![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
As happened with California, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The opinion put out today is not effective yet. According to this source, its direction to the trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs (that is to overturn the ban on SSM), takes effect on October 28. The trial court's order will determine when marriage will become available. We should somehow note that marriage is yet to become available.
Also, civil unions are being treated as though the civil union law was ruled unconstitutional. It wasn't, the part of it that said marriage is between a man and a woman was. Beyond that, it was the overall statutory scheme that was ruled unconstitutional. That is to say, offering civil union instead of SSM was rejected, not civil unions. Until someone abrogates the Civil Union Act, it should not be treated as though it was repealed. - Rrius ( talk) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The category "foreign marriages recognized" currently lists:
The inclusion of Aruba and Netherlands Antilles in the "foreign marriages recognized" category is misleading. According to the linked articles Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles do not recognize true foreign marriages, unlike the countries and states in this category. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles recognize only Dutch same-sex marriages as the Dutch island states were found ineligible to deny recognition of same-sex marriages in a territory that was not true "foreign". Foreign same-sex marriages, i.e. from the US, Canada, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, are (unfortunately) not recognized in these small island dependencies. I suggest deleting the territories from this list. gidonb ( talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
SSM in Connecticut takes effect on November 10 according to this source. - Rrius ( talk) 15:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
We should probably remove California now that
the results are in.--
Aervanath's
sock
lives
in
the Orphanage, too
14:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If the ban is approved -- remember, 3 million votes uncounted, far more than the margin -- it will be declared on 9 December, IIRC. It will then retroactively apply from 5 November 2008 onwards. Nonetheless, currently SSM is not yet illegal in California. — Nightstallion 21:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.
{{
editprotected}}
The effective date and footnote for CT should be removed now that we have reached the effective date. -
Rrius (
talk)
23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
source CTJF83 Talk 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have removed the "regions previously recognised" section, which only contained California. I think that this clutters a template that is already too long. Many regions/countries have previously recognised SSM only to revoke it - examples that come to mind include Iowa in 2007, San Francisco in 2004, Hawaii in 1996, France and Greece (in the latter two, mayors gave marriage certificates to same-sex couples). I think that including this information is irrelevant: the template should reflect where same-sex couples are currently recognised rather than where they were formerly recognised but can no longer marry. Ronline ✉ 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As to Nepal: I've removed it from the SSM list for the time being. The Supreme Court's decision is definitely groundbreaking, but so far same-sex couples cannot be married there. My understanding is that the Court's decision is similar to that of the South African apex court in 2006 (or the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling). That is, it ordered the government to form a committee to look into marriage/partnership laws with the intent of ensuring equal rights for same-sex couples. The government has not responded so far. Ronline ✉ 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
California is a case where same-sex marriages legally went on. The marriage that went on this summer are still recognized by the state government. There are legally married gays in California, there just won't be anymore until something voids prop 8. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 08:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sweden will legalize SSM from 1 June 2009 - Is this correct or can be verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have the two Canadian provinces listed under the unions section when marriage is granted nation-wide? Thankyoubaby ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
User wanted to see this on the talk page, hence my writing here. According to the linked article, there is no SSM in Nepal. There is not even a date for it like in Norway. It seems to be in the process, but at Wikipedia we refrain from crystal balling. If you still insist there is SSM in Nepal, please put your comments here or fix the article Same-sex marriage in Nepal with verifiable references. gidonb ( talk) 12:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no controversy here. According to the quoted article, the SC only seems to have recommended same-sex marriage, with no action taken so far. As long as we don't have more information on the issue, Nepal should remain in the "recognition debated" section. Finedelledanze ( talk) 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Nepal, and look at the sources you will see that Nepal needs to placed in the same sex marriage section (with a 2009 in parentheses). Azcolvin429 ( talk) 12:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Can it be confirmed that Sweden will provide SSMs from 1 May 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.82.242 ( talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding auto archiving for threads stale 45+ days with a minimum of 5 threads to remain so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It states on the Ecuador page as well as in several news articles that Ecuador has civil unions, yet it is included in the "recognition debated" section. Until someone can find a source that confirms a shift on the legislation of CUs, I'm moving it to the CU section. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I added Greenland to civil unions. It seems to qualify for the box. Please correct me if you have a different opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
