Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

First map description

The color key of the first map of the page doesn't fit anymore following unilateral changes. See the wikimedia discussion here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg --Aréat (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if the updates to the key are reverted, they will no longer agree with the updated map. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

nation states

If we're going to highlight the Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand, despite the fact that they're constituent countries within their kingdoms and SSM is not recognized throughout the kingdoms (well, it was in Denmark, but in 2017, not 2012), then we should highlight other constituent countries as well, such as the three of the four in the UK that have SSM. I can't think of any other states where this would be relevant, so it's just adding highlighting/flags to England, Wales, Scotland, Greenland & the Faroes. Either that, or move the highlighting/flag for Denmark to 2017 and remove the highlighting/flags from the Netherlands and New Zealand, since SSM is not legal throughout those polities any more than it is throughout the UK. Either way, we should treat all countries the same. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, no discussion here, but it seems that we're going for only top-level states. So Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand are out. — kwami (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the flags on constituent countries. I'd even prefer than any territory that is not incorporated into the parent state had a flag (a BOT or an unincorporated territory, for example). And yes, if we are only going with "top-level" states, Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand are out Andrew1444 (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the flags too, personally. The problem with territories is that they could make the table too cluttered to read. We'd also need flag icons for all tribal govts in the US. Given that there are 400+ of them, that could become a distraction from highlighting the progress among major states. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Dont remove it all just because you didn't instantly got an answer. It's the Christmas / New year's week, there's less people around. The lack of answer within a day doesn't mean you have a consensus. I think it would be better to keep the flags for an obviously easier read of the chronology. If there's nitpicking over the extent of the legality within these countries, just add some notes. Don't remove content.--Aréat (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove any content. The countries are all still there. But SSM is not recognized by the Netherlands or New Zealand any more than it is by the UK. If the UK is not highlighted, because only 3/4 constituent contries recognize SSM, then the Netherlands (1/4 countries) and New Zealand (1/3 countries) shouldn't be either. Anyway, I tagged the problem so that readers will see there's a discussion. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The UK consists of 4 countries and some territories that belong to the whole of the UK (and they rely on the UK for defense). The same happens with Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten (but they rely on the Netherlands which is 1 country) and etc. If we're going to add flags for Greenland, Faroe Islands, England, Aruba, Wales, Scotland etc , then we'll need to add flags for the Mexican, the US, the Canadian or Brazilian states which is totally useless. It's ok if we leave it as it is. Very clear and easy for the average reader to understand it. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Xylo kai Gyali. It is very clear as is. If we have flags for constituent parts of countries then there is no reason why we wouldn't also include the flags of US and Mexcian states, Canadian provinces, British territories etc. Having a flag for England would be particularly odd as England doesn't even have its own government, unlike many states, provinces and territories. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And let's not forget that the laws passed in (for example) Greenland, Faroe Islands, British Overseas Territories etc. require royal assent by the respective countries. Whereas laws passed, for example, in Denmark, do not require royal assent by the Faroe islands or Greenland. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You're both confusing constituent countries with territories. Essentially, you're saying that England is the UK. The difference in that case is that the kingdom of England goes by a different name (the UK) than the country of England. But in the case of the Netherlands, Denmark, and New Zealand, the country and the kingdom/realm go by the same name. This may be confusing, but legally the situations are equivalent.

Also, British territories are not in the UK. If Northern Ireland were to recognize SSM, then it would be recognized throughout the UK even though the Caribbean territories did not. And those territories are different again than the states of the US and Mexico or the provinces of Canada.

If we highlight/flag the countries of Denmark and the Netherlands, rather than the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands, then we should also highlight/flag the country of England rather than the kingdom. And we should treat the other constituent countries within the kingdoms the same. If we only highlight/flag the UK (the kingdom of England), then we should only highlight/flag the kingdoms of the Netherlands and Demmark.

In other words, we should either highlight UN states (e.g. the UK) or countries (e.g. England). We shouldn't mix and match depending on our personal preferences. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It's very confusing. I don't think the average reader can understand all these. Also, as I mentioned earlier, Denmark gives assent to the laws passed by Greenland and Faroe Islands, and not the other way around. The same with New Zealand and Cook Islands and Niue, the UK and its overseas territories etc.. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether people find it confusing is irrelevant. Our job is to explain things, not censor information because it may confuse people.

No, they're not the same. The overseas British territories are not in the UK. Once N.Ireland recs SSM (probably not too long now), all of the UK will rec SSM. We'd be correct as listing the UK as a nation recognizing SSM with a footnote explaining that that recognition does not apply to the territories. But Greenland and Aruba are just as much parts of the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands as N.Ireland is a part of the UK.

The Kingdom of Great Britain and N.Ireland consists of four countries: England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland. It also owns a bunch of territories that are not actually part of the UK, just owned by it.

The Kingdom of Denmark consists of three countries: The country of Denmark (Denmark proper AKA metropolitan Denmark), the Faroes (who declared independence after a referendum in the 50s, only to have it denied by the kingdom), and Greenland. Denmark itself does not approve laws in Greenland and the Faroes, the kingdom does. It only sounds like Denmark approves them because the kingdom goes by the same name. It is like the UK in the sense that it's the kingdom that approves some things for the countries, not England. Claiming that the kingdom has approved SSM when only Denmark has is like claiming the UK has approved SSM when only England has.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of four countries: The country of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. As with Denmark, the country of the Netherlands is not the kingdom. If the country approves SSM, that doesn't mean the kingdom has.

The Realm of NZ consists of three countries: The country of NZ, the Cook Islands and Niue. Tokelau is not a constituent country of the realm, but a territory governed by the realm,, it's equivalent to the overseas territories of the UK. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The "countries" of the UK are called that in name for historic diplomatic reasons only. They are legally what other states would call provinces. In fact Northern Ireland is commonly referred to as a province. To mark them out differently here from other provinces for the simple fact that some have a degree of autonomy on marriage law is somewhat confusing the situation, the UK is not a federation. The UK as a sovereign state has equal marriage laws, regardless of the laws in a particular province. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true, but suppose you're right. The UK as a sovereign state still doesn't have equal marriage law, only some of its provinces do. It's no different than the US before 2015. And since metropolitan Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand are not countries, only provinces, their flags should be removed.

Unless you consider England to be the UK (since the parliament of England is the parliament of the UK), in which case we should add the UK flag to England+Wales, but not highlight the province of Scotland, analogous to how we treat Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand.

Either way, we should treat all states the same. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. It's very confusing. So Netherlands was not the first country to legalise same-sex marriage? Well, that's a shock. Personally, I believe we should leave it as it is. After all, there's a description before the table that explains the situation. To me, Aruba, Greenland, Niue or whatever seem to have the same status as the British Overseas Territories with the UK. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Netherlands was the first country. It's a constituent country of the kingdom. But legally it's on par with England, which is also a country, not with the UK. (It dominates its kingdom to a greater extent than England dominates the UK, but that's a function of relative population, not of legal standing. Its parliament is the parliament of the kingdom, but again that's the same as the situation of England within the UK -- there is no English parliament.)

"It seems to me" is not an argument -- legal status of states is not a matter of opinion. The overseas territories of the UK aren't even part of the UK, they're just owned by it -- their inhabitants aren't even citizens, except for the two that are claimed by other UN states. The four constituent countries of the Netherlands, however, are what define the Kingdom of the Netherlands, just as the four constituent countries of the UK define the UK.

Here are the states in question:

UN state	Constituent country
Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Irland	England
	Wales
	Scotland
	N. Ireland
Kingdom of the Netherlands	metropolitan Netherlands
	Aruba
	Curaçao
	Sint Maarten
Kingdom of Denmark	metropolitan Denmark
	Greenland
	Faroe Islands
Realm of New Zealand	metropolitan New Zealand
	Niue
	Cook Islands

The entities in the right column are all legally countries. If we are going to flag countries, then we need to flag all of them. If we're only going to flag UN states, then we should flag none of them.

Since the UN states in the left column will likely never recognize SSM, as they are leaving that decision to their constituent countries, and so will never appear in the Timeline table, I suggest we flag all countries that recognize SSM.

AFAIK, these are the only UN states that are composed of constituent countries in this way. Since the Caribbean and Pacific countries are unlikely to rec SSM any time soon, flagging countries instead of UN states is not going to flood the table with flags. Currently we're talking about just five, and with N.Ireland probably rec'ing SSM in the next few years, six.

