form and confer as few actual rights as possible.)
For Cuba, there was just a legal case that both members of a SS couple must be recognized by the state as the parents of a child, even though one has no biological relationship to the child. This is rather minimal, but in the US fights over this kind of thing continued well past 2015. In summary,
A 1-year-old boy born in Tallahassee FL via assisted reproduction to a married Cuban/US same-sex couple who live in Cuba has become the first person in Cuba with two legal mothers. ( Estado cubano reconoce legalmente que Paulo tiene dos madres)
That is, the state is granting legitimacy to SS couples. And, after all, that's what makes SSM so important -- it's not really the rights of marriage themselves, but the recognition of society that SS relationships are legitimate. That's why teenage suicide rates drop when SSM is passed -- society is saying, 'we no longer think you're a pervert.' That's what Cuba just did, and to a lesser extent, Uttarakhand. — kwami ( talk) 10:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
"“I am glad we won and got what we wanted to achieve in this petition, which was the basic right to be registered as married by the Israeli Ministry of Interior, just as any couple marrying abroad does and takes it for granted,” Joseph Bar Lev, a 39-year-old dance instructor who was one of the petitioners, told Israel Radio."
Re. recent rv of template, from unregistered cohabitation in Israel -- "Attorney General Menachem Mazuz said the couples will be treated the same as common-law spouses, recognizing them as legal units for tax, real estate, and financial purposes."
That's equivalent to what are called 'civil unions' or 'registered partnerships' in other countries -- actually, more rights than in some of them. I'm still not clear what the difference from a registered foreign marriage is, but this isn't the kind of 'limited recognition' you get in Hong Kong or Romania. Perhaps we could change the wording of the rubric if that's the problem. — kwami ( talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Nothing's ever "the same", and whether it's registered is beside the point. The table is divided into full rights, moderate rights (~ 2nd-class marriage) and minimal rights. The wording we give is just a way to capture that. We don't want minimal rights in the middle or moderate rights at the bottom. Over the years, we've changed the wording many times as changing politics shuffled things around. AFAICT, Israel is out of place at the bottom. Unless you have evidence that Israeli rights are minimal?
Also, re. "common-law marriage [is] by definition, something not formalized, unregistered" -- 'unregistered' just means 'not registered', not 'common-law'. If common-law marriage is unregistered, how could such couples receive tax and pension benefits? The govt would have to keep track of who they are. If that's not 'registered', it's so close as to make no effective difference, and we're just playing semantics. I could just as easily say "common-law marriage is, by definition, marriage" and move Israel up to the top category. — kwami ( talk) 11:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The 3rd cat was always for minimal rights. Israel does not belong there. (And how 'registered' means 'not registered' I don't understand. AFAICT, everything in the 3nd cat is registered.) I created a new section for common-law marriage. Seems overkill, but at least it's not incorrect. — kwami ( talk) 22:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Ratherous and I have done the Bold Revert (Twice), So I'm moving here for the Discuss. Switzerland's Legislature has passed Marriage Equality like other Swiss laws may be overridden on a referendum. I think the LGBT_rights_in_Switzerland#Same-sex_marriage section is most clear:
Same-sex marriage is in the process of being legalized. On 18 December 2020, seven years after the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland introduced a bill providing for same-sex marriage, the Swiss federal legislature adopted corresponding legislation (which also provides for IVF access for lesbian couples), making Switzerland the 29th country to allow same-sex marriage.[7] However, in Switzerland's system of semi-direct democracy, the statute is subject to a popular referendum if its opponents collect 50,000 signatures demanding one within three months. The right-wing EDU party has announced its intent to do so.[8] A date of entry into force of the statute (after any referendum) has not yet been set by the federal government.
and Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Switzerland#Legalization says
The final vote in both chambers took place on 18 December 2020. The Council of States approved the bill by 24 votes to 11 with 7 abstentions,[130] and the National Council approved the bill by 136 votes to 48 with 9 abstentions.[131] The right-wing party EDU announced its intention to collect the 50,000 signatures needed to trigger a referendum,[132] in which case passage of the bill would require a simple majority of the popular vote.[133]
To me, this its into the "not yet in effect" meaning of the note in the template: "Not yet in effect or automatic deadline set by judicial body for same-sex marriage to become legal" as such, I feel Switzerland should be listed in the Template with an asterisk. -- Naraht ( talk) 02:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Court recognition of couples recently. Been in the news, trying to track down the articles. Minimal rec -- just saying that they're allowed to live together, not conferring any other rights. But that's all they get in Vietnam too. — kwami ( talk) 22:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The situation in Odisha is the same as in Uttarakhand, according to this-- 190.5.185.180 ( talk) 01:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Where's Vietnam? I see Vietnam, Thailand and Namibia on the map, but not here. That's really weird. Cyanmax ( talk) 10:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The change here has been from 20 to 21, the first reference that I can find in English is https://yucatanmagazine.com/yucatan-gay-marriage-equality-bill/ which says it is 22nd. Any ideas? Naraht ( talk) 13:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, https://www.equalityontrial.com/2021/08/23/8-23-open-thread/ I *know* it counts as a blog, but it has a *lot* of links to News sources as it goes. And there seems to be consistent use of 22nd but with the *however* that they have undone the chance to the state constitution, but they still have to change the family code. (so the count would still be 21) Naraht ( talk) 13:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Switzerland legalized same-sex marriage, but it's premature to have it listed how it currently is, because so far, same-sex couples aren't able to marry. The law hasn't taken effect yet [4]. Prcc27 ( talk) 21:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Chile just approved same sex marriage. The national congress ratified it on 7 december 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.231.106 ( talk) 20:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Does it make sense to try to change the template so that the countries show up in three columns? I tried changing the width to 6em, but the UK and US went outside the border with their footnotes numbers. Naraht ( talk) 04:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
In *General* a template should be on the pages that it links to. I know there are exceptions, but this template seems to have a particularly large number of issues in that regard. There are 153 Wikipedia pages that this template is on that aren't links, and 13 that it links to that it doesn't appear on.