These were listed under the Civil Unions/Registered Partnerships debated — yet there has been no recent debate of allowing such unions and such would be unconstitutional in Ohio and Michigan as all forms of same-sex unions are explicitly banned in the constitution. Pennsylvania has been rumored to have a petition going to get a ban, but this has nothing to do with legislating a same-sex union. Until someone can give some sources, I am removing these from the templates. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 23:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Social Democratic Party supported same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.6.95 ( talk) 13:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Please correct me if my facts are incorrect, but; The NH legislature sent the bill to Governor Lynch on Wednesday last. Today is Monday - exactly 5 days since the legislature sent the bill to the Governor. Since I have heard no news of a veto or a signature...wouldn't that mean that the marriage bill has passed w/o the governor's signature? -- haha169 ( talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
[1] - Not sure if it is completely reliable or not, but Pink News states the loopholes in the Russian law that recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad. Apparently, there is a list of foreign-marriages that aren't recognized, and same-sex marriages aren't on the list. -- haha169 ( talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Portugal has something called "União de facto" which juridically is very similar and hence translatable as registered partnership for same sex couples. The table was wrong-- 62.169.67.134 ( t alk) 02:46, 19 February 2009 (UT
Last week a judge ruled that New Jersey has a long standing tradition of recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. Didn't read anything that the decision was being appealed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflack ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The same-sex marriage in Maryland page says that there is unregistared domestic partnerships, but this table doesn't show it. Which is right?
I edited the template to list California under the US states, but give the parenthetical '(in flux)'. I'm not really in love with that term, but cannot think of another that is better.
Some other editor changed it (in a bit of an edit war) to using a whole section of the box titled 'Recognized, currently repealed'. I really don't like the section because it gives this huge visual emphasis to California, more than most nations, the other states, etc. Moreover, the section title really gives less information than my parenthetical, not more.
The problem is that we really can't fully characterize the situation in few enough word to fit into a template section title or parenthetical. Nor is a template a place to put several sentences of description. A section title would need to be: 'Recognized for a few months, but repealed by voters, but repeal may not have followed constitutional procedures, but existing marriages are still acknowledged, unless the supreme court also nullifies them'. The right way to handle that is by mentioning CA as briefly as possible, but with a Wikilink that points to an article with the actual details. LotLE× talk 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone confirm whether or not Nepal is indeed forced by the highest court to allow for same-sex marriages. Either way of course until this happens Nepal shouldn't show up in the top with the other countries like it had some time ago. KFlack ✉ 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The format looks terrible on the sidebar, I tried to fix it, but could not figure out what went wrong. It looks all scrunched up on the "same-sex marriage" page, while if you click on "same-sex marriage in Spain" or any of the other countries, it looks how it originally looked. Can anyone change the main page to look how it originally did? user:vicki:vickiloves08
KFlack ✉ 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently, the U.S. state of Wyoming defeated a bill that would have amended its constitution to forbid recognition of same-sex couples married out of state. It does have a statute saying that all marriages performed in Wyoming must be between a man and a woman, but apparently Wyoming is "bound to recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other states." So why isn't Wyoming next to New York under 'Foreign marriages recognized'? Has this been discussed before? Wyoming doesn't have a Same-sex marriage in page! Noble Spear ( talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states. Two states – Massachusetts and Connecticut -- currently allow same-sex unions. Supporters of the resolution said it’s important for the Legislature to address the legal discrepancy before the courts are forced to weight in. They urged the House to send the issue to the voters, who are required to endorse constitutional amendments. . . .
- Rep. Edward Buchanan, R-Torrington, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the resolution doesn’t preclude same-sex relationships, but it does draw a clear line about the state’s position on marriage. Without dealing with the legal discrepancy, he said, it’s possible that the state could be asked to recognize other unacceptable unions.