And what happens when N.Ireland recognizes SSM? At that point the entire UK will recognize SSM, but there will be no flag for it in the table, no country name will be highlighted. At a glance, it will be like the UK doesn't exist. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As said before, let's leave them with flags as before, named as they are (note that "metropolitan X" arent official names), with notes leading to a precision of these particularities. Same with the UK. The remaining question is about which flag to use for the latter. Either the Union Jack, as the note would explain that it is actually not exactly the whole UK even if the flag is used (it's truly the exception here), or the england, scottish and wales one. Otherwise, we would have to remove flags for all of them, or leave most of the UK without one, which I think most of us agree wouldn't be satisfying.--Aréat (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if they're not official names. If we don't capitalize 'metropolitan', we'd not be using the it as part of the name, any more than "metropolitan France" is a name. Another possibility would be "X proper". — kwami (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? Their name as constituent countries are Netherlands, Danemark and New Zealand. Let's use them and their flags. The note would be there to indicate it's not their respective kingdoms.--Aréat (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That could work. I don't really care which names we use, only that we aren't biased in our reporting: If we highlight sub-state countries, then we should do so for all states, not just when we judge the other constituent countries aren't important. That would be like not highlighting Malta because it's a small country and so not important. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the UK, when Northern Ireland legalizes SSM, it could appear like England, Wales and Scotland do (not highlighted or flags) and next to it we can add "United Kingdom [nationwide]", like with Brazil, Canada, or Mexico (when all states legalise it). Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. But we would need to do the same with Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand -- not highlight or use the flag until SSM is recognized nationwide (Denmark in 2017, no time soon for the others). — kwami (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and that would mean N.Ireland's recognition would be portrayed as the UK's recognition. But the UK will presumably never recognize SSM, not the way the US, Canada and Brazil did. (But that is probably the way Mexico will work out.) — kwami (talk)

I'm pretty sure most people here agree removing these flags wouldn't be satisfactory. What do you think should be used to show the UK's constituents countries? --Aréat (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You can find what my proposal would look like in the article history: Flags and highlighting for England, Wales and Scotland. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Does Northern Ireland have an "official flag" that wouldn't be politically contentious? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the Union Jack is normally used, as NI does not have an official flag of its own. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To explain what I meant, let's say Northern Ireland legalises SSM on 30/6/2018. It would appear on the table "Northern Ireland (30 June)",and then next to it "{{uk flag}} United Kingdom [nationwide] (30 June)". Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that it would incorrectly suggest that the UK recognized SSM. — kwami (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Then add to the table the legal entities that do perform SSM. England & Wales is a legal entity, Scotland is a legal entity. Similarly in the "Kingdom of Denmark", Denmark is a separate legal entity to Greenland or Faroe Islands. Isle of Man, Guernsey, Alderney, Bermuda, Pitcairn Islands, Falkland Islands, Ascension etc all perform SSM, but they are all separate legal entities, and are not part of the UK. The Netherlands should remain as the first legal entity that performed SSM. This debate is "created" by opponents to SSM. Does it matter if flags are there are not, yes flags are pretty but it is not essential. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah, but it will be true that same-sex marriage is recognised nationwide in the UK. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, debate's petered out and there seems to be consensus for keeping the flags and highlighting for countries like the Netherlands. No criterion given for treating the countries in the UK and Denmark differently than others. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

According to sources [1], [2] same-sex marriage is legal there since 2014, but no exact date was given. 3 June date is pure speculation and original research. SSM is allowed in Akrotiri and Dhekelia due to Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014. SGSSI, unlike Akrotiri and Dhekelia, is not a military base. PS: SGSSI have the commissioner, who is authorized to make laws. Here is list of local laws. Ron 1987 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a mystery. The sources in question are reliable, in the sense that there is no better authority to answer the question 'Is SSM legal in SGSSI and if so from when?' than the UK Government, which administers the territory, however they are primary sources and could in theory violate WP:NOTRS. Studying the 2014 Gazette from the list of local laws you provide makes no mention of marriage, but I don't think there's anything else to do but rely on the UK Govt and territory govt website overviews, which simply say "legal from 2014". Jono52795 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's strange for another reason; SGSSIs Marriage Ordinance was directly inherited from the Falkland Islands (Chapter 43 of The Laws of the Falkland Islands) when it ceased to be administered by that territory in 1985. There have only been minor changes to the Marriage Ordinance in SGSSI regarding things like the duties of the registrar. So if a new bill was required to be passed by the Falkland Islands legislature last year to legalise SSM ([3]) then I don't see how SSM would be legal in SGSSI in 2014 without a new ordinance from the SGSSI commissioner to that effect. There has been no such ordinance to my knowledge. There is no legislature for SGSSI so the law must be changed by the commissioner.

Sadly I can't find any reliable source that gives a definitive answer. I did find this blog post from someone claiming to have contacted the registrar general (the post is jointly held with that of the Falklands registrar, as is the role of Commissioner) which says they stated SSM is not legal in SGSSI; [4]

I would also point out that there is a new ordinance currently in consultation called "Application of English Law to SGSSI" ([5] and the accompanying policy document where same-sex marriage is specified [6]) and the draft ordinance specifically excludes law relating to same-sex marriage (and marriage law in general) as being among the laws to be applied to the territory. Although this doesn't necessarily mean same-sex marriage is not possible under local law it does mean that marriage is still dependent on the state of local law. It is not the case that English law regarding same-sex marriage automatically took effect in SGSSI in 2014. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

SGSSI commissioner document from 29 Sept 2015 refers to "both people" getting married rather than man and woman. May be a clue that same sex marriage was indeed legal by 2015, but nothing conclusive in the document. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The law has always had gender-neutral language though referring only to "both parties", see the Marriage Ordinance on the 8th page of the PDF [7]. Having said that after researching a bit more I think I've now convinced myself that same-sex couples might be able to get married according to the ordinance as it stands!

I now see why the Falklands needed a new marriage bill as they fundamentally altered marriage validity requirements in a 1996 ordinance and gutted much of the above Marriage Ordinance. On the other hand as SGSSI left the territory before this the old Marriage Ordinance validity requirements were retained which simply required compatibility with English law for a marriage to be valid. It may not be necessary to import specific language regarding same-sex marriage. This would imply same-sex marriages were possible from the moment the law changed in England.

Ultimately though I think only an Freedom of Information request to the government is going to resolve this. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A literal reading of SGSSI Marriage Ordinance would infer that SSM became legal in the territory at the time English law was changed to allow it. That would give credence to the original sources saying SSM has been legal “since 2014”. Why else would the new draft ordinance specifically exclude SSM? But I’m not a lawyer, and cannot be sure of this. What we couple do is simply state the territory’s ordinance (Sect. 3; Valid Marriages) on the Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories page and leave it inferred that consequently SSM is legal as a result of the English law change in 2014.

But your right User:ChiZeroOne, only an FOI request or a case of a same-sex couple applying to marry in SGSSI will assure us. Terrific research on your part though. Jono52795 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the problem may be related to the fact that the territory has no permanent population and no local govt to worry about such things. The commissioner doesn't even live there. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy of ILGA data

I don't think the ILGA data in the support table are accurate at all. Malaysia's 30% support is beyond unrealistic, in a country where all other polls suggest acceptance of homosexuality is below 10%. The same goes for all the other Arab countries, where there's no way support is that high. Also, sources for several European countries to national surveys that are definitely more accurate and features a much smaller proportion of "don't know/no idea". I think Pew Research Center receipts are much more accurate, at least for Europe. Greece's 56% of approval includes civil unions, by the way. 95.237.80.61 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with you. I think survey from ILGA was an online poll and that is why results were high in some countries (because richer and more educated people have access to internet). Especially true for countries like Ghana. Regarding Greece, the survey is from Focus Bari and it is about marriage not civil union. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya percentages seem unrealistically high. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So does Malaysia. I can't imagine that many people support SSM. The Chinese community, maybe, but certainly not the conservative Bumi and Indian populaitons. Andrew1444 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine 30% for Sudan, Pakistan, Malaysia and just 43% for Italy or 64% for the Netherlands.. it doesn't make sense Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Same here. This look very dubious, and put question on the whole table of poll's sample and methodology. They should be removed, in my opinion. --Aréat (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Italy's support is at 56% (40% opposed) according to a recent trustworthy national poll. IMO the fact that ILGA's numbers are from an online poll should invalidate its accuracy and thus its use as a reliable source for the actual public opinion. In most specific articles about "LGBT rights in ____" there are better opinion polls, I reckon. I'll change the numbers where I can--as for the countries we only have ILGA data for, I think the best choice would be to remove them, but I'll wait for some more consensus. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 09:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you're right on that! And nice name! Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

So, shall we remove it? --Aréat (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a resounding yes from me. Those ILGA data for Muslim-majority countries are far from accurate. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, 30% for Pakistan is absurdly high. Isseubnida (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 15:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

IACHR and Latin America in the timeline vs on the map

A user is engaging in an edit war to prevent the map from reflecting the timeline re. Costa Rica, Panama and Peru. Also being reverted is the color showing which states are signatories to the IACHR, whose ruling in favor of SSM potentially applies to those states. (This could potentially happen in the EU as well, so it's worth thinking about how we would want to handle that.)