https://templatetransclusioncheck.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3ASame-sex+unions
Most of the pages in the first group (153) are pages about Same Sex Marriage in subnational entities that may have been linked from the template at one time, but no longer are, for example: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Same-sex marriage in Manitoba, Same-sex marriage in Oaxaca and Same-sex marriage in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands . There are also others where the state of Marriage in the country is so low that they don't make the template such as Recognition of same-sex unions in Serbia.
The second group, where the template links to but aren't on the page are a more eclectic mix....
Adoption may be seen as a right of marriage, so I added notes that in some countries with SSM, only opposite-sex couples are allowed to adopt, so they don't have complete marriage equality. — kwami ( talk) 20:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This was reverted without discussion as "not relevant". Relevance: by law, "married couples" can jointly adopt, but same-sex married couples cannot, ergo in that situation they are not legally married couples. — kwami ( talk) 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
At this point, Mexico has 5 states left without state-wide Marriage Equality: Durango, Guerrero, México (state), Tabasco, and Tamaulipas. At *some* point, I think it will be appropriate to have a note that looks like (All states except Tabasco) or something like that. Are we there now, or how many states should be left before we list them specifically in the Notes? Naraht ( talk) 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you have sources that anyone registered their foreign same-sex marriages in Armenia? Not just generic statements that they can be, but that the practice being used? I wouldn't be surprised, just think we should have RS's to back up our claims. I think it's misleading to include Armenia for "minimal recognition" if no-one's actually registered their foreign same-sex marriage. Zero evidence for same-sex couples being actually registered, means we shouldn't include Armenia. It's been 5 years with no evidence presented. It's time to remove Armenia from the "minimal recognition" list.
According to the Family Code, marriages between the citizens of the Republic of Armenia and those of other countries, once legally in order, will be recognized. However, where foreign country norms in relation to family rights contradict the legal framework of Armenia, the legislation of the Republic of Armenia is applied. In short, this means that same-sex marriages recognized in Belgium or elsewhere will not be recognized in Armenia. Dustssics ( talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
1. [6]
Use translator
2. [7] Dustssics ( talk) 15:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Isn't that WP:CRYSTAL if we assume Armenia "recognizes" foreign same-sex marriages? Dustssics ( talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a doubtful case. Well, anyway, we'll see what happens. Maybe something like in neighboring Georgia. Dustssics ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
References
The bill in Andorra has passed the legislature and does not come into effect for 6 months *AFTER* it is signed by one of the co-princes. Given that Bishop of Urgell is *not* going to sign this, it should not be added to the template until French President Macron signs the bill. Note, I think the chance of Macron *not* signing it is fairly small, but I think that it is non-zero, especially considering that the approved bill is not quite just "allow same sex marriage". (and there is no override for both princes refusing to sign, so even though the entire bill was approved unanimously, it doesn't matter ) Naraht ( talk) 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Definitely confirmed. https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/politics/10254-slovenia-legalises-same-sex-marriage-adoptions . I have put in for a move of the current Recognition of same-sex unions in Slovenia to the current redirect Same-sex marriage in Slovenia. The redirect actually has a history, so it will be a technical move. We'll need a redirect in the other direction when we are done. Naraht ( talk) 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I asked this on Help Desk, but I was referred to as here.
A couple of days go Andorra reformed its family law to define "matrimoni" (marriage) as either the (already existing) Roman Catholic canonical marriage or a new "casament" legal instrument that is said to be open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and fully equal to Roman Catholic canonical marriage. Except, as I pointed out in the discussion pages of the article, the use of a different term for religious and secular "marriage" may point to the fact that indeed what Andorra just passed is a form of civil-unions law which just happens to be extremely similar to marriage. The page is being renamed to **Same-sex marriage in Andorra**, and the Same-sex union map that is often found in LGBT and Europe related articles will probably be changed to portray Andorra.
Likewise, the Slovenian high court recently declared limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples inconsistent with the equality clause in Slovenia's constitution, and "legalized same-sex marriage". The ruling is said to be immediately executive, but then the Parliament has to pass law to amend the family code, and it's not entirely impossibile IMHO that the Parliament may chose to go the path of further making already existing same-sex civil unions closer to opposite-sex marriage, while keeping the two things separate. The same-sex unions map of Europe has already been changed to portray Slovenia as a country with same-sex marriage. All the sources for this news seem to be copied from one single source (perhaps a press-release from the consititutional court itself).
