![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Since Iceland has a gay Prime Minister, has Iceland made SSM legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 ( talk) 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Spain recognized unregistered cohabitation since 1994. 12 Autonomous Communities implemented civil unions.
South Africa recognized unregistered cohabitation since 1999. Registered unions are recognized since 2006.
Alberta recognized same-sex unions as "Adult interdependent relationship" since 2003
What is the situation in Hungary after the Consitutional Court ruling on a registered partnership law that was due to come into effect 1.1.2009. What is the outcome of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Have more states of the US provided domestic partnerships, civil unions or marriage yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.178.34 ( talk) 05:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed California on the grounds that while it still recognizes the said 18,000+ SSMs — new ones cannot be carried out — as is the case with Iowa — which legally recognizes one SSM, but new ones cannot be formed. If California is listed, there is no reason that Iowa shouldn't, and therefore California is best removed from the list and placed under Recognition granted; SSM debated for the time being. As Iowa is under Recognition debated. The same applies to Greece, which could also be listed as a same-sex marriage is legally still recognized in the nation as well. After the CA supreme court makes their ruling, then we can decide where to place it. vickiloves08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.150.22 ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus for your removal of CA. California's situation is far different from Iowa. Iowa had SSM for one day before it ended. In Iowa SSM was started and ended by the court; in California it was started by the court and then stopped by the people. The only reason to remove CA would be if the 18,000+ SSMs were voided. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The marriage in Iowa is still recognized by law, as is the case with a SSM marriage on an island that is part of Greece. California being included is both misleading and unneeded, as SS couples cannot get married in CA currently as they can in MA and CT. Therefore, it has no place in this template, and should stay under SSM debated until further notice. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 06:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think we should have a disputed section so we won't have to fret over where to place countries such as Greece and states such as Iowa and California? I think this could come in handy — but what are your thoughts? vickiloves08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.150.22 ( talk) 22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth is Poland included under "recognition debated" — as there have been no developments in years — and the "developments" in the past were minor at best. And last time I checked, Latvia and Lithuania have constitutional bans on SSM — with no talk of a civil union bill. I think those three countries should be removed to clear up space, as we might as well list Cambodia if those nations with extremely minor updates are listed. I'm going to start a list of countries that I believe should be removed, and then after I get some feedback, we can decide.
Removals
Austria
Chile
China (PRC)
Costa Rica
Cuba
Estonia
Faroe Islands
Greece
Ireland
Italy (CU)
Jersey
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Nepal (SSM)
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Taiwan
Vickiloves08 ( talk) 22:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Also—do you think it would be too much if we added (M) or (SSM) next to the countries in the recognition debated section debating SSM and a (CU) next to the countries debating only civil unions? I know I have always been confused to which a country is debating either and since there are no separate sections for SSM marriage debated and Civil Union debated, I think it could clear up some confusion and inform those who wanted to know whether a country was debating civil unions or SSM specifically, and if it was just on the table for either being one or the other, we could just leave it blank to ensure that the country was debating the possibility of some form of recognition, but not specifically SSM or Civil Union. Like Italy for example. I tried it out on just Italy and Nepal, so let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Requirements
(others are free to add) Vickiloves08 ( talk) 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's an idea I had previously, so maybe this sounds good as well: Also—do you think it would be too much if we added (M) or (SSM) next to the countries in the recognition debated section debating SSM and a (CU) next to the countries debating only civil unions? I know I have always been confused to which a country is debating either and since there are no separate sections for SSM marriage debated and Civil Union debated, I think it could clear up some confusion and inform those who wanted to know whether a country was debating civil unions or SSM specifically, and if it was just on the table for either being one or the other, we could just leave it blank to ensure that the country was debating the possibility of some form of recognition, but not specifically SSM or Civil Union.
Either way, I still believe that Latvia, Romania and Lithuania should be removed. They have no place there. I suppose we could someone link them in, but they shouldn't just be included so other can find out about their status. If we did it that way, we might as well include Wyoming under the debated section. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Good points, I have a few ideas that could solve both issues. I'm still working on perfecting them, though.
The Governor vetoed the bill around 6pm today. Will go to back to senate and house early tomorrow morning, April 7th. Very likely to pass override his veto. Senate passed 26-4. That's a no brainer.