One user is claiming consensus to not update the IACHR states based on three or four of the people commenting there, but of course those are just the few who have been motivated by recent events to go to Commons and debate it, not the presumably much larger number here on WP who are fine with the article & map as it is. Anyway, if you think the map and timeline should be kept in sync, you might want to comment there. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As explained in details by several users on the wikimedia talkpage, same sex marriage hasn't currently been made legal in Costa Rica, Panama and Peru. That's why we shouldn't use the gold color yet, as it is for legalisation which aren't immediately effective - but legalisation nonetheless. As for the light gold color, it's used for same sex partnership. You changed it to portray the Interamerican court ruling. Several users on wikimedia were against both of these important changes, so it was changed back to how it was.--Aréat (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well,I already stated that I prefer the 'old' map... but I will state it at this page again if that's what you want... My opinion is that the changes made the map less clear, the light gold color had already a meaning and the gold color for Panama, Costa Rica and Peru is (in my opinion) not correct. Sander000 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The light gold color was not being used, so it was free for something else. Though of course we could change it.

And no, dark gold does not mean legal. SSM has not been legalized in Taiwan, for example. (There is a difference that the court set a date at which it will be legal if the legislature does not preempt it, but it's possible a civil-union law would do that.) In Costa Rica, Panama and Peru, the govt/courts have said that the ruling is binding or that they will abide by the ruling, which is what we've long used the color for.

— kwami (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Panama should be added to the timeline and the template (which Taiwan should be added to as well). First of all, a court legalizing same-sex marriage, an executive order legalizing same-sex marriage, and a legislature legalizing same-sex marriage all have the same legal effect. For example, same-sex marriage was legalized in West Virginia through executive order even though the ban was still on the books. I'm not sure about Costa Rica however.. The Superior Council of Notaries said they won't perform same-sex marriages until the law is actually changed. Prcc27 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's typical, though -- when a govt announces they're going to abide by a ruling, the implication is that they need to formalize it. I think we've used gold for that elsewhere. The ruling should be binding on CR, since they're the ones who brought the case before the court.

Are we clear whether or not civil unions would satisfy the court ruling in Taiwan? I don't know the basis for someone here saying it would. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

But people in the executive branch announcing their support for abiding by the ruling is no guarantee that the legislative branch will follow through. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Besides, there's presidential and legislative elections in Costa Rica next week. They could switch the decision of the previous government. Although unlikely considering the current polls, we can't rule it out entirely.--Aréat (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to formalize the implication that gold means a date has been set for legalization? The current wording of the key, "Marriage legalized", is inaccurate -- it's not been legalized in Taiwan, for example. We could change it to "Date set for legalization". That would account for us not including Nepal despite the court order there. That would also explain the difference in color -- if it were legalized, it should be some shade of blue. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not, indeed. But what is your source for a Nepal court order on same sex marriage? As far as I know from the page there was only a committee that was tasked with writting a report on the matter when the constitution was in work, and it advised the constituant assembly to legalise. But there was no court order, and the lawmakers eventually decided not to include SSM in the constitution, which has already been finished three years ago.--Aréat (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I remember, at the time WP described it as a Supreme Court order. That's why it warranted the gold color. But maybe our reporting was wrong? — kwami (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It seem so. Look up the current, updated page. ;) --Aréat (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Weasel words corrected

The article mentioned "an American Scientific Association" when it could have just said which association, i.e. The American Anthropological Association. The citation listed showed which association(no. 21) so I took out the weasel words and put in who actually said it. Phrases like this are little better than saying, "They've done studies that show...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.252.73.98 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand's opinion polling

New Zealand does not exist in the latest version of opinion polling. Could anyone fix it up? Khhmel (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica and Panama

There seem to be an ongoing edit war on whether these two countries, and maybe Peru, should be in the "legalised, but date to be determined" section. I thought a discussion on it already existed, but apparently not, so here we go : neither countries have passed legislation legalising it, and the south american court ruling isn't effective yet, as proven by the same sex marriage attempt in Codta Rica which resulted in the couple being told they would have to wait for a law. English speaking sources states the ruling as being binding, yet spanish speaking sources state it as consultiva, or advisory. Last but not least, the ongoing Costa Rican general election, 2018 had the conservative, evangelist, anti gay marriage candidate taking the first place to the second round and polling high. He stated that he would definitively not uphold this ruling, going as far as to leave the court entirely if needed. Maybe he will be elected, maybe he won't, maybe the parliament will decide otherwise, but to write that a Costa Rican legalisation is a sure thing, already done and only waiting for a date, is a clear example of CRYSTALBALL right now, in my opinion. We should wait for a more decisive vote. Cordially--Aréat (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Local legislation is not required. The ruling is irreversible, except obliviously if the countries leave the jurisdiction of the Court, though that is almost impossible, as it would require a constitutional amendment in Costa Rica (not sure about Panama, though) and the Costa Rican Parliament possesses a "petition of concern" similar to Northern Ireland. The Costa Rican Constitution explicitly states that international laws and rulings take precedence over local laws and are fully binding. The governments of both countries have already announced compliance with the ruling, and instructed several departments to abide by the ruling, with the intent to legalise same-sex marriage. The Council of Notaries stated that no same-sex marriage can be performed until new legislation or a Court ruling is in place. This has already happened. The IACHR, a court, has already ruled. Not to mention, the Supreme Electoral Court (also a court) has also announced it will implement the decision. The Council of Notaries is simply being very stubborn. As for Peru, it shouldn't be included on the timetable yet, because the Government hasn't issued a statement regarding the issue. Only a few lawmakers and judges have stated that the Government should abide by the decision. Jedi Friend (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as new informations. I suggest taking this to Talk:Same-sex marriage in Costa Rica. To be simply put, the court ruling is advisory, as per the very same spanish speaking source you wanted to add : it didn't instantly made same sex marriage legal in these countries. There is still a further step, a law or local court ruling, necessary for it to become legal. Do notice that the statement by the Council of Notaries happened after the South american court ruling, so the situation in Costa Rica is still one of same sex marriage not legaly possible.

So, a further step is needed. Months after the ruling, most of the south american countries it advised to legalise didn't even made an official statement. This so called legalisation could very well stay frozen this way for years for all we know. If Fabricio Alvarado is elected in Costa Rica, he could very well do the same. We don't know. That's why I think it's Crystallball. If the Supreme Electoral Court of Costa Rica announced it will make a favorable ruling, very well. When it do so, we will indicate it as legalised. --Aréat (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just looked up the Costa rican constitution (https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Costa_Rica_2011.pdf?lang=en) and on page 48 it state that a reform of the constitution require a two-third majority of the members of the legislative assembly, meaning 38 votes. If you consider the information in the table given on the spanish page of the recent election (link above), then the parties of candidates that expressed they wouldn't implement Same sex marriage obtained a total of 46 seats. Maybe I don't have all informations, but it doesn't seem this impossible for Costa Rica to go against the Court's ruling if the population decide to in the voting urns. At the very least, we should wait and see what will result of these elections, unless a decisive national court ruling is made in the meantime.--Aréat (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"If the Supreme Electoral Court of Costa Rica announced it will make a favorable ruling, very well. When it does so, we will indicate it as legalised." It already did! It did so just a few days after the ruling. See: https://www.nacion.com/el-pais/gobierno/registro-civil-solo-espera-notificacion-del/2FTLNLISQRCBTEBAMQ6MXYBLQM/story/?rel=none&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook. It stated it will implement the ruling once the Executive Branch notifies it, which it did on 12 January.

Indeed, an amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority (38 votes), something opponents of the ruling do not currently have. PAC and the Broad Front, which support same-sex marriage, have 11 seats. The National Liberation Party and the Social Christian Unity Party, whose candidates both announced their willingness to respect the decision, have 17 and 9 seats, so 26. The National Liberation Party (4 seats) also stated that IACHR rulings are always binding and they will respect that. The two parties, completely opposed, are the National Restoration Party and the Social Christian Republican Party, which together have 16 seats. Two other parties that oppose the ruling lost all their seats (the Renewal Party and the Christian Democratic Alliance).