A similar case happens with Italy where the same-sex civil-union law passed in 2016 is meant to create a legal device that is 80% equivalent to marriage, but is not marriage itself. Wikipedia correctly describe this case as a civil-union case.
So we are having a bit of inconsistencies here, both because of how the laws of each country are made, and/or because we assume that still in-fieri legislation is being finalized when editing.
1. How do we define Civil Union? Is there a need to differentiate Civil Unions in two grades, one for civil unions that are "almost" like marriage but not, and another grade for civil unions that are weaker in rights given?
2. How do we define Same-sex Marriage? Only as full Marriage Equality (same law, same terms, just the code is update to remove rules or wording that requires people to be of opposite sex) or for "parallel" legislations that may be in different law than where marriage is definied, or with suspicious wording that may point to same-sex and opposite-sex marriage to be different or meant to diverge over time?
3. Likewise, how do we define lesser forms of recognition of same-sex unions?
4. What are the watersheds?
5. What do we do for Andorra and Slovenia, until it's clear the legal status of same-sex "marriage" in those two countries? Touyats ( talk) 15:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The template goes back and forth between needing the "not yet in effect" note, so when it isn't being used, I think it should be commented out rather than removed. Naraht ( talk) 13:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Did this go immediately into effect and if not, when does it go into effect? Naraht ( talk) 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I see Bolivia got added to Civil Unions, but I haven't seen anything recently that has significantly changed. Naraht ( talk) 19:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
As we get closer to full ME across Mexico, I support getting more specific Naraht ( talk) 19:58, 20 October 2022 (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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
I have a compromise solution for how to present the fact that certain jurisdictions are going to allow same-sex marriage in the future per legal rulings. At the moment the asterisk marks laws "not yet in effect", as in the case of Austria (it's passed, it's immutable, it's finalised, just the marriages haven't started happening yet because the date hasn't arrived). This is slightly different in the case of Costa Rica and Taiwan, as the ruling has obliged another body to do something about it, but nothing's actually happened, nothing has passed, no date is known for when any hypothetical law will come into effect. So can't we just make that clear in the footnotes, eg. another symbol representing "Automatic deadline set by judicial body for legislation to be completed" (or whatever exact wording would be best). Rather than having to have this discussion about whether or not to include every time. I'll try to make the changes to indicate what I mean. Jdcooper ( talk) 10:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi User:Ron 1987, the sections I referred to from the Costa Rica article are:
That sounds a lot more like the Taiwan case to me, the way it's worded. If you are saying it's the same as the Austria case, then what's the deadline date? I will rewrite it if you like. Jdcooper ( talk) 22:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
There seems to have been agreement that Costa Rica would be like Austria when the decision was published, starting the official 18-month clock: that happened on Nov. 14 (media are imprecisely reporting the effective date as 'mid-2020' [1]). However, Taiwan has become even more ambiguous. With today's three referenda reportedly going against, we now have a constitutional conundrum that will have to be resolved. I previously favored removal of Taiwan before, and now even more so, but at a minimum the symbol-note should be modified to reflect the uncertainty (with a change of Costa Rica's status to '*', the '+' would only be used for Taiwan and could thus be optimized). 50.37.104.202 ( talk) 17:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Kwamikagami: Are the footnotes not sufficient? Do we really need countries like New Zealand and Netherlands further broken down into "New Zealand proper" and "Netherlands proper" and UK "3 out of 4 countries". The terms are unfamiliar, expand the literal size of the template and defeat the purpose of the footnotes. As I mentioned in the edit, a cleanup of this type of formatting was made 12 months ago ( /info/en/?search=Template_talk:Same-sex_unions/Archive_19#United_States_and_United_Kingdom_notes). Global-Cityzen ( talk) 12:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I moved the Mexican entities to a fn as well. SSM is not performed in the UK, just in GB, but I'll concede it's close enough if we treat states consistently. — kwami ( talk) 17:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
That's good, then. Since SSM is recognized across Mexico, it's more important to list the regions of the UK and NZ than of Mexico, the opposite of what we had. As you say, you can be married in Yucatan even if you can't get married there, but you can't be married in N.Ireland at all. — kwami ( talk) 18:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's really 15 states in Mexico, if we go by the standards of the country listing. But I can't think of a more concise way of saying 3 of them are judicial decrees not yet in effect. That would make the note a bit long. Any ideas? — kwami ( talk) 10:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sorry but the law and constitution specefically without doubt ban same sex marriages and uses man wome The law was not striken down by the suoreme or constitutional court of the country The statuoary ban still exist and as u know u doubt that the right conservative parliament and goverment will never change the law nor accept itvesides the same marriage was not recognised so
Is it wise to assume as many did like in marriages ban or recongnition in europe or european union pages that poland no longer still has a constitutional marriage ban I think it does have and will have it So editing wrongly other pages on that is wrong? Should we revert them to point that poland still has the ban it dasnt striken down or changed u know What do u think?