I see, I knew that couldn't be right. Aww, for a little while I thought Wyoming was more Liberal than California XD -- Occono ( talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
As happened with California, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The opinion put out today is not effective yet. According to this source, its direction to the trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs (that is to overturn the ban on SSM), takes effect on October 28. The trial court's order will determine when marriage will become available. We should somehow note that marriage is yet to become available.
Also, civil unions are being treated as though the civil union law was ruled unconstitutional. It wasn't, the part of it that said marriage is between a man and a woman was. Beyond that, it was the overall statutory scheme that was ruled unconstitutional. That is to say, offering civil union instead of SSM was rejected, not civil unions. Until someone abrogates the Civil Union Act, it should not be treated as though it was repealed. - Rrius ( talk) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The category "foreign marriages recognized" currently lists:
The inclusion of Aruba and Netherlands Antilles in the "foreign marriages recognized" category is misleading. According to the linked articles Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles do not recognize true foreign marriages, unlike the countries and states in this category. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles recognize only Dutch same-sex marriages as the Dutch island states were found ineligible to deny recognition of same-sex marriages in a territory that was not true "foreign". Foreign same-sex marriages, i.e. from the US, Canada, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, are (unfortunately) not recognized in these small island dependencies. I suggest deleting the territories from this list. gidonb ( talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
SSM in Connecticut takes effect on November 10 according to this source. - Rrius ( talk) 15:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
We should probably remove California now that
the results are in.--
Aervanath's
sock
lives
in
the Orphanage, too
14:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If the ban is approved -- remember, 3 million votes uncounted, far more than the margin -- it will be declared on 9 December, IIRC. It will then retroactively apply from 5 November 2008 onwards. Nonetheless, currently SSM is not yet illegal in California. — Nightstallion 21:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.
{{
editprotected}}
The effective date and footnote for CT should be removed now that we have reached the effective date. -
Rrius (
talk)
23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
source CTJF83 Talk 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have removed the "regions previously recognised" section, which only contained California. I think that this clutters a template that is already too long. Many regions/countries have previously recognised SSM only to revoke it - examples that come to mind include Iowa in 2007, San Francisco in 2004, Hawaii in 1996, France and Greece (in the latter two, mayors gave marriage certificates to same-sex couples). I think that including this information is irrelevant: the template should reflect where same-sex couples are currently recognised rather than where they were formerly recognised but can no longer marry. Ronline ✉ 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As to Nepal: I've removed it from the SSM list for the time being. The Supreme Court's decision is definitely groundbreaking, but so far same-sex couples cannot be married there. My understanding is that the Court's decision is similar to that of the South African apex court in 2006 (or the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling). That is, it ordered the government to form a committee to look into marriage/partnership laws with the intent of ensuring equal rights for same-sex couples. The government has not responded so far. Ronline ✉ 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
California is a case where same-sex marriages legally went on. The marriage that went on this summer are still recognized by the state government. There are legally married gays in California, there just won't be anymore until something voids prop 8. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 08:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sweden will legalize SSM from 1 June 2009 - Is this correct or can be verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have the two Canadian provinces listed under the unions section when marriage is granted nation-wide? Thankyoubaby ( talk) 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
User wanted to see this on the talk page, hence my writing here. According to the linked article, there is no SSM in Nepal. There is not even a date for it like in Norway. It seems to be in the process, but at Wikipedia we refrain from crystal balling. If you still insist there is SSM in Nepal, please put your comments here or fix the article Same-sex marriage in Nepal with verifiable references. gidonb ( talk) 12:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no controversy here. According to the quoted article, the SC only seems to have recommended same-sex marriage, with no action taken so far. As long as we don't have more information on the issue, Nepal should remain in the "recognition debated" section. Finedelledanze ( talk) 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If you read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Nepal, and look at the sources you will see that Nepal needs to placed in the same sex marriage section (with a 2009 in parentheses). Azcolvin429 ( talk) 12:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Can it be confirmed that Sweden will provide SSMs from 1 May 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.82.242 ( talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm adding auto archiving for threads stale 45+ days with a minimum of 5 threads to remain so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It states on the Ecuador page as well as in several news articles that Ecuador has civil unions, yet it is included in the "recognition debated" section. Until someone can find a source that confirms a shift on the legislation of CUs, I'm moving it to the CU section. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I added Greenland to civil unions. It seems to qualify for the box. Please correct me if you have a different opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