New Hampshire is likely to pass in its senate next week. If it were to pass, we still don't know whether or not their gov. lynch will sign it or not. Likely to pass. Effective date 2010-1-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.113.119 ( talk) 00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As many others have asked in the past if a European Union page was necessary, and others unanimously agreed, I decided to finally create the page which had been suggested and offered, but never officially created. Feel free to add addition info/or rephrase wordings. Not only will this give others info on updates throughout the 27-state union, it will also save space if the EU passes the currently debated and much supported bill to require each member (yup, even Cyprus and the former Soviet Nations) to recognize each other's SSMs, CUs, and RPs — it will save space in the "recognized, not performed" section. It would be much too spacious and irritating to list all 27 nations in the template, therefore we can simply link the European Union page under the said category if/when it is agreed upon. I also added it under SSM debated and Civil Unions/RP debated — so it can stand for some of the nations with minimal debates with very little progress (i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, and Bulgaria) and we won't have to include each nation. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There are legally recognized SSMs in CA. This situation is NOT analagous to Iowa or Greece. Over there, the courts started and ended SSM. In CA the people (possibly illegaly) ended it. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
NO. It is not the same as Massachusetts and Conneticutt, as two people of the same sex cannot get married there currently, as they can in MA or CT. It should stay under debated until further notice. It's inclusion in the SSM section is ridiculous and confusing. If California will be included with Status in flux, then there's no reason why Iowa and Greece shouldn't be included, as a few SSM marriages are legally recognized in those places. Numbers mean nothing. This is why it has no place there. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 21:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you are slightly off when you say "Since technically (this is saying that the supreme court invalidates Prop 8), CA would be recognizing marriages but not performing them.". There are three primary possible results of the
Lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8
1. Prop 8 is invalidated and SSMs continue and the in flux comment is removed
2. Prop 8 remains active and SSMs committed in the interim period become divorced, and CA is removed from the template w/o question
3. Prop 8 remains active BUT the interim SSMs are still valid for various legal reasons; in this case there is a can of worms opened over the template.
Any of these three possibilities are very possible; however, at the moment there are valid SSMs around CA. I think the template should stay as it currently is in regards to CA until the CA SC rules. This is a very important case and I don't think they will dilly-dally over this; I remember reading somewhere that they promised an expedited ruling. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
When will be a final vote in the Swedish Parliament? Ron 1987 ( talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently, same-sex marriage is not debated in Cambodia. King Norodom Sihanouk abdicated in 2004. Current monarch nor any party not supported same-sex marriage. Ron 1987 ( talk) 12:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a centralized discussion at the LGBT Wikiproject here regarding standardizing all the article names for at least the United States articles. Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 07:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Should Austria and Hungary be included in the registered partnership list? From 1.1.2010 Austria and Hungary will provide "registered partnerships". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[1] [2] -- 205.167.47.253 ( talk) 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It probably will pass right through the Vermont House of Representatives, which is Democratically led 96-47-5-2 (Dems-GOP-Progressives-Independents). It is just a question as for whether the Republican governor will sign it or not. Anyways, so what is the drill if it is signed (or veto'ed and then overrided)? will be put up before CA (as CA is in flux) with an (Eff. 9-01-08) on it? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why somebody added Philippines and Venezuela? Could you give some source? Ron 1987 17:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 ( talk • contribs)
The Venezuela debate is now completely off the table. See this link
Should I place something next to Japan along the lines of "foreign partners only" or (foreign+national only)? I think a distinction needs to be made, but it needs to be brief. It clearly does not recognize ALL foreign SSMs in the same fashion as Israel and France, so I think some form of distinction would be helpful. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Pretend the template is below: Japan ( restrictions apply) *OR* ( restrictions) <— It links to the SSM page, I just made the text black to look nicer based on what I saw another member do with a similar instance. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently Japan will be recognizing SSMs conducted between a foreign partner and a Japanese citizen — and they will receive exactly the same benefits as a married hetero couple. This is definitely a unique case, but Japan has already allowed such occurrences to start so I suppose one could be happening by tomorrow. Why Japan chose to do it that way is beyond me, but perhaps they'll simply realize the absurdity and just recognize all foreign SSMs or just legalize SSMs to begin with. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
"Japan has given the green light for its nationals to marry same-sex foreign partners in countries where gay marriage is legal, a justice ministry official said Friday. Japan does not allow same-sex marriages at home and has so far also refused to issue a key document required for citizens to wed overseas if the applicant's intended spouse was of the same gender." Under the change, the justice ministry has told local authorities to issue the key certificate -- which states a person is single and of legal age -- for those who want to enter same-sex marriages, the official told AFP. (one must be national and the other from a foreign country though) [1]
Wikitiki666 ( talk) 00:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I probably didn't pick the best source. It kind of confused me when I first read it myself. Here's a clear one that confirms it. (From The Advocate) "The Japanese government will recognize the marriages of nationals who legally marry their same-sex partners outside the country." [1]
Wikitiki666 ( talk) 01:25, 28 March 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Since Iceland has a gay Prime Minister, has Iceland made SSM legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 ( talk) 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Spain recognized unregistered cohabitation since 1994. 12 Autonomous Communities implemented civil unions.