Thank u AdamPrideTN ( talk) 12:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Guys, Armenia has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and is one of the most conservative countries in Europe for LGBT people. How could it possibly be listed under 'recognized abroad'? Again, registration of a foreign certificate does not mean recognition of rights. We only have one very poor source about the registration of marriage certificates. As long as further clarification is provided, Armenia should be under 'limited or partial recognition' IMHO, or not listed at all as this is probably a mistake of the Armenian ministry with no intention of legalising marriage. Finedelledanze ( talk) 09:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The Armenia source I presented states: Armenia's Ministry of Justice declaring earlier this year that international marriage licenses, including for same-sex couples, are valid in Armenia. Then: It is time for Armenia to expend the same rights to its own citizens. This is as clear as it can be (note also that this is from an Armenian gay activist). As for Estonia, the source is also very clear, in that Estonia recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad, but decides each case individually. So I do believe a note should be added. Maybe Assessed on a case-by-case basis? Grouping these two countries in the limited and partial recognition section is misleading. For starters because we have no evidence whatsoever that Armenia and Estonia treat gay couples married abroad differently than straight couples married abroad. Assuming they do simply because they're "conservative" is extremely deceptive. And secondly because they are grouped with countries such as Taiwan or Japan which simply recognize hospital visitation rights and certain property rights, which again is misleading. Panda2018 0 ( talk) 09:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Both of these cases bother me, but we can only go by the sources we have. If they are inaccurate, please come up with other sources to indicate that. The fact that Armenia has a constitutional ban is irrelevant -- god knows how the law is interpreted. It could simply mean that SSM cannot be conducted in Armenia. We can't interpret the constitution ourselves, that would be OR.
On the other hand, both may 'recognize' SSM couple without accepting them as married, e.g. for residency rights as is the case in Romania. If that's the case, we'd presumably remove them from this table and change the coloring in the map from solid to striped. But it would be OR to do that without sources. — kwami ( talk) 07:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not trying to pass this off as a source, and I don't read Armenian anyway (I'm plugging into Google Translate, which is giving surprisingly coherent results), but the Armenian WP article states,
The article is clearly just a translation of some other wiki, but the 'not' seemed odd, especially give the following 'similarly'. Turns out that it was changed, without sources or even an edit summary, from,
So, WP-hy would seem to be just like here, w people insisting on the 'truth' without providing any evidence. If anyone should be able to dig up evidence that the reports are inaccurate, it should be the people at WP-hy. I've also asked on the talk page for them to let us know. I do suspect that Armenia is more like Hong Kong than like Israel, but we do need sources. — kwami ( talk) 18:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
followup - evidently no actual cases are known, so so far this is a theoretical point. — kwami ( talk) 20:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, getting another nation to have SSM is *one* way to balance to columns. :) Naraht ( talk) 17:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Under "Marriage", we have "performed" and "recognized". Israel, Mexico and theoretically Armenia recognize out-of-state marriage as marriage, so it makes sense to have them under "Marriage". Estonia, Aruba, Italy, Switzerland etc. etc. also recognize out-of-state marriage, but do not treat them as marriages. To me, it does not make sense to include them under "marriage", but under the category they treat them as. After all, this is about people's rights, and the higher in the chart a state is, the more rights it accords. St Maartin does not give you the rights than Israel or even Italy does, so IMO it should not be above them in the chart. Also, if we're not going to restrict "recognized" under "marriage" to mean treatment as marriage, what is the cut-off? Romania and Lithuania "recognize" out-of-state marriage, so if we're going to do that, shouldn't both the CU and 'limited rec' sections simply be merged into the "recognition" section? What other non-arbitrary cut-off is there? — kwami ( talk) 17:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Then why do we say "partially recognized by Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten"? From what you just said, it sounds like they're fully recognized. Similarly, in the lead of the article we say, "they don't have to give same-sex marriages the same legal effect as opposite-sex marriages", directly contradicting what you just quoted. We even have a section "Non-equal treatment of married couples", where we summarize a court statment that such marriages do not have the same legally force as opposite-sex marriages. So, did we get it wrong in the article and footnote here? Has the ruling you cited overridden the ruling our article and fn ref? — kwami ( talk) 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the claim that moving the islands to 'limited recognition' is "ludicrous" because they have more rights thn the residency-only rec of Romania etc is silly -- we could just as easily compare them to Israel, Cambodia, the Caymans and Taiwan, all of which are in that category and all of which would seem to offer rights that Romania etc do not. The table is crudely divided, but it seems obvious to me that a country should not appear under 'marriage' if it does not allow marriage (counting recognition of out-of-state marriage), and if Aruba et al. do allow marriage, then yes, they belong at the top under 'marriage', but we need a good 2ary ref and then we need to reword the footnote and correct the article. If they do not allow marriage -- if they register it and file it away and don't act on it, as our article currently implies -- then they don't belong under 'marriage'. Their recognition should be listed in the section appropriate for the actual rights conferred. Northern Ireland and Italy also recognize out-of-state marriage. The CU's in Italy were partly designed for just that, and the CU's of Ireland are partly intended to accommodate SSM from elsewhere in the UK. Since that's similar to how our article describes Aruba, then if the article is correct and we include Aruba, we need to include N.Ireland, Italy et al. And if we include Curacao and St Maarten, which apparently don't even confer the rights of CU's, then we need to include Romania, Latvia and the rest. Either that or clarify in their article how Curacao and St Maarten confer all the rights of marriage. — kwami ( talk) 02:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, this is from the LGBT org in Curacao.