These were listed under the Civil Unions/Registered Partnerships debated — yet there has been no recent debate of allowing such unions and such would be unconstitutional in Ohio and Michigan as all forms of same-sex unions are explicitly banned in the constitution. Pennsylvania has been rumored to have a petition going to get a ban, but this has nothing to do with legislating a same-sex union. Until someone can give some sources, I am removing these from the templates. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 23:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Social Democratic Party supported same-sex marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.6.95 ( talk) 13:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Please correct me if my facts are incorrect, but; The NH legislature sent the bill to Governor Lynch on Wednesday last. Today is Monday - exactly 5 days since the legislature sent the bill to the Governor. Since I have heard no news of a veto or a signature...wouldn't that mean that the marriage bill has passed w/o the governor's signature? -- haha169 ( talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
[1] - Not sure if it is completely reliable or not, but Pink News states the loopholes in the Russian law that recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad. Apparently, there is a list of foreign-marriages that aren't recognized, and same-sex marriages aren't on the list. -- haha169 ( talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Portugal has something called "União de facto" which juridically is very similar and hence translatable as registered partnership for same sex couples. The table was wrong-- 62.169.67.134 ( t alk) 02:46, 19 February 2009 (UT
Last week a judge ruled that New Jersey has a long standing tradition of recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. Didn't read anything that the decision was being appealed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflack ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The same-sex marriage in Maryland page says that there is unregistared domestic partnerships, but this table doesn't show it. Which is right?
I edited the template to list California under the US states, but give the parenthetical '(in flux)'. I'm not really in love with that term, but cannot think of another that is better.
Some other editor changed it (in a bit of an edit war) to using a whole section of the box titled 'Recognized, currently repealed'. I really don't like the section because it gives this huge visual emphasis to California, more than most nations, the other states, etc. Moreover, the section title really gives less information than my parenthetical, not more.
The problem is that we really can't fully characterize the situation in few enough word to fit into a template section title or parenthetical. Nor is a template a place to put several sentences of description. A section title would need to be: 'Recognized for a few months, but repealed by voters, but repeal may not have followed constitutional procedures, but existing marriages are still acknowledged, unless the supreme court also nullifies them'. The right way to handle that is by mentioning CA as briefly as possible, but with a Wikilink that points to an article with the actual details. LotLE× talk 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone confirm whether or not Nepal is indeed forced by the highest court to allow for same-sex marriages. Either way of course until this happens Nepal shouldn't show up in the top with the other countries like it had some time ago. KFlack ✉ 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The format looks terrible on the sidebar, I tried to fix it, but could not figure out what went wrong. It looks all scrunched up on the "same-sex marriage" page, while if you click on "same-sex marriage in Spain" or any of the other countries, it looks how it originally looked. Can anyone change the main page to look how it originally did? user:vicki:vickiloves08
KFlack ✉ 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently, the U.S. state of Wyoming defeated a bill that would have amended its constitution to forbid recognition of same-sex couples married out of state. It does have a statute saying that all marriages performed in Wyoming must be between a man and a woman, but apparently Wyoming is "bound to recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other states." So why isn't Wyoming next to New York under 'Foreign marriages recognized'? Has this been discussed before? Wyoming doesn't have a Same-sex marriage in page! Noble Spear ( talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states. Two states – Massachusetts and Connecticut -- currently allow same-sex unions. Supporters of the resolution said it’s important for the Legislature to address the legal discrepancy before the courts are forced to weight in. They urged the House to send the issue to the voters, who are required to endorse constitutional amendments. . . .
- Rep. Edward Buchanan, R-Torrington, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the resolution doesn’t preclude same-sex relationships, but it does draw a clear line about the state’s position on marriage. Without dealing with the legal discrepancy, he said, it’s possible that the state could be asked to recognize other unacceptable unions.
I see, I knew that couldn't be right. Aww, for a little while I thought Wyoming was more Liberal than California XD -- Occono ( talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)