Also, I would like to point out that this is not the first time the IACHR has ruled in such a way. In 2012, it ruled that bans on IVF violated privacy rights. Evangelical parties, opposed to the ruling, successfully rejected bills to get rid of the ban, still written in Costa Rican law. The President then issued an executive decree, which was later invalided by a local court because it wasn't passed in a law. However (in 2016), the IACHR ruled that presidential and governmental decrees are adequate and sufficient in abiding by its decisions. IVF was then fully legalised in Costa Rica, despite no law being passed. (See:http://globalbioethics.org/gbi_old/2016/03/new-court-ruling-challenges-ivf-ban-in-costa-rica/) The Government of Costa Rica has already issued a decree stating the decision will be implemented. (12 January). Additionally, in the Governemnt's view, the decision of the IACHR does not require legislation. (See: https://www.ameliarueda.com/nota/estado-debe-acatar-lo-que-senala-corte-sin-estar-supeditado-a-plazos-en-asa) Jedi Friend (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, those are new informations! Thanks for providing them, as well as the insight into the political parties opinions on the ruling. Again, I strongly suggest you add all these sourced infos to the article on same sex marriage in Costa Rica. Once the changes are made there, it will naturally be added here. What would be the definitive date for the legalisation, though, the national court ruling? Surely we can't use the IACHR ruling's date. If Peru for example finally implement it in two years, or another mentioned country in ten, we wouldn't be adding here that it was legalised in 2018. What do you think?--Aréat (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add them to the Costa Rica article. As for your question. Honestly, I don't know when the ruling will fully be enforced in all these countries (in my opinion, for Costa Rica it will probably be this year, though that is simply my estimation and nothing else). I agree with you that we shouldn't use the date of IACHR ruling as the legalisation date nor do I believe that we should use the date of the Electoral Court decision. Maybe we should wait until a same-sex couple successfully marries in Costa Rica to state that same-sex marriage has been legalised or maybe until the Council of Notaries finally relents. But until then, I believe Costa Rica and Panama should be added to timetable under TBD. Jedi Friend (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not completely sure with Panama but it looks like the supreme court of Panama will abide by the ICH ruling as the adverse opinion against ssm has just been retreat by the magistrate who wrote it and he said he will take in consideration the ICH ruling. We just dont know when they will issue the opinion which it nows look to be favorable for the lgbt community. http://laestrella.com.pa/panama/politica/decision-sobre-matrimonio-ponderara-opinion-cidh/24048856

Btw should we add this info in the Venezuelan same sex marriage page? It looks like there supreme court will issue a 6-1 decision in favorable of ssm, they are trying to convince the last justice but looks that a favorable ruling is certain.https://alnavio.com/mvc/amp/noticia/12738/?__twitter_impression=true --Allancalderini12 (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have a new sourced information as relevant as this one, of course, please add it! I didn't knew it was looking so favorable in Venezuela.--Aréat (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

So, can we stop having "Government/Court legalized marriage but the law is not yet in effect" marked as dubious? --Aréat (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not been legalized in Taiwan. — kwami (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

American Samoa, Poland and Israel

On the map, AS is colored for cohabitation. But there's no mention of that in our AS article. All I can find is that the IRS will recognize any marriage recognized in a US state, no matter where you live, but nothing about AS itself. So I'm changing the color to grey. Please correct if I'm wrong.

Above an anon user claimed that several additional European countries rec cohabitation, but our articles only support the claim for Poland. So I'm adding Poland to the infobox here and in the map. Again, if I'm wrong, please correct.

For Israel, the cohabitation law seems clear, but foreign recognition is not. I can't justify the recognition color without something more substantial than that. (And the fact that Israel was striped with grey suggests that others weren't sure either.) — kwami (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

American Samoa should be colored with the limited federal recognition color that used to be on the map. Prcc27 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

But wouldn't that be true for the British territories in the Caribbean as well?

And if it's just a matter of, say, filing federal taxes with the IRS, or inheritance rights, that would be true even if you were US citizens living in Russia, but we wouldn't give Russia that color. — kwami (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia and Japan should be added to the table

Poland, Bulgaria and Serbia as well as Japan should be added to the table on "Legal status of same-sex unions" under "Unregistered cohabitation" as all of those countries give some legal recognition for its unregistered cohabiting same-sex couples. Japan recognised same-sex relationships for immigration purposes only, exactly the same as San Marino which is added to the table based on only this one legal effect. However Poland, Bulgaria and Serbia give more than one legal effects.

Perhaps there exists some other provisions related of same-sex couples in those four as well as in other countries but data about that is not updated regulary. Even official reports like ILGA - State-Sponsored Homophobia 2017 or ILGA Europe - Rainbow Europe are not comprehensive on the messure (resulting in missing some data in some countries).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.136.158 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidence? Our article supports the change for Poland (I've updated the map at my end, but am holding off pending objections here), but I don't see anything in the Bulgarian, Serbian or Japanese articles that support your claim. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, if we can demonstrate that this was ever implemented, and is what it sounds like, then IMO Japan should be colored for foreign recognition. Or maybe just cohabitation. Beyond my pay grade. — kwami (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Some additional useful reports prepared by legal experts:

For Slovakia (pages 26, 70) and for Romania (pages 26, 70) - Legal recognition of homosexual orientation in the countries of the world A chronological overview with footnotes. For Serbia (page 4) and for Poland (page 4) Family policies and diversity in Europe: The state-of-the-art regarding fertility, work, care, leave, laws and self-sufficiency. For Serbia (page 67) and for Poland (page 67) The Relationship between LGBT Inclusion and Economic Development: An Analysis of Emerging Economies. For Bulgaria (pages - described in Wiki article) and for Poland (pages - described in Wiki article) LawsAndFamilies Database Launched | Europe. Progress across Europe Same-sex marriages or registered partnerships are now legal in 21 of the 28 member states of the EU... "And also in Poland and Bulgaria, same-sex couples are beginning to get some legal recognition".

This should be however updated as well on map and on article of Europe (and on map of Worldwide laws regarding same-sex intercourse and freedom of expression and association), and used rather as "Recognition of same-sex unions in Poland" than "LGBT rights in Poland" in the infobox.

Original text from Bulgaria was however incomprehensibly removed.

Unregistered cohabitation [Bulgaria]

There is no any legal family format available to same-sex couples, but despite this there are a few provisions that effect some legal consequences for same-sex couples living in informal relationship (as well as exists some additional that however may be doubt as of yet and that is why it is omitted).

De facto cohabiting couples are only occasionally mentioned as holders of rights and (more often in terms of) obligations in some legal acts, such as: the Entering, Residence and Leaving the Republic of Bulgaria by European Union Citizens and Members of Their Families Act, the Conflict of Interests Prevention and Ascertainment Act, Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code and others. When doing so, the legislator does not differentiate or indicate whether the couple is different-sex only or also include same-sex. However in general, the notion of unions of same-sex persons is not legally recognised.

One partner in this type of relationship can individually adopt a child since 1968. Under art. 78 Family Code (2009), art. 50, Family Code (1985) (repealed) and art. 47 Family Code (1968, repealed) the law stipulates that every person who has legal capacity and is not deprived of parental rights can adopt a child. This general rule gives the right to adopt a child to any single person – including gay/lesbian. A future second-parent adoption, however, will not be possible.

In case of wrongful death of one partner, the other partner is entitled to compensation from the wrongdoer since 2007. Related legal acts include art. 84 (1), Criminal Procedure Code (Наказателно-процесуален кодекс) (2006), art. 60 (1), Criminal Procedure Code (Наказателно-процесуален кодекс) (1974) (repealed), Civil Procedure Code (Граждански процесуален кодекс) (2008), Civil Procedure Code (Граждански процесуален кодекс) (1952) (repealed), and art. 3 (2), Crime Victim Assistance and Financial Compensation Act (Закон за подпомагане и компенсация на пострадалите от престъпление) (2007). As under the Criminal Procedure Code the successor of the inheritor has the right to seek compensation through a civil action, it is highly unlikely that the cohabiting partner would be deemed as a holder of this right. Cohabiting partners, however, explicitly have a right to compensation under the Crime Victim Assistance and Financial Compensation Act. Lesbians are also permitted to use Assisted Reproductive Technology.