When I asked for what rights you get (taxes, adoption, inheritance, medical decisions, etc.) by registering as a married couple,
When I asked for clarification (translation problem of 'until' with or without a negative),
So it sounds like Curacao only recognizes you marriage in the literal sense, the way the US might recognize a plural marriage conducted where it's legal, but without according it the status of a marriage. This is more like Romania 'recognizing' a SSM conducted in the EU. I'll move Curacao to the 'minimal rights' list (though I don't know if there's even that). Presumably Aruba would recognize them as the local equivalent, a civil union, so that's already covered. — kwami ( talk) 02:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
As Japan has no legal recongition of same sex partnerships. I removed it from the list. (certificates issued have no legal value)
-- Paullb ( talk) 03:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The registries are inscribed in local law, and provide certain limited legal rights, such as hospital visitation. Panda2018 0 ( talk) 16:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The registries are inscribed in local law but provide no legal benefits, they are purely symbolic. Shibuya City forces registrants to have a contractual relationship between the partners but that is not bestowed by Shibuya City but rather by the contract entered by the two parties. Hospitals are under no obligation to respect the certificates. The English language media often gets it wrong. Please do not put Japan back as there is no legal recognition of relationships
Paullb ( talk) 11:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how you call restoring Japan "unilateral" when you removed it despite no-one agreeing with you.
From our description of Cambodia, it sounds like things there are much like Japan. An LGBT group facilitates civil contracts, and a few communes accept them, though what they accept them for is unclear. But we list Cambodia.
We list states in the EU, and cities in China, where the only legal consequence is that your foreign spouse can get a residency permit, but you have no rights as a married couple otherwise. For people already living there, there's nothing at all. Is some hospitals allowing you to make medical decisions, or getting public housing together in Japan any more minimal than that? — kwami ( talk) 06:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
From this, it sounds like local institutions in Cambodia may accept the certificates if they like, but there's no legal requirement for them to do so. Sounds like local institutions in Japan that may choose to accept the certificates without any legal requirement to do so. — kwami ( talk) 07:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find a ref that Estonia recognizes SSM performed abroad. The claim in our article that they do is ref'd to this article from 2017, but that's a single case, not a general right. Also, this article from 2018 says that such unions are in general not recognized. I have therefore removed Estonia from the SSM list (but left it in the CU list). — kwami ( talk) 03:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Being listed in the registry if you're already a resident doesn't seem to correlate to getting residency even if your spouse is a citizen. If you have to get a CU to be seen as a couple to get residency, even if you were already married abroad, then the 'recognition' of the marriage doesn't amount to what we imply by listing Estonia on this chart. So, I've removed Estonia. As for Armenia, indeed -- a couple sources about the ruling, but no evidence that it's actually been used. And the govt might balk if someone tried. But that's all OR and CRYSTAL. — kwami ( talk) 07:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I wrote to the Estonian Human Rights Centre to ask them if Estonia recognizes foreign SSM as marriage, or as equivalent to domestic CUs (kooselulepingu), as e.g. Italy does (except of course that Estonian domestic kooselulepingu have not been properly implemented). My specific wording was "I am not concerned about residency rights, which I think I understand, but whether a foreign same-sex marriage is legally treated as equivalent to domestic opposite-sex marriage in all other respects." I also asked a question per who can get married abroad, due to a ruling from 2009 that Estonian citizens did not qualify, but was told that currently an Estonian citizen can't get SSM'd abroad as a tourist, but can if they are a resident of the country. (As expected.) I can copy you on their response of February 24, 2019, if you have your WP email enabled.
There is no simple answer to your question, nor is there one right answer to this question. There is a lot of confusion around the topic due to missing implementation acts. ... these answers are provided based on some court rulings and since we are not a common law country, these practices can be changed by other rulings. Estonia recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. There is no uniform approach, it recognizes some and in some contexts. There have indeed been some cases when foreign concluded gay marriages have been entered into the national population register but there is no clear understanding if they have the same rights as married couples or as couples who have signed registered partnership contract. [2] There is ongoing constitutional review at the Supreme Court of Estonia about the Aliens Act so as to grant residence permits to the same-sex partners of Estonian citizens. That ruling may change a lot in terms of residence permits.