South Africa recognized unregistered cohabitation since 1999. Registered unions are recognized since 2006.
Alberta recognized same-sex unions as "Adult interdependent relationship" since 2003
What is the situation in Hungary after the Consitutional Court ruling on a registered partnership law that was due to come into effect 1.1.2009. What is the outcome of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Have more states of the US provided domestic partnerships, civil unions or marriage yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.178.34 ( talk) 05:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed California on the grounds that while it still recognizes the said 18,000+ SSMs — new ones cannot be carried out — as is the case with Iowa — which legally recognizes one SSM, but new ones cannot be formed. If California is listed, there is no reason that Iowa shouldn't, and therefore California is best removed from the list and placed under Recognition granted; SSM debated for the time being. As Iowa is under Recognition debated. The same applies to Greece, which could also be listed as a same-sex marriage is legally still recognized in the nation as well. After the CA supreme court makes their ruling, then we can decide where to place it. vickiloves08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.150.22 ( talk) 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus for your removal of CA. California's situation is far different from Iowa. Iowa had SSM for one day before it ended. In Iowa SSM was started and ended by the court; in California it was started by the court and then stopped by the people. The only reason to remove CA would be if the 18,000+ SSMs were voided. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 05:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The marriage in Iowa is still recognized by law, as is the case with a SSM marriage on an island that is part of Greece. California being included is both misleading and unneeded, as SS couples cannot get married in CA currently as they can in MA and CT. Therefore, it has no place in this template, and should stay under SSM debated until further notice. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 06:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone think we should have a disputed section so we won't have to fret over where to place countries such as Greece and states such as Iowa and California? I think this could come in handy — but what are your thoughts? vickiloves08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.150.22 ( talk) 22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth is Poland included under "recognition debated" — as there have been no developments in years — and the "developments" in the past were minor at best. And last time I checked, Latvia and Lithuania have constitutional bans on SSM — with no talk of a civil union bill. I think those three countries should be removed to clear up space, as we might as well list Cambodia if those nations with extremely minor updates are listed. I'm going to start a list of countries that I believe should be removed, and then after I get some feedback, we can decide.
Removals
Austria
Chile
China (PRC)
Costa Rica
Cuba
Estonia
Faroe Islands
Greece
Ireland
Italy (CU)
Jersey
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Nepal (SSM)
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Taiwan
Vickiloves08 ( talk) 22:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Also—do you think it would be too much if we added (M) or (SSM) next to the countries in the recognition debated section debating SSM and a (CU) next to the countries debating only civil unions? I know I have always been confused to which a country is debating either and since there are no separate sections for SSM marriage debated and Civil Union debated, I think it could clear up some confusion and inform those who wanted to know whether a country was debating civil unions or SSM specifically, and if it was just on the table for either being one or the other, we could just leave it blank to ensure that the country was debating the possibility of some form of recognition, but not specifically SSM or Civil Union. Like Italy for example. I tried it out on just Italy and Nepal, so let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Requirements
(others are free to add) Vickiloves08 ( talk) 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's an idea I had previously, so maybe this sounds good as well: Also—do you think it would be too much if we added (M) or (SSM) next to the countries in the recognition debated section debating SSM and a (CU) next to the countries debating only civil unions? I know I have always been confused to which a country is debating either and since there are no separate sections for SSM marriage debated and Civil Union debated, I think it could clear up some confusion and inform those who wanted to know whether a country was debating civil unions or SSM specifically, and if it was just on the table for either being one or the other, we could just leave it blank to ensure that the country was debating the possibility of some form of recognition, but not specifically SSM or Civil Union.
Either way, I still believe that Latvia, Romania and Lithuania should be removed. They have no place there. I suppose we could someone link them in, but they shouldn't just be included so other can find out about their status. If we did it that way, we might as well include Wyoming under the debated section. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Good points, I have a few ideas that could solve both issues. I'm still working on perfecting them, though.
The Governor vetoed the bill around 6pm today. Will go to back to senate and house early tomorrow morning, April 7th. Very likely to pass override his veto. Senate passed 26-4. That's a no brainer.
