![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Is there some big debate of same-sex marriage in Kosovo within the government, or is there merely an underground discussion? I keep seeing the country pop up everywhere and now it has a lengthy paragraph on the main page discussing the status. It's interesting, because numerous gays have sought asylum into other countries due to the apparently homophobic climate in the nation and yet the government seems to be one of the most gay-friendly in Europe. It's all very interesting. Anyway, since I've seen Kosovo referenced so frequently (even on this talk in the past), I just wanted to check and see if a debate or possibility of same-sex marriage being legislated in Kosovo is apparent, therefore, I could add it to the template if confirmed. VoodooIsland ( talk) 18:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across an article that says Adrian Fenty signed the marriage bill. [1] [2] [3] If so, then barring a Congress intervention (which, if Pelosi gets her way, won't happen), then DC has legalized marriages performed elsewhere. So unless Congress takes action, DC should be added to the template. -- haha169 ( talk) 03:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yemen recognises gay marriages. Yoitslinda ( talk) 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Main does not need "Law subject to People's Veto" placed on it. That's a weaseling way of pushing an agenda. We didn’t have that for California when prop 8 had yet to be voted for, so there is no need to put that for Maine. It has been signed into law and has a possibility of a “people’s veto”. If it is over ridden, then it is subject to be changed, but for now it is LAW, not assumption. Andrew Colvin ( talk) 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who put that up (by the way, I strongly opposed Prop 8). The People's Veto has qualified the number of signatures
[4]. This law will be STAYED until the election, meaning there might never be same-sex marriage in Maine. This is not life Prop 8 where some SSMs were performed (and as of current still recognized).
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I misread the article, I thought they had the sigs already
Wikipedia does not WP:SPECULATE on the future Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
How should we handle this business, [5], both on the template and the maps? Or should we simply ignore it altogether? The tribe is a federally recognized sovereign state, so it holds power. -- haha169 ( talk) 01:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've been reading up on Uruguay's "civil union" law (see [6] in Spanish]) and have discovered that the unions are not registered in a civil registry office like marriages. Instead, the scheme appears to be a hybrid between civil unions and unregistered cohabitation. After living together for five years, couples need to go to court to recognise their partnership. The above source recommends an attorney to do this. I'm unsure as to whether the court issues a civil union certificate which can then be used as proof when gaining the rights. In any case, I don't know much about the legal system in Uruguay, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
The reason I'm bringing up this issue here is because it illustrates the artificiality of the rigid division between "unregistered cohabitation" and "civil unions/registered partnerships" in the template. The template implies that unregistered cohabitation offers a lower level of recognition than civil unions. There are two possible arguments for maintaining the distinction, both of which are problematic:
This shows that the current division is somewhat arbitrary. In saying this, I remain somewhat conflicted about how to change the template. I can think of two options:
What does everyone think? Ronline ✉ 12:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Prop 8 upheld, but the 18000 marriages are still valid. I think the template should keep the formerly performed section. Removing it would be an oversimplification Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Bulgaria and Slovakia really be included under the civil unions/partnerships debated section? If I read correctly here and here, the two countries do not seem to match the criteria. For Bulgaria, it seems that the government has a possible intention of introducing a registered partnership for opposite-sex couples only, with a few onlookers speculating that it could possibly be unconstitutional for the government to exclude same-sex couples due to the anti-discrimination law. Yet other countries have such laws and get away with not offering same-sex marriage, so why should Bulgaria be any different with registered partnerships? As for Slovakia, the debate seems to be merely within the public and the possibility of such an introduction has gathered a few signs of support from a few politicians. I do not feel this qualifies for the section. VoodooIsland ( talk) 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree that the other nations should be easily accessed, but I'm not sure how we should do it. I know we have a template on the Same-sex marriage page, but it's at the very bottom. Perhaps we could link it to the template (visibly) so others could see it. The main reason why I don't think we should include "all jurisdictions" on the template is for there are pages such as Same-sex marriage in Vietnam and even pages that cover countries with only negative laws towards same-sex marriage, so I think users might be a bit confused by such and feel that Vietnam or say Nigeria, Uganda have been debating same-sex marriage. I don't know about the same-sex marriage situation in Vietnam, but I think China or Laos would be more likely to legalize same-sex marriage than Vietnam. VoodooIsland ( talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel the template looks a bit cluttered with the notes right under the countries/states, so here's an idea I came up with that might make it less cluttered. VoodooIsland ( talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, it's up! VoodooIsland ( talk) 22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Portugal was recently moved from the "Unregistered cohabitation" category into the "Civil unions" category. I've changed it back, since the Portuguese "união de facto" scheme does not provide for registration. This is explicitly mentioned here (ILGA-Portugal, in Portuguese), which states in paragraph 1, "Outra limitação relevante da União de Facto é a impossibilidade de registo" (Another limitation of de-facto unions is the impossibility to register). Couples living in a de facto relationship gain almost all of the rights of marriage, but only after they've lived together for two years. Ronline ✉ 08:20, 27 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Is there some big