It sounds like there have been case-by-case recognition, as in Italy, and otherwise it's not clear if foreign rec is any more than in e.g. Italy. Since Italy is not listed as recognizing SSM, just as having CUs, I think the same treatment should be given to Estonia. Actually, they arguably don't really have CU's apart for those SSM they recognize from abroad. — kwami ( talk) 20:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
From what I can tell from our article and the few sources I can find, those aren't CU's in Estonia but registered cohab, and it any case haven't yet been implemented. So the only current recognition is of marriages conducted abroad. Those are recorded in the registry, but what does that mean to the couple? AFAICT, it's quite minimal, like Curacao or Romania. — kwami ( talk) 22:34, 27 June 2019 (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 Bulgaria to the countries recognizing same-sex marriage. 98.202.22.21 ( talk) 05:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I went through and looked at the bill. It appears to give the NI Executive until and including Monday October 21. The chance they will assemble on Monday is Tiny, but as such, changing it today appears to be WP:Crystal. Naraht ( talk) 02:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
You're right. Everything I'd seen up to now said "by" the 21st. Though if there's no call to convene tomorrow AM, I can't see how it could possibly happen. — kwami ( talk) 19:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace the current code with the code in the sandbox ( Template:Same-sex unions/sandbox). The sandbox code converts the template to use {{ Sidebar with collapsible lists}} as per the notice on the template. I'm unable to perform these actions due to restrictions. – BrandonXLF ( talk) 03:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Costa Rica is still in Limited or partial recognition-- 190.5.179.180 ( talk) 00:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Registered cohabitation is basically just the state recognizing that you cohabit, right? So Uttarakhand should be listed? For that matter, shouldn't we add Vietnam? The police aren't going to break up your home once the state recognizes your right to live together as a couple, even if you have none of the other rights of marriage. That might seem minimal in Europe or America, but it's a big deal in a country like India, where being gay was illegal just a couple years ago. — kwami ( talk) 10:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
If you have evidence for those other states, we should add them as well. This isn't about getting a roommate. Even with formally registered cohabitation, there is often no legal obligation from the state. But this is still about a homosexual couple living together as a sexual couple. That is perhaps the most basic right of marriage -- to live together as a couple. It's more than just sex not being illegal. The state is granting SS couples that most basic right of marriage. Traditionally in human society that's all marriage is -- moving in together as a sexual couple. All the rest is just bureaucratic and religious fluff. — kwami ( talk) 10:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Why was the "Recognized" section removed? Aren't foreign marriages recognised by the State in Israel? Why is only Tel Aviv mentioned? And where are the sources for Cuba? There's no mention of this whatsoever on the "recognition of same-sex unions in Cuba" article. Jedi Friend ( talk) 08:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Foreign marriage is 'recognized' in Israel, but not as marriage, and couples are not granted the rights of marriage. Only in Tel Aviv are SS couples recognized as married, with the full (local) rights of marriage. That ordnance was recently passed as a thumb in the eye of the state specifically because Israel does not recognize SSM.
We've been uncertain of Israel for years, with no good RS's either way -- recognition of foreign SSM was only ever demonstrated to be a rather minimal legal formality, but there were hints that informally it meant more than that. But it was never clear what exactly the reality was. The developments in Tel Aviv finally clarified the situation. There are some marriage or marriage-like rights conferred to couples married abroad, but they're due to independent decisions by various authorities and are not legally required by the recognition of the marriage itself. BTW, it's the same situation for interfaith couples, or for any Jewish couples who don't want to be bound by Orthodox law.
The only country that would be in the 'recognized' section would be Mexico, but that's only for domestic marriage, and so is redundant with the entry for Mexico in the 'marriage' section. So there's no longer any purpose to the 'recognized' section, unless Armenia qualifies, but we have no evidence for that. (Presumably, if it had to, Armenia would 'recognize' a foreign SSM the way Estonia and Israel do -- enter it into a form and confer as few actual rights as possible.)
For Cuba, there was just a legal case that both members of a SS couple must be recognized by the state as the parents of a child, even though one has no biological relationship to the child. This is rather minimal, but in the US fights over this kind of thing continued well past 2015. In summary,
A 1-year-old boy born in Tallahassee FL via assisted reproduction to a married Cuban/US same-sex couple who live in Cuba has become the first person in Cuba with two legal mothers. ( Estado cubano reconoce legalmente que Paulo tiene dos madres)
That is, the state is granting legitimacy to SS couples. And, after all, that's what makes SSM so important -- it's not really the rights of marriage themselves, but the recognition of society that SS relationships are legitimate. That's why teenage suicide rates drop when SSM is passed -- society is saying, 'we no longer think you're a pervert.' That's what Cuba just did, and to a lesser extent, Uttarakhand. — kwami ( talk) 10:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
"“I am glad we won and got what we wanted to achieve in this petition, which was the basic right to be registered as married by the Israeli Ministry of Interior, just as any couple marrying abroad does and takes it for granted,” Joseph Bar Lev, a 39-year-old dance instructor who was one of the petitioners, told Israel Radio."
Re. recent rv of template, from unregistered cohabitation in Israel -- "Attorney General Menachem Mazuz said the couples will be treated the same as common-law spouses, recognizing them as legal units for tax, real estate, and financial purposes."
That's equivalent to what are called 'civil unions' or 'registered partnerships' in other countries -- actually, more rights than in some of them. I'm still not clear what the difference from a registered foreign marriage is, but this isn't the kind of 'limited recognition' you get in Hong Kong or Romania. Perhaps we could change the wording of the rubric if that's the problem. — kwami ( talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Nothing's ever "the same", and whether it's registered is beside the point. The table is divided into full rights, moderate rights (~ 2nd-class marriage) and minimal rights. The wording we give is just a way to capture that. We don't want minimal rights in the middle or moderate rights at the bottom. Over the years, we've changed the wording many times as changing politics shuffled things around. AFAICT, Israel is out of place at the bottom. Unless you have evidence that Israeli rights are minimal?
