![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Washington state needs an update because of recent 2009 "all but marriage" bill passed the senate and house and got signed into law by the Gov. Is there an eff. date for the 3rd stage of the domestic partnerships (passed in 2007 and 2008 as well)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 09:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Washington state domestic partnership (the 3rd stage or everthing but marriage bill) passed both senate and the house - even got signed by the Govonor. The effective date is 1 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 09:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It would seem based on the article that China is no longer considering SSM. Does anyone have anything different? If not it should be removed from the templete. 140.90.131.108 ( talk) 12:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In Brazil, there is no guarantee of legal recognition of de facto union between homosexuals, as there is in Portugal. In many states (Rio de Janeiro, for example), most of the decisions is against the recognition as stable union.
See a decision of Tribunal de Justiça do Rio de Janeiro (date: June 19, 2007, quoted in http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/peticaoInicial/fazerDownload.asp?classe=ADPF&processo=132):
“Although shown for a long time, the relationship between two gay men, it does not apply the provisions of Law No. 8971/94, under allegation of stable.”
The prevision is that the Supremo Tribunal Federal (the Constitutional Court) decides on it this year. Jur ( talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include these countries under Same-sex marriage debated? I know there are some political parties that support them, but even the Green Party in Iran supports same-sex marriage. As I don't see Estonia legalizing marriage in the near future, and they haven't even passed a civil union bill yet, should we leave countries of the like out until we see solid evidence of a debate? I'm basically just thinking out loud here — any input would be great. Thanks. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't NH be in recognized, not performed - per it's article? -- haha169 ( talk) 04:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
An IP user left a message at WikiProject LGBT maps that Japan was now recognizing foreign SSM, with this URL from the Advocate (article dated March 27th) ... the first sentence states that Japan will recognize foreign SSM, but does not back it up any (the following line of the article cites the AFP news agency, with info we already knew here -- that the Japan govt would now give out credentials where Japan nationals could enter SSM abroad -- which is not necessarily the same as recognizing the marriages in Japan after they are performed abroad.). Has anyone else heard anything to back up Japan recognizing SSM? (or did the Advocate just interpret the news wrong, like many of us did upon first reading/hearing of it) ? Have not found anything else so far that would back-up Japan recognizing foreign SSM. Thx, Wikignome0529 ( talk) 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Although same-sex marriage is recognized in some regions, the federal government itself does not recognize it and denies those couples over 1,000 rights. This is far different than others on the list, such as Canada and Belgium - as those allow full rights. Is there a way to fix this issue? -- haha169 ( talk) 04:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Does France really recognize foreign same-sex marriages? I just read an article that France is now recognizing foreign same-sex marriages as PACS (if the president approves the law) as they previously failed to do so. I suppose they could simply have done things "out of order," but it seems a bit fishy nonetheless. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone removed California citing that 'in flux' was not a good use of words, so I re-added it and changed 'in flux' to At standstill, keeping the same link that went to 'in flux.' If someone feels that this is not the best use of wording, feel free to correct it. VoodooIsland ( talk) 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You not added D.C. See [4], [5]. Ron 1987 ( talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed Montana from "Civil unions and registered partnerships debated" (I was the one who originally added it there). Despite facing almost unanimous opposition, (hell, even the Civil Union bill in UT got father) the "debate" appears to have been simply a one-time-only thing, almost as a "we just might get it passed, why not at least try?" type of proposal; with no future debate following, unlike Utah. The bill was accompanied by two measures outlawing discrimination based on one's sexual orientation, which was the main focus of the debate. Several other users have agreed with me, and the proposal isn't even listed under Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States. If anyone feels that Montana should stay, please add in your two cents, though I personally feel that Montana wasn't even deserving of being added to begin with. VoodooIsland ( talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know when the law will take effect? I put eff. date TBA as a temporary solution. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe Wyoming recognizes foreign same-sex marriages, but others have come to such conclusion. I could be wrong, so I wanted to resurface the topic here. this link seems to suggest that Wyoming does, though it could also be a New Mexico type situation. Can anyone find proof of a same-sex couple getting their marriage recognized in Wyoming? VoodooIsland ( talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's stated in at least one Wyoming newspaper (as well as in a few gay media sources) that it does, and the law makes no exceptions on its face. There was a bill to bar recognition of same-sex marriages that failed, and there seems to be little debate in the legislature about what the current law is. The debates are about whether they should bar recognition and about whether there should be a constitutional amendment. Should we wait until there is a court challenge either way in every state? Theknightswhosay ( talk) 22:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've fully protected the article for an indefinite amount of time until the edit wars are settled. When they are, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thank you, Malinaccier ( talk) 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
What the heck is up with this? The most recent vandal clearly has no information about the status of same-sex marriage.