So at that moment perhaps only this three legal effects are related to same-sex couples as they receive legal recognition.

Original text from Serbia was however incomprehensibly removed.

Unregistered cohabitation [Serbia]

There is no any legal recognition of same-sex couples under Serbian law. De facto unions are only occasionally mentioned in some legal acts, but used terms are not specified whether thay has to be of different sex only.

However in 2010 the Constitutional Court of Serbia in its decision (Case IU-347/2005, of 22/07/2010) noted that there were two provisions in the Serbian legal system that could be applicable to same-sex de facto unions. The provision of the Family Law on domestic violence (art. 98.3.5.) includes the notion of family members who were or still are in an emotional or a sexual relationship and the Law on Prevention of Family Violence envisages application of its provisions in the event of violence towards people in marital unions, extramarital unions and partnerships.

Also the provision of the Law on Criminal Proceedings (art. 94.1.1.) which defines who is relieved from testifying is applicable to people who have been in an emotional or sexual relationship, or a nonspecific long-term relationship. Some other provisions could be applicable to same-sex partners, but this is left to the discretion of authorities charged with their implementation. For exaple, the Law on Execution of Criminal Sanctions (art. 90) guarantees that a convicted person has the right to receive two visits per month from a spouse, a child, a parent, or some relatives, and which enables the prison principal to allow visits by other people. This law that allow the right to prison visitations is applicable for same-sex couples in practice.

In case of adoption, a single parent adoption is allowed only under special circumstances. Under the Family Law (art 5) adoption is allowed by partners in marriage or in common-law marriage (defined as opposite-sex only) which means that same-sex partners are not allowed to adopt children jointly, despite the fact that there is no explicit prohibition of adoption by LGBT people individually.

Serbia also allowed the right to artificial insemination treatment for women in a same-sex relationship under special circumstances as a single mother since 2010. However there are some difficulties for lesbian women seeking to access artificial insemination procedures.

So at that moment perhaps only this three legal effects are related to same-sex couples as they receive legal recognition.

Original text from Romania was however incomprehensibly removed.

Unregistered cohabitation [Romania]

There is no any legal family format available to same-sex couples, and no any provisions that could effect some legal consequences for same-sex couples living in informal relationship (however there exists some provisions that may be doubt as of yet and that is why it is omitted).

Cohabitation in general is not recognised in Romanian legislation, for neither different-sex, nor same-sex couples. However, different-sex cohabitation has been recognised in legislation on domestic violence (since 2003) and also to some degree in immigration law (since 2002).

Original text from Japan was however incomprehensibly removed.

Unregistered cohabitation [Japan]

Japan recognised same-sex relationships for immigration purposes since 2009.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.37.1 (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The one ref for Japan is the same as above, and only indicates intention, whereas the second is a WP article that doesn't even mention Japan. So Japan is excluded on the basis of the presented evidence.

For the two linked refs for Serbia, I don't see any evidence for recognition, except for a paragraph where I can't tell if they're saying people do or do not have certain rights. So, unless you can explain this to me in a way I can understand, Serbia is also out. (I admit there's a bit of too-long,-didn't-read here.)

For Bulgaria, according to the first ref, "in general, the notion of unions of same-sex persons is not legally recognised."

— kwami (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"in general, the notion of unions of same-sex persons is not legally recognised."

I am not a lawyer to speak about this, but i understand it that way (maybe incorrectly), that if a country give some legal effects for couples based on the relationship, that it is de facto recognition of that unions. It is no matter whatever "direct" cohabitation concept exists in the legislation (like "direct" marriage/parthership concept exists). It is the same if at least one legal effects results for unmarried coupels based on use different "general" provision that also constitute maybe not direct ("de jure"), but "de facto" cohabitation concept. On the other hand, some countries for example recognise existence of cohabitation (directly), but this not results in any legal effects (like Lithuania under civil code, but for opposite-sex couples only) and it is still official recognition of unmarried couples.

I know that wiki articles on that issue were started to be prepared mostly probably after Netherlands legalised same-sex marriages in 2000 (this "info" however in fact impacted globally), but prior to this practically nearly all countries that today recognise same-sex marriages/unions, first recognised unmarried couples in their domestic legislations beginning from very limited scope. This fact tuns was broadly omitted in this articles. Now many Eastern European countries (as well as outside Europe) started that same process (which is very long itself). I just liked to acknowledgment fact that some of this countries as of yet in fact recognise that unions.

Some of this reports added recently above (prepared by legal experts, and not by "fans") definitely suggest that there is legal recognition of cohabitation of same-sex unions although for very limited purposes, however it is confirmed by legal experts. (e.g. Slovakia and Romania for migration purposes, Bulgaria in case of wrongful death, single parent adoption and ART, Serbia for prison visitations, single parent adoption and ART, Latvia for ART, ... ect.).

So i believe that it should be taken into consideration, and eventually to be chained in this articles to improve/update this useful informations. And if someone is available to verified this informations to do so using more detailed sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.37.1 (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely worth looking into. I don't really understand what "unregistered cohabitation" is supposed to mean, so I'm not a good one to judge apart from obvious cases like Poland. I was hoping for a bit of discussion here, that those who have decided in the past which countries count for this would comment on whether these other countries do. (And if they don't, maybe San Marino doesn't either?) — kwami (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Need same-sex marriages have a ceremony

The current opening sentence states that same-sex marriages are entered into through a religious or civil ceremony... which is probably true in most cases. However, limiting it to that overlooks common law same-sex marriages, as discussed here. Perhaps "religious or civil recognition" would be more appropriate? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Additions to lead

The additions, all of which are factual and well-sourced, are as follows:

• Statement regarding the recognition of marriage equality as a civil right (by the Supreme Court of the United States) and a human right (by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights).
• Short overview of the history leading up to the spread of same-sex marriage.
• Statement regarding views of opponents of same-sex marriage, with these claims countered by scientific information (incredibly well-sourced).
• Statement regarding a very notable study (ranked #1 among pediatrics studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association) which showed a massive drop in suicide attempts among children associated with the establishment of same-sex marriage (~134,000 fewer children attempting suicide each year in the United States). The study is globally prominent (as the data can be extrapolated to any country in world) and was used as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage by health experts in Australia during the vote campaign for same-sex marriage there ([8]).

(Change | Revision)

Do you support or oppose the new lead with the additions? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inserting information (the one in regard to US research about suicides) in this form, which is already included in Same-sex marriage in the United States article, into this article's lead, which should not overly extensive, is senseless. It is far too long. "Studies" section is good place for this. The sentence: "Civil rights campaigning in favor of marriage without distinction as to sex or sexual orientation began in the 1970s in the United States" seems to suggest that the United States was the place where campaigning for same-sex marriage began the earliest in the world (no, source attached does not support such a claim at all). The sentence about campaign in one particular country makes no sense in world-wide article' lead. The lead should not be US-centered. Using non-neutral term marriage equality instead of same-sex marriage violates NPOV. There is a section which presents views of opponents. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The study is globally prominent and therefore notable enough for the lead (and, as mentioned, the data can be extrapolated to any other country in world, and has been). That sentence could be alternatively worded as "In the United States, civil rights campaigning in favor of marriage without distinction as to sex or sexual orientation began in the 1970s"; it's notable given that it's the earliest recorded historical instance of a national court case arguing for same-sex marriage in modern times. That sentence can be alternatively worded "Same-sex marriage has been recognized as being both a civil right and a human right", but "Marriage equality" can nonetheless be considered to be an appropriate and neutral term given that it's being conveyed that both the US Supreme Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that the marriages of same-sex couples and the marriages of opposite-sex couples must be recognized as the equal by the law (which is the definition of marriage equality). --Justthefacts9 (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, study could be mentioned, but in far shorter form than the one you tried to insert. No, sentence about the campaign in US should not be included. This article is not and should not be US-centered. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless the study is explained in full, it's importance cannot be discerned; a short mention will not be understood by an ordinary reader and as such it is vital to properly explain the study (it's only a single paragraph in the lead). It's global prominence in the scientific/health/medical community as well as it's usage in campaigns for same-sex marriage outside the US makes it notable enough to be properly explained in the lead. The sentence about the civil rights campaigning in the US in 1970s is mentioned as part of a paragraph reviewing the historical events leading up to the spread of same-sex marriage around the world; it is prominent given that it is, as previously mentioned, the earliest recorded historical instance of a national court case arguing for same-sex marriage in modern times. This article is not US-centered, of course, and nothing in the additions make it so. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The lead is place for a short mention, not full explanation. Sections are a place where different topics could be explained. Notability does not justify such extensive form. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a single paragraph that is difficult to condense without losing its informative value. The prominence and notability of the study justifies its own paragraph in lead (where it will be viewed in full by ordinary readers), fulling explaining the importance of the research to ordinary readers. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This "single paragraph" is huge and too long for the lead. Notability does not justify it. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The study cannot be properly understood unless it is fully explained. It's informative value is more important than capping the lead at some arbitrary size. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The lead is not for explanations, it should summarize the article's content. Inserting the short mention like this Accorting to a study of nationwide data from across the United States from January 1999 to December 2015, conducted by the American Medical Association, the establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among children, concentrated among children of a minority sexual orientation. would be enough in my opinion. Users interested in details could read about it in "Studies" section and sources. Ron 1987 (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ordinary readers often don't read beyond the lead, and therefore may not understand how the study came to that conclusion without the explanation. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Finding the information, which user is interested in, is not that hard in this article. It is not 1000-page book. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure enough, but let's be practical. The average reader isn't going to read that single unhelpful sentence and think "well, it must be explained in full somewhere in the article", but rather they are more likely to think "how the heck did they come to that conclusion?", which erodes at the encyclopedic and informative value of that piece of information. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Using the fact that some users read just the lead of article as an argument here is absurd. Following this logic we should just throw everything into the lead, just because some people for some reasons don't want to read anything else. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous assertion. The logic here is that an ordinary reader should be able to instantaneously understand the information they are reading. For some information a full explanation is desirable in order for the reader to properly understand the information being conveyed, whereas other pieces of information can be summarized in short without losing its informative value. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. If the study is needed in the lede at all, its key result can be summarized in very few words ("A study has shown a correlation between legalization of same-sex marriage and lower rates of youth suicide"), possibly even integrated with some other statements ("Studies have correlated legalization of same-sex marriage with economic growth, reduced teen suicide, increased number of cupcake parlors, and victories for local baseball teams" or whatever) Summary is summary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that one particular court calls it a human right doesn't make it so, and doesn't make "marriage equality" a neutral term. StAnselm (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of the United States and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are not some ordinary courts whose opinions can be dismissed. --Justthefacts9 (talk)