debate of same-sex marriage in Kosovo within the government, or is there merely an underground discussion? I keep seeing the country pop up everywhere and now it has a lengthy paragraph on the main page discussing the status. It's interesting, because numerous gays have sought asylum into other countries due to the apparently homophobic climate in the nation and yet the government seems to be one of the most gay-friendly in Europe. It's all very interesting. Anyway, since I've seen Kosovo referenced so frequently (even on this talk in the past), I just wanted to check and see if a debate or possibility of same-sex marriage being legislated in Kosovo is apparent, therefore, I could add it to the template if confirmed. VoodooIsland ( talk) 18:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across an article that says Adrian Fenty signed the marriage bill. [1] [2] [3] If so, then barring a Congress intervention (which, if Pelosi gets her way, won't happen), then DC has legalized marriages performed elsewhere. So unless Congress takes action, DC should be added to the template. -- haha169 ( talk) 03:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yemen recognises gay marriages. Yoitslinda ( talk) 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Main does not need "Law subject to People's Veto" placed on it. That's a weaseling way of pushing an agenda. We didn’t have that for California when prop 8 had yet to be voted for, so there is no need to put that for Maine. It has been signed into law and has a possibility of a “people’s veto”. If it is over ridden, then it is subject to be changed, but for now it is LAW, not assumption. Andrew Colvin ( talk) 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who put that up (by the way, I strongly opposed Prop 8). The People's Veto has qualified the number of signatures
[4]. This law will be STAYED until the election, meaning there might never be same-sex marriage in Maine. This is not life Prop 8 where some SSMs were performed (and as of current still recognized).
Thegreyanomaly (
talk)
22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I misread the article, I thought they had the sigs already
Wikipedia does not WP:SPECULATE on the future Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 06:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
How should we handle this business, [5], both on the template and the maps? Or should we simply ignore it altogether? The tribe is a federally recognized sovereign state, so it holds power. -- haha169 ( talk) 01:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've been reading up on Uruguay's "civil union" law (see [6] in Spanish]) and have discovered that the unions are not registered in a civil registry office like marriages. Instead, the scheme appears to be a hybrid between civil unions and unregistered cohabitation. After living together for five years, couples need to go to court to recognise their partnership. The above source recommends an attorney to do this. I'm unsure as to whether the court issues a civil union certificate which can then be used as proof when gaining the rights. In any case, I don't know much about the legal system in Uruguay, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
The reason I'm bringing up this issue here is because it illustrates the artificiality of the rigid division between "unregistered cohabitation" and "civil unions/registered partnerships" in the template. The template implies that unregistered cohabitation offers a lower level of recognition than civil unions. There are two possible arguments for maintaining the distinction, both of which are problematic:
This shows that the current division is somewhat arbitrary. In saying this, I remain somewhat conflicted about how to change the template. I can think of two options:
What does everyone think? Ronline ✉ 12:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Prop 8 upheld, but the 18000 marriages are still valid. I think the template should keep the formerly performed section. Removing it would be an oversimplification Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Bulgaria and Slovakia really be included under the civil unions/partnerships debated section? If I read correctly here and here, the two countries do not seem to match the criteria. For Bulgaria, it seems that the government has a possible intention of introducing a registered partnership for opposite-sex couples only, with a few onlookers speculating that it could possibly be unconstitutional for the government to exclude same-sex couples due to the anti-discrimination law. Yet other countries have such laws and get away with not offering same-sex marriage, so why should Bulgaria be any different with registered partnerships? As for Slovakia, the debate seems to be merely within the public and the possibility of such an introduction has gathered a few signs of support from a few politicians. I do not feel this qualifies for the section. VoodooIsland ( talk) 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I definitely agree that the other nations should be easily accessed, but I'm not sure how we should do it. I know we have a template on the Same-sex marriage page, but it's at the very bottom. Perhaps we could link it to the template (visibly) so others could see it. The main reason why I don't think we should include "all jurisdictions" on the template is for there are pages such as Same-sex marriage in Vietnam and even pages that cover countries with only negative laws towards same-sex marriage, so I think users might be a bit confused by such and feel that Vietnam or say Nigeria, Uganda have been debating same-sex marriage. I don't know about the same-sex marriage situation in Vietnam, but I think China or Laos would be more likely to legalize same-sex marriage than Vietnam. VoodooIsland ( talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel the template looks a bit cluttered with the notes right under the countries/states, so here's an idea I came up with that might make it less cluttered. VoodooIsland ( talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, it's up! VoodooIsland ( talk) 22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Portugal was recently moved from the "Unregistered cohabitation" category into the "Civil unions" category. I've changed it back, since the Portuguese "união de facto" scheme does not provide for registration. This is explicitly mentioned here (ILGA-Portugal, in Portuguese), which states in paragraph 1, "Outra limitação relevante da União de Facto é a impossibilidade de registo" (Another limitation of de-facto unions is the impossibility to register). Couples living in a de facto relationship gain almost all of the rights of marriage, but only after they've lived together for two years. Ronline ✉ 08:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)