Since the page is now edit protected, I'd appreciate it if an administrator can fix the following, since I am not an administrator.
Thank you. Camillex555 ( talk) 06:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Khuntlessness, your view seems to be out of line with others on this. However I am not completely sure of what is being requested. Please could you put the proposed version on the sandbox and replace the editprotected? Thanks, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
See the California section on this talk page. There is no consensus to remove it. The fact that it was not stayed does not indicate whether or not it will be repealed. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I made a new segment on the template for Formerly Performed for California. To state that California is just like all the other states that are considering SSM is an atrocious oversimplification. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't think a formerly recognized section would be the best for the template, but it's a plausible temporary solution. A while back below the United States listing there was a note in place of California that I felt looked very fitting, though it was removed, so perhaps there was specific reason why. Either way, here is what it looked like, and I feel that it could be possibly the best solution until the SC rules on it. Once the SC rules on Prop 8, California should unarguably be removed from the Recognized in some regions section.
Note: The validity of California's same-sex marriage ban is in question in the state's Supreme Court.
VoodooIsland ( talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Once the SC rules on Prop 8, California should unarguably be removed from the Recognized in some regions section. That is assuming that they uphold prop 8 and they annul the interim marriages. In this case, there would only be OSMs in California and no SSMs (unless people repeal prop 8 in 2010 or later, but that is a story for much later)
If they uphold prop 8 and keep the marriages, we are in a template-snafu because in that case there will be legal SSMs in California, but no new ones will be able to be recognized in California. In this case, I think a formerly performed section will be the best way to solve this, as putting California in the same boat as the other states would be, as I said before, an atrocious oversimplification.
If they repeal prop 8 (or the people repeal prop 8 in 2010 or later), California marriage laws will return to as they were on 11/4/2008 and there really won't be much question for what to do. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought that they decided that doing that was beyond the job of the SC. My prior message was meant to address (in my opinion) the three most likely results. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
While the criteria was set here several months ago, I would like to make one of the requirements a little bit more narrow, or at least specify my thoughts. One of the possible qualifications was that if a political party was supporting same-sex marriage, it could be listed. And while this could have been what the users were getting at, I feel that only major political parties should be qualifiable, such as we should not list Iran because of the underground Green Party's support and other countries with unlikely contenders for the government. Also, I feel that with such a qualification, we should only include countries with major parties that have same-sex marriage officially on the platform, as certain parties (more so candidates) have expressed that they support same-sex marriage when asked, but this does not necessarily mean that the party has confirmed its intent to legalize same-sex marriage. Also, we have to be a little practical. Such as with Estonia, for example. Civil unions will be tough enough to legislate in the country based on the attitudes found throughout the Baltic States and I doubt that moves to legalize same-sex marriage will even occur in that country within this decade. Unless a bill legislating same-sex marriage is pending or for a fact will be introduced, I do not think it should be included under the Same-sex marriage debated section while it is currently under the Civil Unions debated, akin to how we remove the countries/states granting civil unions once same-sex marriage has been legalized there. And still, there is yet another loophole. Even if we say the "_____ party" of ___ country supports same-sex marriage, which are included in the template, why are the US states with major political parties supporting it not included under the template in addition? Examples include the Democratic Parties of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and many others, yet these are not included in the template. When other users added these in, we (myself included) have all been quick to revert such edits, as most of us did not find the additions to be practical. This brings me to my final question: why doesn't the same go for cases like Hungary and Estonia? VoodooIsland ( talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Fortuynist: I see your point, and I feel that the United States states should not be effected by such changes, as moves to legalize same-sex marriage can sometimes spur when everyone's off guard (especially with supreme court cases), therefore, the state politics have a much different basis than in other countries.
