Template talk:Same-sex marriage

This template was considered for deletion on 1 July 2008. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

This template was considered for merging with Template:Same-sex unions on 9 October 2009. The result of the discussion was "merge".

Sweden and Iowa!

Could a registered user please add them? Please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.60.223 (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

colors

This may be a merely esoteric or paranoid concern, but when I took the link from the main page to "gay marriage in Italy" I noticed that the link box at the bottom of the page was colored so that places that had accepted gay marriage were colored red, a typically negative color(at least, here in the states) and worked down to green with the countries opposed or debating being green, a typically good color(again in the states possibly elsewhere). I understand that it was done to represent the colors of the rainbow flag however to avoid a conscious or unconscious negative connotation with that part, I would recommend starting from the bottom of the flag, rearranging the list so that the legalized countries are the green, or using it uncolored. This may be a completely groundless suggestion, however, I believe homosexuals have recieved enough derision and scorn, so please tell me if I am off base or just too observant. Rb0014 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Blink* I hadn't thought about it that way. But I personally don't find red negative, but strong and passionate. :-) Of course, I'm Spanish, so maybe that has something to do with it... Raystorm 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it, how does it look now? Raystorm 13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't it just as bad upside down? Now you're implying countries that don't support gay marriage are bad. Now personally I'm all for gay marriage, but this box is not supposed to show POV.85.130.165.242

For crying out loud...it's just some colours people! As I said, I don't find red negative. The POV is within the person that sees the template, not in the template itself. The idea is simply to recreate the LGBT rainbow, okay? It is not implying that the countries in red are bad: just that they forbid same-sex marriage. Raystorm 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying a different approach, though feel free to revert me. I used some pastels to make it easier to read and started from the bottom of the rainbow, so it uses pastel yellow, green, blue, and purple. I don't think anyone can read much into that either way. Except maybe something about Easter. =P — coel acan — 01:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now maybe it's just me, but I think this template is a lot more visually appealing in this version without the flag. Anybody else agree? — coel acan — 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Coelacan... it looks as if the flag underwent a bad wash. :-P Raystorm 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba / Netherlands Antilles

The box states that "foreign" same-sex marriages are recognized in Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. I do not think that is correct. The Supreme Court of The Netherlands has ruled that same-sex marriages performed in The Netherlands should be recognized in Aruba and the Antilles, but whether, for example, Spanish same-sex (or, for that matter, different-sex) marriages have to be recognized in Aruba and the Antilles depends on the laws of these countries and their obligations under international treaties, I would say. Sixtus 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this template necessary?

Given concerns over template clutter, is this template necessary, given the more widespread use of Template:SSM? Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France

France now recognizes foreign same-sex marriage since july 2008, it says this on the Same-sex marriage in France wiki page and has a link, so could anybody who can edit the page add this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rump1234 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.-Centric

The template has inexplicably become U.S.-centric, by listing the United States (a country that is hardly on the vanguard of the ssm issue) first, and referring to the rest of the world as "elsewhere". Although the recent formatting changes are helpful (the template is looking good!), I am going to restore the previous non-U.S.-centric text/organization, and perhaps we could achieve consensus here on the talk page if there is any desire to move in a different direction. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate?

The debate section is always changing and somewhat subjective. I am thinking of removing it or splitting it off into another template... comments? Ideas? --WikidSmaht (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps we could replace it with a link to Status of same-sex marriage and simply ensure that article is up to date. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is senseless and you could delete it. Frankly speaking, template same-sex unions is better made and is frequently updated and this is not. Delete! 79.163.203.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]