Yes, but both the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee have rejected the idea. Why didn't you include that in your proposal? I don't think you're treating this even-handedly. StAnselm (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The ECHR's previous 2010 ruling on the matter is being slowly undermined in a systematic manner by the court itself ([9][10][11]).--Justthefacts9 (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The additions appear to be arguing in favour of same sex marriage, and do not represent to opposition very well. It does not take into account that "unnatural" can have a range of meaning, and also has a very simplistic view of the science involved - e.g. as our Biology and sexual orientation says, "A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated; various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal, and social factors determine sexual orientation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm (talk • contribs) 07:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Opposition is well represented, with scientific information that counter those claims. Scientific consensus is that homosexuality is a natural and normal human sexuality. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

But when opponents, especially religious opponents call homosexuality "abnormal", they are using the word in a different sense. Hence, it cannot be said that the scientific information contradicts the claims. StAnselm (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The claims are those generally put forth by any opponents. Those claims are strongly refuted by science. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: While the lede could probably you a rewrite, I'd be more inclined to remove from it than add to it, per MOS:LEADREL and MOS:LEADLENGTH. The current second paragraph, for instance, seems too detailed for an introduction to a topic; at most, that information should be summarized, culling the names of countries, WP:RECENT info, and WP:CRYSTAL claims. —Ost (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way too long, and centered on one country. --Aréat (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Cuba

Today I read about Cuban representative Mariela Castro wanting to legalise SSM in Cuba. The article states the Cuban constitution is currently being revised and this politician, Raúl Castro's daughter, wanted to change marital law to included same-sex marriages. I couldn't find a mention of this in any English language media, but this seems worth including, doesn't it? Steinbach (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Mariela is a big supporter and activist in support of LGBT rights, and has been for years. Cuba is one very small country, but I believe that a brief mention could be added somewhere, within the constraints of due weight. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A separate subsection under "national debates", maybe? Steinbach (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Beside countries where legislation has been introduced, or referenda proposed (Czechia, Switz), there's at least Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, N.Ireland, Philippines. These are all places to watch, and therefore of interest to the general reader, I think, but there's no guarantee that any of them will rec SSM. So yes, I think a separate section would be appropriate. — kwami (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead changes and disruption

I'm going to put this here on the article talk page, although it is also a matter that involves one single editor, Truth Alone. So, this edit was made under the pretense that the talk page somehow justified it. It does not. First of all, the section above is not exactly clear--it's a month old, didn't reach formal resolution, but it does quite clearly oppose the proposed change. But second, Truth Alone's edit is NOT the same as this, the proposed edit. So "Reasons given in talk page" is specious: the editor gave a reason or two, but there is no consensus for their changes, and their changes aren't the changes that were discussed. Truth alone, you're going to have to get talk page consensus for your changes, and you should stop edit warring. Also pinging Ohnoitsjamie and Teammm as reverters. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It is important to note that the disruptive editor in question appears to have a horrifying 20th century mindset of viewing homosexuality as a "perversion" (judging from the edits in question), therefore, in essence, viewing an entire class of human beings, children and adults alike, as lesser-than, with the consequences of such a viewpoint being quite well-known (which includes, but is not limited to, the violent bullying of gay kids and the violent persecution of gay adults). POV-pushing motivated by such a dangerous and extremist viewpoint should be taken as seriously as POV-pushing motivated by the equally dangerous and extremist viewpoint of considering certain races to be inferior (the attendant consequences being quite similar). This is a grave matter. Well done to editors Drmies, Ohnoitsjamie, and Teammm for swiftly taking care of this problem and to editor Bennv3771 for warning the disruptive editor. Further disruption by the editor in question should rightfully result in the immediate blocking of the IP address and the user account in question (which appear to be the same disruptive editor). --Justthefacts9 (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I usually make small edits here and there in Wikipedia pages, unless I come across a blatantly biased and/or inaccurate section. I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia talk pages or policies, and after having my edit reverted a few times I simply gave up for not having the will/patience to do it and/or be blocked. Since this has been posted here and I just saw it, I think I will bring this up again. Now, the proposed change was the one put forward by the editor Justthefacts9, and it went as follows:

"Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the beliefs that homosexuality is unnatural and abnormal, that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society, and that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples.[20] These claims are countered by science which shows that homosexuality is a natural and normal human sexuality, that sexual orientation cannot be chosen or influenced, and that the children of same-sex couples fare just as well or even better than the children of opposite-sex couples.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]"

This change was opposed by most editors in the poll, and some gave the reasons I have given. There are multiple issues with this, and it seems to me these should not be left there if Wikipedia is to retain its credibility/integrity. The first issue is that the proposed paragraph essentially attacks a straw man by attacking a philosophical/ethical/religious view by saying that science "counters" it. The view which virtually every theologian or philosopher holds in regards to homosexuality being sinful and immoral is that it is "unnatural" because it is contrary to natural law, NOT because it has no biological basis, as the sources which the editor state. It attacks a position which none of the philosophical or theological literature espouses. And since the concept of natural law is a philosophical/ethical one, science obviously does not "counter" it. Furthermore, science does not counter the view that "that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society," and the sources do not state so either, which deal almost entirely with same-sex parenting. Considering these flaws, I changed the proposal to the following:

"Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the ethical and religious views that homosexuality is contrary to natural law and divine law, that marriage is by its essence the union between a man and a woman, that the recognition of same-sex unions will promote homosexuality in society, and that children are better off when raised by opposite-sex couples. Critics counter that homosexuality is natural because it is influenced by biological factors, that sexual orientation cannot be chosen or influenced, and that the children of same-sex couples fare just as well or even better than the children of opposite-sex couples."