Ronline: Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I agreed with all of your changes except one just partially, which I had a few confusions about, that being United Kingdom. Legislation has been introduced in Scotland to legalize same-sex marriage, so should Scotland be listed in place of the UK? I'm not very knowledgeable about how the legal systems work throughout the United Kingdom, so that's why I have a gray spot concerning the nation. Anyhow, while I definitely think the suggestion of including all judristictions with same-sex marriage is a valid and substantial one, I feel (personally) that simply including the debated countries makes it a much quicker read for readers who simply want to know the status of same-sex marriage; without having to read the individual articles to sort out where a debate is presently taking a place and where former debates have occurred. However, I do feel that we should somehow include a link to all of the articles concerning the status of same-sex marriage (I'll try to work on a template or article) that would fix that very problem. The template could be one identical to the
Marriage Amendments table I created and we could divide the regions by continent on the template.
To clear up future confusion, perhaps we can draft up some form of list of qualifications for adding countries to the template, which we can then edit and vote on for a select period of days and include a link our consensus below the < noinclude > so other users can see it. Just some thoughts, and I'm sure others will have numerous additional ideas or critiques on the subject. VoodooIsland ( talk) 07:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have
started a template in my sandbox (identical to the present one) that I implanted all of our current edits into and can serve as a "tester template" until we can all reach an agreement. Please edit things all you like, that's the whole purpose of its creation.
VoodooIsland (
talk) 07:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Here's a link to the proposed template I created that would be displayed on the main page, which links to every country with an article about same-sex unions. I've grown too tired to finish it for tonight, so I filled in all but Europe. If anyone wants to help fill those in, it would be very much appreciated. Template:Status of same-sex unions VoodooIsland ( talk) 08:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and update the template a bit with some of the suggestions Ronline came up with? I don't want to do anything radical without first coming to an agreement with everyone, so I just wanted to check here first before I make any changes. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:47, 18 May 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Washington state needs an update because of recent 2009 "all but marriage" bill passed the senate and house and got signed into law by the Gov. Is there an eff. date for the 3rd stage of the domestic partnerships (passed in 2007 and 2008 as well)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 09:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Washington state domestic partnership (the 3rd stage or everthing but marriage bill) passed both senate and the house - even got signed by the Govonor. The effective date is 1 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 09:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It would seem based on the article that China is no longer considering SSM. Does anyone have anything different? If not it should be removed from the templete. 140.90.131.108 ( talk) 12:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In Brazil, there is no guarantee of legal recognition of de facto union between homosexuals, as there is in Portugal. In many states (Rio de Janeiro, for example), most of the decisions is against the recognition as stable union.
See a decision of Tribunal de Justiça do Rio de Janeiro (date: June 19, 2007, quoted in http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/peticaoInicial/fazerDownload.asp?classe=ADPF&processo=132):
“Although shown for a long time, the relationship between two gay men, it does not apply the provisions of Law No. 8971/94, under allegation of stable.”