Also, re. "common-law marriage [is] by definition, something not formalized, unregistered" -- 'unregistered' just means 'not registered', not 'common-law'. If common-law marriage is unregistered, how could such couples receive tax and pension benefits? The govt would have to keep track of who they are. If that's not 'registered', it's so close as to make no effective difference, and we're just playing semantics. I could just as easily say "common-law marriage is, by definition, marriage" and move Israel up to the top category. — kwami ( talk) 11:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The 3rd cat was always for minimal rights. Israel does not belong there. (And how 'registered' means 'not registered' I don't understand. AFAICT, everything in the 3nd cat is registered.) I created a new section for common-law marriage. Seems overkill, but at least it's not incorrect. — kwami ( talk) 22:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Ratherous and I have done the Bold Revert (Twice), So I'm moving here for the Discuss. Switzerland's Legislature has passed Marriage Equality like other Swiss laws may be overridden on a referendum. I think the LGBT_rights_in_Switzerland#Same-sex_marriage section is most clear:
Same-sex marriage is in the process of being legalized. On 18 December 2020, seven years after the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland introduced a bill providing for same-sex marriage, the Swiss federal legislature adopted corresponding legislation (which also provides for IVF access for lesbian couples), making Switzerland the 29th country to allow same-sex marriage.[7] However, in Switzerland's system of semi-direct democracy, the statute is subject to a popular referendum if its opponents collect 50,000 signatures demanding one within three months. The right-wing EDU party has announced its intent to do so.[8] A date of entry into force of the statute (after any referendum) has not yet been set by the federal government.
and Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Switzerland#Legalization says
The final vote in both chambers took place on 18 December 2020. The Council of States approved the bill by 24 votes to 11 with 7 abstentions,[130] and the National Council approved the bill by 136 votes to 48 with 9 abstentions.[131] The right-wing party EDU announced its intention to collect the 50,000 signatures needed to trigger a referendum,[132] in which case passage of the bill would require a simple majority of the popular vote.[133]
To me, this its into the "not yet in effect" meaning of the note in the template: "Not yet in effect or automatic deadline set by judicial body for same-sex marriage to become legal" as such, I feel Switzerland should be listed in the Template with an asterisk. -- Naraht ( talk) 02:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Court recognition of couples recently. Been in the news, trying to track down the articles. Minimal rec -- just saying that they're allowed to live together, not conferring any other rights. But that's all they get in Vietnam too. — kwami ( talk) 22:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The situation in Odisha is the same as in Uttarakhand, according to this-- 190.5.185.180 ( talk) 01:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Where's Vietnam? I see Vietnam, Thailand and Namibia on the map, but not here. That's really weird. Cyanmax ( talk) 10:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The change here has been from 20 to 21, the first reference that I can find in English is https://yucatanmagazine.com/yucatan-gay-marriage-equality-bill/ which says it is 22nd. Any ideas? Naraht ( talk) 13:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, https://www.equalityontrial.com/2021/08/23/8-23-open-thread/ I *know* it counts as a blog, but it has a *lot* of links to News sources as it goes. And there seems to be consistent use of 22nd but with the *however* that they have undone the chance to the state constitution, but they still have to change the family code. (so the count would still be 21) Naraht ( talk) 13:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Switzerland legalized same-sex marriage, but it's premature to have it listed how it currently is, because so far, same-sex couples aren't able to marry. The law hasn't taken effect yet [4]. Prcc27 ( talk) 21:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Chile just approved same sex marriage. The national congress ratified it on 7 december 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.231.106 ( talk) 20:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Does it make sense to try to change the template so that the countries show up in three columns? I tried changing the width to 6em, but the UK and US went outside the border with their footnotes numbers. Naraht ( talk) 04:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
In *General* a template should be on the pages that it links to. I know there are exceptions, but this template seems to have a particularly large number of issues in that regard. There are 153 Wikipedia pages that this template is on that aren't links, and 13 that it links to that it doesn't appear on.
https://templatetransclusioncheck.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3ASame-sex+unions
Most of the pages in the first group (153) are pages about Same Sex Marriage in subnational entities that may have been linked from the template at one time, but no longer are, for example: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Same-sex marriage in Manitoba, Same-sex marriage in Oaxaca and Same-sex marriage in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands . There are also others where the state of Marriage in the country is so low that they don't make the template such as Recognition of same-sex unions in Serbia.
The second group, where the template links to but aren't on the page are a more eclectic mix....