In this edit, I clarified what opponents of same-sex marriage/homosexuality mean when they say that homosexuality is unnatural, by giving two sources from philosophical/theological literature, one from the peer-reviewed philosophy/theology journal the Heythrop Journal, the other from St. Augustine's Press by Catholic philosopher Edward Feser: http://www.academia.edu/6631768/A_Defense_of_the_Perverted_Faculty_Argument_against_Homosexual_Sex; https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4SjM0oabZazWC1SRmN0WXVpYkE/view, and by linking the term natural law to its page, which explains what it is. I also added another important argument frequently made, namely that marriage is by its essence the union between a man and a woman. I also changed the following sentence from the inappropriate "science counters" to "critics counter," considering science does not touch any of the given arguments, except those made about same-sex parenting. And lastly, I explained what critics mean when they say homosexuality is natural, namely that the orientation has a biological basis. Unfortunately, the editor has accused me of having a "horrifying 20th century mindset" and saying these are "dangerous and extremist views," proceeding to compare me to racists. I do not believe so, and think these attacks are not appropriate here. I simply wanted the paragraph to accurately reflect the view of virtually every single philosopher and theologian that views homosexual acts as unnatural, and remove the inaccurate claim that science counters these ethical/moral views, which are, to say the least, hardly "extremist," considering every major religion views the issue at hand as immoral. I do not know when to edit the page to reflect the things I have mentioned, but I will wait for some people to reply and see what you guys think. Thank you for taking your time to read this. Truth Alone (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Truth Alone, May 13, 2018

Justthefacts9, Welcome back after your lonnnng break. Remember that talk pages are not for panning other editors' motives, but for discussing how to achieve consensus on how best to improve the article. Comments about another editor's mindset, no matter how much you disagree with it, does nothing to improve the article. In addition, your choice of words was uncivil and might be seen as a personal attack. (It's too late to remove the remarks now due to WP:REDACT, though you could strike or collapse them, if you wish.) If you have complaints about a user's behavior, the proper venue for that is their User talk page. Please confine your comments here to how to improve the article.

Truth Alone, you're discussing a proposed change by Justthefacts9; so far, so good; that's what a Talk page is for. Where you said, The view which virtually every theologian or philosopher holds in regards to homosexuality being sinful and immoral is that it is "unnatural" because... did you really mean to imply that "virtually every theologian or philosopher" believes "homosexuality [to be] sinful and immoral"? Because that's how I understood your sentence, but I believe you meant to say something different: correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you meant to talk about what reasons are given by theologians/philosphers who believe it to be sinful (even if that is, say, 1% of them) rather than that's what "virtually every theologian or philosopher believes" right? If I'm wrong about your intended meaning, then you need to go find a bunch of sources, because I'm quite sure than many theologians, and countless philosphers, would not agree with your statement about their beliefs. That's the first thing.

The other thing, is that you redo the proposal in your words, couching the whole thing as a question of ethics and religion, as if the opposition we are talking about in this article, is the well-thought out and carefully-crafted writings of ethicists, theologians, and philosophers, i.e., of 0.001% of the population); but I think the analysis of the oppositional view we are talking about in the paragraph under discussion is the view of everyone else who happens to oppose it who isn't a philosopher, ethicist, or theologian; i.e, 99.999% of the opposition view holders. For some goodly percentage of those, hopefully a minority, good old-fashioned bigotry may be a prime reason. But I don't think for the majority of people it "is based on the ethical and religious views that homosexuality is contrary to natural law and divine law". If you think it is, then I think you overestimate the critical thinking ability of the majority of those holding views in opposition and their ability to give a definition for either "natural law" or "divine law". If I'm wrong about this, then you shouldn't have any difficulty coming up with a bunch of references supporting your alegation, which at a very minimum, would be required before you would have chance of getting that paragraph included in the article. I think the prospects for that are very unlikely, but this is the right place to try to do that.

That said, you might have a point about the straw-man argument about the second sentence of the existing paragraph, with respect to not exactly responding to the first, but I believe it can be improved without tossing it entirely. Unless the sources of the "countering" claim mention the refutation of the points in the first sentence, this would be WP:SYNTH. But rather than get into details about that, I've gone on long enough already, and would prefer others to jump in. Mathglot (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the engaging response Mathlot! As for your first question, forgive me for the unclarity, but I meant to say that only the philosophers and theologians that view homosexual acts as immoral do so because of the reason given, not that all philosophers and theologians view it as immoral, which is far from true. So we're in agreement here, I think. As for your second point, that seems to be right. However, I can't tell which is the case in the article, if it's just talking about popular views which may or may not match the views of the 'expert' ethicists/theologians, or primarily those of the 'experts.' If the former, it seems to me the article should also, if not primarily, include the views of the experts who view it as immoral, considering they are highly relevant to the legal debate over same-sex marriage. For example, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following: "Arising out of this history, at least in the West, is the idea of natural law and some interpretations of that law as forbidding homosexual sex. References to natural law still play an important role in contemporary debates about homosexuality in religion, politics, and even courtrooms.[...] Today natural law theory offers the most common intellectual defense for differential treatment of gays and lesbians, and as such it merits attention" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#NatLaw). It seems to me that the notion of homosexuality being unnatural as in having no biological basis should not be entertained here. I don't have any sources of studies asking the general population what they mean by unnatural when they say homosexuality is unnatural, but I must ask, does the editor have any sources of studies that that is in fact what they mean, namely that it has no biological basis at all? If not, I think we should primarily, if not exclusively, focus on the views of the philosophers or theologians that see it as unnatural. Of course, all the above is ignoring the ongoing debate in the scientific community as the causes of homosexuality, as reflected in the American Psychological Association's statement on its causes, so that we cannot say definitely that it is caused by biological factors primarily. Lastly, I'm glad there's some agreement about the straw-man portion of the paragraph. If you have any suggestions on how to change/improve the proposal, feel free to mention it! Truth Alone (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Truth Alone, May 14 2018

I would also like to see some useful editing on this particular paragraph. Some of the sources cited are position papers from professional organizations, and do not reflect academic or scientific research. The APA statement, for example, was written because of political pressure within the organization. Justin Lehmiller, a psychologist who specializes in human sexuality, wrote the text The Psychology of Human Sexuality. In that text, he notes that there is no consensus in the discipline of psychology about the "cause" of sexual orientation, and that it is probable that social/environmental "causes" work alongside biological ones. Sociologists also emphasize the importance of social constructionism in how sexual orientation develops. Additionally, there are arguments against SS marriage that are not based on religious, philosophical, or moral arguments. John D'Emilio, for example, a historian who has written extensively on gay and lesbian issues, argued against investing LGBT activist energy into pushing for SS marriage.AnaSoc (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should also distinguish between arguments based on natural or divine law, which are statements of opinion that cannot be substantiated either way, and the argument on harm to children, which has been debunked. The proposals above give them a false equivalency. "God intended" is an entirely different argument, and irrelevant in societies that separate religion from governance, than a demonstrably false claim about harm, which if true would have been a legitimate reason for banning SSM or adoption. — kwami (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

EU

Because of the recent (ongoing?) edit war over taking opinions about the importance of the ECJ ruling out of context, I thought I should clarify: It's more a matter of legal cohabitation than marriage. The ruling explicitly does *not* require EU countries to recognize SSM. It only requires that they give residency rights to non-EU spouses of EU citizens resident in their country, and even then perhaps only if they were married in the EU. (Though the logic of the ruling would suggest that any marriage recognized by other EU states would suffice.) The state can (and I'm sure will, as this has already been the govt reaction) give the spouse residency papers and yet insist that they are not legally married, and provide them with none of the legal rights of a married couple other than residency (though, presumably, the same legal logic would apply to any right accorded by the EU rather than by the state). So, quite likely, even the Romanian couple in question will get none of the tax breaks accorded to married couples, hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, etc., or whatever other benefits there are to marriage in Romania. And, in any case, Slovakia's the only country I've heard of that's said they'll implement the ruling. Others may fudge, ignore, obfuscate or drag their feet, like Alabama's done in the US. Even for Romania, no-one's demonstrated that anything's changed apart from the single couple in question, which is that one man has been granted residency. And I suspect the number of such marriages is not likely to be large enough to affect public opinion.

A Romanian marrying a Belgian would not be recognized, since the Belgian already has the right to residency in Romania. Likewise, if a Romanian couple went to Belgium and got married, Romania would not recognize the marriage. Indeed, Romania's going to have a referendum to constitutionally ban SSM. If that passes, only those aspects of EU treaty law that override the Romanian constitution will be in effect. And even if it does not, only those aspects that override Romanian law will be in effect. And the ECJ ruling is clear that national bans against SSM are legal, and EU law does not override such bans apart from transnational things like residency (or, at this point, only residency).

Yes, it's a step in the direction of recognition, but only a baby step. I suspect that even Poland's laws confer greater rights than this. Any suggestion that the ruling foreshadows greater recognition is speculation/CRYSTAL. We cannot assume it will happen. IMO, I suspect that recognition in these countries will come about because of changes in public opinion at the national level, with the EU influence being cultural rather than legal. The ruling has sparked conversation in Romania, but other states may quietly issue residency permits to little news coverage, so it might not even spark debate there. Maybe once it's down to one or two recalcitrant holdouts, the ECJ might issue a broader ruling on marriage rights, but I'm sure they'd prefer not to.