The prevision is that the Supremo Tribunal Federal (the Constitutional Court) decides on it this year. Jur ( talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include these countries under Same-sex marriage debated? I know there are some political parties that support them, but even the Green Party in Iran supports same-sex marriage. As I don't see Estonia legalizing marriage in the near future, and they haven't even passed a civil union bill yet, should we leave countries of the like out until we see solid evidence of a debate? I'm basically just thinking out loud here — any input would be great. Thanks. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't NH be in recognized, not performed - per it's article? -- haha169 ( talk) 04:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
An IP user left a message at WikiProject LGBT maps that Japan was now recognizing foreign SSM, with this URL from the Advocate (article dated March 27th) ... the first sentence states that Japan will recognize foreign SSM, but does not back it up any (the following line of the article cites the AFP news agency, with info we already knew here -- that the Japan govt would now give out credentials where Japan nationals could enter SSM abroad -- which is not necessarily the same as recognizing the marriages in Japan after they are performed abroad.). Has anyone else heard anything to back up Japan recognizing SSM? (or did the Advocate just interpret the news wrong, like many of us did upon first reading/hearing of it) ? Have not found anything else so far that would back-up Japan recognizing foreign SSM. Thx, Wikignome0529 ( talk) 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Although same-sex marriage is recognized in some regions, the federal government itself does not recognize it and denies those couples over 1,000 rights. This is far different than others on the list, such as Canada and Belgium - as those allow full rights. Is there a way to fix this issue? -- haha169 ( talk) 04:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Does France really recognize foreign same-sex marriages? I just read an article that France is now recognizing foreign same-sex marriages as PACS (if the president approves the law) as they previously failed to do so. I suppose they could simply have done things "out of order," but it seems a bit fishy nonetheless. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone removed California citing that 'in flux' was not a good use of words, so I re-added it and changed 'in flux' to At standstill, keeping the same link that went to 'in flux.' If someone feels that this is not the best use of wording, feel free to correct it. VoodooIsland ( talk) 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You not added D.C. See [4], [5]. Ron 1987 ( talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed Montana from "Civil unions and registered partnerships debated" (I was the one who originally added it there). Despite facing almost unanimous opposition, (hell, even the Civil Union bill in UT got father) the "debate" appears to have been simply a one-time-only thing, almost as a "we just might get it passed, why not at least try?" type of proposal; with no future debate following, unlike Utah. The bill was accompanied by two measures outlawing discrimination based on one's sexual orientation, which was the main focus of the debate. Several other users have agreed with me, and the proposal isn't even listed under Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States. If anyone feels that Montana should stay, please add in your two cents, though I personally feel that Montana wasn't even deserving of being added to begin with. VoodooIsland ( talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know when the law will take effect? I put eff. date TBA as a temporary solution. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe Wyoming recognizes foreign same-sex marriages, but others have come to such conclusion. I could be wrong, so I wanted to resurface the topic here. this link seems to suggest that Wyoming does, though it could also be a New Mexico type situation. Can anyone find proof of a same-sex couple getting their marriage recognized in Wyoming? VoodooIsland ( talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's stated in at least one Wyoming newspaper (as well as in a few gay media sources) that it does, and the law makes no exceptions on its face. There was a bill to bar recognition of same-sex marriages that failed, and there seems to be little debate in the legislature about what the current law is. The debates are about whether they should bar recognition and about whether there should be a constitutional amendment. Should we wait until there is a court challenge either way in every state? Theknightswhosay ( talk) 22:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've fully protected the article for an indefinite amount of time until the edit wars are settled. When they are, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thank you, Malinaccier ( talk) 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
What the heck is up with this? The most recent vandal clearly has no information about the status of same-sex marriage.
Since the page is now edit protected, I'd appreciate it if an administrator can fix the following, since I am not an administrator.
Thank you. Camillex555 ( talk) 06:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Khuntlessness, your view seems to be out of line with others on this. However I am not completely sure of what is being requested. Please could you put the proposed version on the sandbox and replace the editprotected? Thanks, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
See the California section on this talk page. There is no consensus to remove it. The fact that it was not stayed does not indicate whether or not it will be repealed. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I made a new segment on the template for Formerly Performed for California. To state that California is just like all the other states that are considering SSM is an atrocious oversimplification. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't think a formerly recognized section would be the best for the template, but it's a plausible temporary solution. A while back below the United States listing there was a note in place of California that I felt looked very fitting, though it was removed, so perhaps there was specific reason why. Either way, here is what it looked like, and I feel that it could be possibly the best solution until the SC rules on it. Once the SC rules on Prop 8, California should unarguably be removed from the Recognized in some regions section.
Note: The validity of California's same-sex marriage ban is in question in the state's Supreme Court.
VoodooIsland ( talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Once the SC rules on Prop 8, California should unarguably be removed from the Recognized in some regions section. That is assuming that they uphold prop 8 and they annul the interim marriages. In this case, there would only be OSMs in California and no SSMs (unless people repeal prop 8 in 2010 or later, but that is a story for much later)
If they uphold prop 8 and keep the marriages, we are in a template-snafu because in that case there will be legal SSMs in California, but no new ones will be able to be recognized in California. In this case, I think a formerly performed section will be the best way to solve this, as putting California in the same boat as the other states would be, as I said before, an atrocious oversimplification.