Adoption may be seen as a right of marriage, so I added notes that in some countries with SSM, only opposite-sex couples are allowed to adopt, so they don't have complete marriage equality. — kwami ( talk) 20:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This was reverted without discussion as "not relevant". Relevance: by law, "married couples" can jointly adopt, but same-sex married couples cannot, ergo in that situation they are not legally married couples. — kwami ( talk) 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
At this point, Mexico has 5 states left without state-wide Marriage Equality: Durango, Guerrero, México (state), Tabasco, and Tamaulipas. At *some* point, I think it will be appropriate to have a note that looks like (All states except Tabasco) or something like that. Are we there now, or how many states should be left before we list them specifically in the Notes? Naraht ( talk) 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you have sources that anyone registered their foreign same-sex marriages in Armenia? Not just generic statements that they can be, but that the practice being used? I wouldn't be surprised, just think we should have RS's to back up our claims. I think it's misleading to include Armenia for "minimal recognition" if no-one's actually registered their foreign same-sex marriage. Zero evidence for same-sex couples being actually registered, means we shouldn't include Armenia. It's been 5 years with no evidence presented. It's time to remove Armenia from the "minimal recognition" list.
According to the Family Code, marriages between the citizens of the Republic of Armenia and those of other countries, once legally in order, will be recognized. However, where foreign country norms in relation to family rights contradict the legal framework of Armenia, the legislation of the Republic of Armenia is applied. In short, this means that same-sex marriages recognized in Belgium or elsewhere will not be recognized in Armenia. Dustssics ( talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
1. [6]
Use translator
2. [7] Dustssics ( talk) 15:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Isn't that WP:CRYSTAL if we assume Armenia "recognizes" foreign same-sex marriages? Dustssics ( talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a doubtful case. Well, anyway, we'll see what happens. Maybe something like in neighboring Georgia. Dustssics ( talk) 16:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
References
The bill in Andorra has passed the legislature and does not come into effect for 6 months *AFTER* it is signed by one of the co-princes. Given that Bishop of Urgell is *not* going to sign this, it should not be added to the template until French President Macron signs the bill. Note, I think the chance of Macron *not* signing it is fairly small, but I think that it is non-zero, especially considering that the approved bill is not quite just "allow same sex marriage". (and there is no override for both princes refusing to sign, so even though the entire bill was approved unanimously, it doesn't matter ) Naraht ( talk) 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Definitely confirmed. https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/politics/10254-slovenia-legalises-same-sex-marriage-adoptions . I have put in for a move of the current Recognition of same-sex unions in Slovenia to the current redirect Same-sex marriage in Slovenia. The redirect actually has a history, so it will be a technical move. We'll need a redirect in the other direction when we are done. Naraht ( talk) 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I asked this on Help Desk, but I was referred to as here.
A couple of days go Andorra reformed its family law to define "matrimoni" (marriage) as either the (already existing) Roman Catholic canonical marriage or a new "casament" legal instrument that is said to be open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and fully equal to Roman Catholic canonical marriage. Except, as I pointed out in the discussion pages of the article, the use of a different term for religious and secular "marriage" may point to the fact that indeed what Andorra just passed is a form of civil-unions law which just happens to be extremely similar to marriage. The page is being renamed to **Same-sex marriage in Andorra**, and the Same-sex union map that is often found in LGBT and Europe related articles will probably be changed to portray Andorra.
Likewise, the Slovenian high court recently declared limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples inconsistent with the equality clause in Slovenia's constitution, and "legalized same-sex marriage". The ruling is said to be immediately executive, but then the Parliament has to pass law to amend the family code, and it's not entirely impossibile IMHO that the Parliament may chose to go the path of further making already existing same-sex civil unions closer to opposite-sex marriage, while keeping the two things separate. The same-sex unions map of Europe has already been changed to portray Slovenia as a country with same-sex marriage. All the sources for this news seem to be copied from one single source (perhaps a press-release from the consititutional court itself).
A similar case happens with Italy where the same-sex civil-union law passed in 2016 is meant to create a legal device that is 80% equivalent to marriage, but is not marriage itself. Wikipedia correctly describe this case as a civil-union case.
So we are having a bit of inconsistencies here, both because of how the laws of each country are made, and/or because we assume that still in-fieri legislation is being finalized when editing.
1. How do we define Civil Union? Is there a need to differentiate Civil Unions in two grades, one for civil unions that are "almost" like marriage but not, and another grade for civil unions that are weaker in rights given?
2. How do we define Same-sex Marriage? Only as full Marriage Equality (same law, same terms, just the code is update to remove rules or wording that requires people to be of opposite sex) or for "parallel" legislations that may be in different law than where marriage is definied, or with suspicious wording that may point to same-sex and opposite-sex marriage to be different or meant to diverge over time?
3. Likewise, how do we define lesser forms of recognition of same-sex unions?
4. What are the watersheds?
5. What do we do for Andorra and Slovenia, until it's clear the legal status of same-sex "marriage" in those two countries? Touyats ( talk) 15:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The template goes back and forth between needing the "not yet in effect" note, so when it isn't being used, I think it should be commented out rather than removed. Naraht ( talk) 13:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Did this go immediately into effect and if not, when does it go into effect? Naraht ( talk) 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I see Bolivia got added to Civil Unions, but I haven't seen anything recently that has significantly changed. Naraht ( talk) 19:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
As we get closer to full ME across Mexico, I support getting more specific Naraht ( talk) 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)