The Conversation article paints a more optimistic picture, one that is not shared by most reports I've seen. They talk about govt recognition of the marriage itself, rather than simply of the legal cohabitation. Perhaps they're right and the other news outlets are wrong, and this really is a precedent for other legal rights of married couples. (Though, if so, why do marriage rights accrue only to non-citizens and not to citizens?) If I am so grossly misunderstanding the situation, please demonstrate that. I would like to be wrong.

P.S. The ruling seems to be even narrower than I thought. It looks like a Moroccan married to a Belgian will not get residency if they move to Romania. Their spouse must be a Romanian national. So, if our Romanian couple in question were to move to Slovakia next year, it looks like the spouse would loose his residency rights (unless Slovakia wishes to be generous). Though I'm not sure what a "national" is under EU law.

(later) Hey, if Coman had married a Belgian, the Belgian would not have a right to Romanian residency! And it's "third-country national", not non-EU citizen as news reports kept getting it. (Though the ruling keeps contrasting "third-country national" with "EU citizen", wouldn't a national of a third country in the EU by definition be a "third-country national"? Or is that EU jargon for "non-EU citizen"?) So, national of EU country A can marry national/citizen of any country B while a legal residence of country EU country C, and the spouse has a right to residency in A -- as long as A, B, C are different countries. The Conversation describes the ruling as "bold", but it seems to be the absolute minimum. If he'd married a Belgian (B = C), country A would not have to give residency, and if they moved to a 4th country D, D would not have to give residency either. Assuming I'm reading this right.

— kwami (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The Citizenship of the European Union involves a number of rights in every one of the member states, but acquiring the citizenship depends on the requirements defined by the respective nationality laws of the 28 member states. If a subject wants to acquire Romanian citizenship by marriage (and by extend European citizenship), he/she has to certify "5 years' residence in Romania". For applications for naturalization, the applicant has to certify "8 years' residence", or 4 years' residence for EU citizens (but requires permanent residency which is typically issued after 5 years).

A person not holding citizenship in any of the 28 member states is excluded from rights associated with the Citizenship of the European Union, such as the right to free movement and residence. If they are not citizens of the 4 non-member states which are part of the Schengen Area (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland), they are specifically excluded from "the right of free movement" and any state can apply restrictions on their movements.

While Morocco–European Union relations are close, and there are free trade and open skies agreements between them, Moroccan citizens don't have any special rights within the EU or the Schengen Area. Dimadick (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The court said nothing about getting citizenship after five years, though, only about the right of free movement and of residence. Presumably the spouse will not be able to become a citizen. Presumably he could if they stayed in Belgium. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ecuador & Hong Kong

Hong Kong sounds a lot like the Romania case, though residency can be based on civil unions rather than marriage.[12][13] Should HK be coded the same on the map as Slovakia? It's not really recognition of marriage, but then it isn't really that in Slovakia either. (Maybe striped green-grey?)

Ecuador[14] (see also the spanish-language article they link to) looks like it could end up with legal SSM and simultaneously a constitutional ban on SSM. Anyone know if this is being appealed? Did the registry comply, are they appealing? — kwami (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The Civil Registry appealed the ruling. See [15], [16]. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Makes me wish we had coverage for countries where the situation's in litigation. But I don't think we could ever know if we got every one. — kwami (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page @Kwamikagami:. Several articles mention that same-sex marriage licenses can be obtained immediately and none mention a stay of execution whilst the ruling is being appealed. A quote is also included in the NewNowNext article from a law expert stating licenses can be obtained immediately [17]. In my opinion we should restore the changes Ruperttrepur (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ruperttrepur: - the problem for me is that the Spanish news talks about how this is a first step, hope for the future, etc. Also, does the ruling affect only Cuenca? Without evidence that people actually are getting married, and nation-wide, I'm hesitant to go forward with this. There've been too many English-language reports of Latin America that got it wrong, and gay news outlets are sometimes overly optimistic. Your article does add the opinion of "legal expert Sebastián López", which is good, but even assuming he's correct (all we know about him is that he has a Spanish name), and the Registry won't obstruct the ruling, I still wonder if it follows that a random couple can actually get married in Quito. — kwami (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The English language source states the Ecuador ruling is effective immediately (despite the Registry’s appeal) and that it, in conjunction with the IACHR ruling, overrides the SSM ban in the constitution. But I don’t think this is sufficient yet. Interpreting these Spanish-speaking countries has caused trouble in the past. Surely if all that’s claimed is correct, shouldn’t we wait a few days when presumably many ss couples get married?

Hong Kong to me is like the EU ruling. It recognises the unions (including foreign marriages) of ss couples for a specific purpose, in this case visas. The Govt has said it “respects” the ruling, which is somewhat vague. But if it’s good enough for Slovakia, don’t see why it isn’t for HK. Jono52795 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

We do show it for Slovakia. The map is solid green. But that suggests they actually recognize SSM, which AFAICT they don't, and they recognize all of them, which AFAICT they don't. I think maybe striped green-grey would be better for both Slovakia and HK. — kwami (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing's coming up in a quick search of the spanish-language news online, so apparently there isn't any notable activity. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight suicide material in the lead

Justthefacts9, why do you think that suicide paragraph should be in the lead? Also, per WP:Lead, typically the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The current lead is six paragraphs long. Extra length for a lead is not prohibited, but I don't see that this lead needs six paragraphs. Just five at the most is fine. And even though that suicide material is covered lower in the article, why do you think it's WP:Due do mention that lone study in the lead? It's just one study, and it concerns the United States. This is where WP:Undue and WP:Primary come in. This article has been on my watchlist for years, but I usually don't keep up with it because of the drama that can go on here at this article/talk page and because I'm busy with other articles, but seeing as you have pretty much taken over editing the article and I keep seeing you on my watchlist, I figured I'd ask you. I guessed that you added the suicide material. And seeing you add material on it at the Suicide among LGBT youth article (another article on my watchlist), this further made me think you added the suicide material to this article. I haven't yet checked. And even if you didn't, you clearly support it being in the lead of the Same-sex marriage article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As you yourself noted, WP:Lead is a guideline and not a rule or mandate. While it's true that the study concerns the United States, its findings can be extrapolated to any other country in the world. Indeed, this has already been done so, most prominently during the same-sex marriage vote campaign in Australia, in which Australian mental health organizations cited the study (and extrapolated the data to Australia) as an argument for a Yes vote ([18][19][20]). The study is also exceptionally prominent as it is ranked #1 among all pediatrics studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association ([21]) and has been extensively reported on by national and international newspapers and media outlets ([22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]). This single study is more prominent than any other study on the issue of same-sex marriage, by far. No other study on the issue of same-sex marriage has ever received the level of widespread attention that this study has. The study was previously detailed in the lead with a paragraph of several sentences, but was condensed down to the size it is now. The exceptional prominence and high notability of the study more than merits its current brief mention in the lead. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Policies and guidelines. Our guidelines are guidelines, sure, but they are usually followed. There needs to be a good reason to not follow one of our guidelines or policies. And our WP:Ignore all rules policy is used sparingly. It's not a pass to do whatever we want. I see no good reason to have that study in the lead, at least as its own paragraph. It would be better incorporated if the final paragraph were about suicide matters in general, and then the study was briefly included as an aspect of that paragraph. And WP:Undue weight is a policy. So is WP:Primary. From what I can tell thus far, it is your opinion that "[t]his single study is more prominent than any other study on the issue of same-sex marriage," rather than a statement of fact. I'm not going to pursue having that material removed from the lead; I just wanted to point out that it is undue for the lead (at least as its own paragraph) and to see what you were going to state. I didn't expect you to agree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm very much in agreement with Flyer here. Even if it's true that this is the most prominent study, that doesn't mean that any one study has such a big place in the discussion of SSM that it needs to be in the lead. And it is US-specific; the idea that something that is so grounded in the attitudes toward homosexuality, the prevalence of suicide, and so forth will translate neatly across cultures would seem to be... well, the sort of mistake that often gets done in interpreting social research, but a mistake nonetheless. I think this paragraph can and should be excised from the lede. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The global prominence of the study, as shown by its use in SSM vote campaigns in other countries, ranking in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the widespread attention that it has received from national and international newspapers and media outlets makes it an exceedingly notable study which merits at the very least the brief mention in the lead it currently has. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)