If they repeal prop 8 (or the people repeal prop 8 in 2010 or later), California marriage laws will return to as they were on 11/4/2008 and there really won't be much question for what to do. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought that they decided that doing that was beyond the job of the SC. My prior message was meant to address (in my opinion) the three most likely results. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
While the criteria was set here several months ago, I would like to make one of the requirements a little bit more narrow, or at least specify my thoughts. One of the possible qualifications was that if a political party was supporting same-sex marriage, it could be listed. And while this could have been what the users were getting at, I feel that only major political parties should be qualifiable, such as we should not list Iran because of the underground Green Party's support and other countries with unlikely contenders for the government. Also, I feel that with such a qualification, we should only include countries with major parties that have same-sex marriage officially on the platform, as certain parties (more so candidates) have expressed that they support same-sex marriage when asked, but this does not necessarily mean that the party has confirmed its intent to legalize same-sex marriage. Also, we have to be a little practical. Such as with Estonia, for example. Civil unions will be tough enough to legislate in the country based on the attitudes found throughout the Baltic States and I doubt that moves to legalize same-sex marriage will even occur in that country within this decade. Unless a bill legislating same-sex marriage is pending or for a fact will be introduced, I do not think it should be included under the Same-sex marriage debated section while it is currently under the Civil Unions debated, akin to how we remove the countries/states granting civil unions once same-sex marriage has been legalized there. And still, there is yet another loophole. Even if we say the "_____ party" of ___ country supports same-sex marriage, which are included in the template, why are the US states with major political parties supporting it not included under the template in addition? Examples include the Democratic Parties of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and many others, yet these are not included in the template. When other users added these in, we (myself included) have all been quick to revert such edits, as most of us did not find the additions to be practical. This brings me to my final question: why doesn't the same go for cases like Hungary and Estonia? VoodooIsland ( talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Fortuynist: I see your point, and I feel that the United States states should not be effected by such changes, as moves to legalize same-sex marriage can sometimes spur when everyone's off guard (especially with supreme court cases), therefore, the state politics have a much different basis than in other countries.
Ronline: Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I agreed with all of your changes except one just partially, which I had a few confusions about, that being United Kingdom. Legislation has been introduced in Scotland to legalize same-sex marriage, so should Scotland be listed in place of the UK? I'm not very knowledgeable about how the legal systems work throughout the United Kingdom, so that's why I have a gray spot concerning the nation. Anyhow, while I definitely think the suggestion of including all judristictions with same-sex marriage is a valid and substantial one, I feel (personally) that simply including the debated countries makes it a much quicker read for readers who simply want to know the status of same-sex marriage; without having to read the individual articles to sort out where a debate is presently taking a place and where former debates have occurred. However, I do feel that we should somehow include a link to all of the articles concerning the status of same-sex marriage (I'll try to work on a template or article) that would fix that very problem. The template could be one identical to the
Marriage Amendments table I created and we could divide the regions by continent on the template.
To clear up future confusion, perhaps we can draft up some form of list of qualifications for adding countries to the template, which we can then edit and vote on for a select period of days and include a link our consensus below the < noinclude > so other users can see it. Just some thoughts, and I'm sure others will have numerous additional ideas or critiques on the subject. VoodooIsland ( talk) 07:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have
started a template in my sandbox (identical to the present one) that I implanted all of our current edits into and can serve as a "tester template" until we can all reach an agreement. Please edit things all you like, that's the whole purpose of its creation.
VoodooIsland (
talk) 07:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Here's a link to the proposed template I created that would be displayed on the main page, which links to every country with an article about same-sex unions. I've grown too tired to finish it for tonight, so I filled in all but Europe. If anyone wants to help fill those in, it would be very much appreciated. Template:Status of same-sex unions VoodooIsland ( talk) 08:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Should I go ahead and update the template a bit with some of the suggestions Ronline came up with? I don't want to do anything radical without first coming to an agreement with everyone, so I just wanted to check here first before I make any changes. VoodooIsland ( talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)