New Hampshire is likely to pass in its senate next week. If it were to pass, we still don't know whether or not their gov. lynch will sign it or not. Likely to pass. Effective date 2010-1-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.113.119 ( talk) 00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As many others have asked in the past if a European Union page was necessary, and others unanimously agreed, I decided to finally create the page which had been suggested and offered, but never officially created. Feel free to add addition info/or rephrase wordings. Not only will this give others info on updates throughout the 27-state union, it will also save space if the EU passes the currently debated and much supported bill to require each member (yup, even Cyprus and the former Soviet Nations) to recognize each other's SSMs, CUs, and RPs — it will save space in the "recognized, not performed" section. It would be much too spacious and irritating to list all 27 nations in the template, therefore we can simply link the European Union page under the said category if/when it is agreed upon. I also added it under SSM debated and Civil Unions/RP debated — so it can stand for some of the nations with minimal debates with very little progress (i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, and Bulgaria) and we won't have to include each nation. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There are legally recognized SSMs in CA. This situation is NOT analagous to Iowa or Greece. Over there, the courts started and ended SSM. In CA the people (possibly illegaly) ended it. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
NO. It is not the same as Massachusetts and Conneticutt, as two people of the same sex cannot get married there currently, as they can in MA or CT. It should stay under debated until further notice. It's inclusion in the SSM section is ridiculous and confusing. If California will be included with Status in flux, then there's no reason why Iowa and Greece shouldn't be included, as a few SSM marriages are legally recognized in those places. Numbers mean nothing. This is why it has no place there. Vickiloves08 ( talk) 21:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you are slightly off when you say "Since technically (this is saying that the supreme court invalidates Prop 8), CA would be recognizing marriages but not performing them.". There are three primary possible results of the
Lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8
1. Prop 8 is invalidated and SSMs continue and the in flux comment is removed
2. Prop 8 remains active and SSMs committed in the interim period become divorced, and CA is removed from the template w/o question
3. Prop 8 remains active BUT the interim SSMs are still valid for various legal reasons; in this case there is a can of worms opened over the template.
Any of these three possibilities are very possible; however, at the moment there are valid SSMs around CA. I think the template should stay as it currently is in regards to CA until the CA SC rules. This is a very important case and I don't think they will dilly-dally over this; I remember reading somewhere that they promised an expedited ruling. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
When will be a final vote in the Swedish Parliament? Ron 1987 ( talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently, same-sex marriage is not debated in Cambodia. King Norodom Sihanouk abdicated in 2004. Current monarch nor any party not supported same-sex marriage. Ron 1987 ( talk) 12:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a centralized discussion at the LGBT Wikiproject here regarding standardizing all the article names for at least the United States articles. Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 07:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Should Austria and Hungary be included in the registered partnership list? From 1.1.2010 Austria and Hungary will provide "registered partnerships". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
[1] [2] -- 205.167.47.253 ( talk) 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It probably will pass right through the Vermont House of Representatives, which is Democratically led 96-47-5-2 (Dems-GOP-Progressives-Independents). It is just a question as for whether the Republican governor will sign it or not. Anyways, so what is the drill if it is signed (or veto'ed and then overrided)? will be put up before CA (as CA is in flux) with an (Eff. 9-01-08) on it? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Why somebody added Philippines and Venezuela? Could you give some source? Ron 1987 17:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 ( talk • contribs)
The Venezuela debate is now completely off the table. See this link
Should I place something next to Japan along the lines of "foreign partners only" or (foreign+national only)? I think a distinction needs to be made, but it needs to be brief. It clearly does not recognize ALL foreign SSMs in the same fashion as Israel and France, so I think some form of distinction would be helpful. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Pretend the template is below: Japan ( restrictions apply) *OR* ( restrictions) <— It links to the SSM page, I just made the text black to look nicer based on what I saw another member do with a similar instance. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently Japan will be recognizing SSMs conducted between a foreign partner and a Japanese citizen — and they will receive exactly the same benefits as a married hetero couple. This is definitely a unique case, but Japan has already allowed such occurrences to start so I suppose one could be happening by tomorrow. Why Japan chose to do it that way is beyond me, but perhaps they'll simply realize the absurdity and just recognize all foreign SSMs or just legalize SSMs to begin with. Wikitiki666 ( talk) 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
"Japan has given the green light for its nationals to marry same-sex foreign partners in countries where gay marriage is legal, a justice ministry official said Friday. Japan does not allow same-sex marriages at home and has so far also refused to issue a key document required for citizens to wed overseas if the applicant's intended spouse was of the same gender." Under the change, the justice ministry has told local authorities to issue the key certificate -- which states a person is single and of legal age -- for those who want to enter same-sex marriages, the official told AFP. (one must be national and the other from a foreign country though) [1]
Wikitiki666 ( talk) 00:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I probably didn't pick the best source. It kind of confused me when I first read it myself. Here's a clear one that confirms it. (From The Advocate) "The Japanese government will recognize the marriages of nationals who legally marry their same-sex partners outside the country." [1]
Wikitiki666 ( talk) 01:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)