Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Merge proposal

I found these templates, proposing a merge between Template:Same-sex unions and Template:Same-sex marriage. So I made this section to discuss it. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Support We could actually just delete Template:Same-sex marriage as it is a duplicate of the other, and IMO, not as neat and clean looking. CTJF83Talk 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

California

Under SB 54, California gives all OoS SSM couples all the rights of marriage (with the title of marriage restricted to those who married before prop 8). Thus, California now recognizes all same-sex marriages performed out of state and should remain in the recognized, not performed section. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw today's news also. But this rather convoluted corner of California law is far to narrow to include in the general, worldwide template. We have already a relevant link to "SSM in CA", and readers can follow the minutiae of CA law there. LotLE×talk 03:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Too insignificant, and only pre-Prop 8 marriages would truly qualify for the section, as even though new marriages would be recognized except "as marriage," this is the status in just about every other jurisdiction that has a registered union granting substantial rights to same-sex couples. VoodooIsland (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess LotLE's point is valid. I have added California's SB 54 status to the US template, where California becomes of more significance (as that template covers fewer jurisdictions) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecuador

Ecuador has apparently started recognising same-sex unions as "uniónes de hecho", as mandated by the Constitution it introduced last year. This has not yet been reflected in several Wikipedia articles and maps, but at least it is now reflected in the template. However, before further changes are made, I think we should investigate more deeply exactly what these unions entail. In the template, Ecuador is listed under "civil unions". I am not sure whether the unions are registered, or whether they are merely unregistered cohabitation (although a cursory reading of the Spanish-language articles suggests they are registred before a notary). This also brings up the issue of whether Colombian "uniónes de hecho" are registered or not. I'll be looking into the issue in greater depth soon, but if anyone could be of any help, that would be great. Ronline ✉ 10:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Maine

Does Maine now belong under the 'Formerly performed' same-sex marriage section? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, as the law never came into effect. I'm not sure if maybe it needs its own section.----occono (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. Thank you for the clarification. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The section can be used if it is changed to "formerly legalized". Readers of this template are likely to be interested in the article and the story of Maine, and I don't see the harm of including it as it is, like California a historically unique situation. Czechoslovakian (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included. Maine is indeed historically unique in the sense that it's the first jurisdiction where legislative approval of same-sex marriage was defeated by the electorate. However, many other situations are historically unique: in Hungary, for instance, legislative approval of registered partnerships was declared unconstitutional (because they included opposite-sex couples; registered partnerships for same-sex couples are now legal). In Switzerland, registered partnerships were legislatively approved but then put to a public vote (where they were approved). I don't think neither Hungary nor Switzerland should have been listed as "formerly legalised" if the outcome had been different. Furthermore, in Multnomah County, Oregon, same-sex marriage was actually performed for a short while in 2004. The point is that we shouldn't be including jurisdictions in this list just because attempts were made to recognise same-sex marriage and those attempts failed; it would add too much clutter. Ronline ✉ 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

France, New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna

Hi. I don't think the current status of the template, where New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna are listed in "Performed in some regions" is a bit misleading. Same-sex unions are recognised throughout the whole of Metropolitan France already (as reflected in the template), and the inclusion of "France (NC, WF)" gives the impression that only those two regions recognise it. It is also inconsistent with the inclusion of Greenland in the main list; Greenland is an autonomous dependency of Denmark, in the same way as New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna are dependencies of France. A further inconsistency is with the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, which are similarly dependencies of the Netherlands but are listed separately in "Same-sex marriage - Recognised but not performed". So I think, for consistency and clarity's sake, including "Wallis and Futuna" and "New Caledonia" as separate links would be better. Note that a similar issue will arise when the Isle of Man and Jersey recognise civil partnerships (which may happen in early 2010). If the old situation of separate listing was unsatisfactory because it clutters the template, an alternative is to include a footnote next to France, and say something along the lines of "Recognised in metropolitan France, Wallis and Futuna and New Caledonia only" or "Includes New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna". Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Civil unions in Buenos Aires city

This was removed now that marriage is offered, but I have no evidence that civil unions are no longer offered. Quebec, for example, offers both. - Montréalais (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I have no sources to back this up, I think that civil unions continue to be offered, since there has been no law to repeal them. In other jurisidictions that implemented marriage equality, like Sweden, Norway and New Hampshire, the law allowing same-sex marriage also included a repeal of the civil union scheme. In other jurisdictions, like the Netherlands and Belgium, civil unions continue to be offered alongside same-sex marriage. However, the convention for this template is that only the highest level of recognition is listed, so yes, Buenos Aires should be removed from the civil union list.

The bigger issue, however, is whether same-sex marriage is actually performed in Buenos Aires. I haven't read the court decision, but it may be that the court ruled narrowly, only ordering the Marriage Registry Office to register the marriage of the particular plaintiffs. I'm not sure if any same-sex couple is now able to go to a registry office and obtain a marriage certificate. In other words, I'm uncertain about the degree to which the executive has actually implemented the court decision as of yet. I still think Buenos Aires should be listed under Same-sex marriage, but it opens up the interesting question of how we should deal with jurisdictions that have only recognised single, isolated examples of same-sex marriages. In any case, it is possible that Argentina will approve a nationwide same-sex marriage bill by the end of the year. Ronline ✉ 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this it does seem that the court decision was limited to the plaintiffs although the article says that Macri is considering issuing a directive to allow gay couples to marry without having to go before the courts. MaesterTonberry (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully support Ronline's position. Only the highest level of recognition should be listed. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Buenos Aires does not offer marriage for same-sex couples. The ruling only applied to that couple. When it comes to legislation, it still specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's why I'm removing Buenos Aires from the marriage section. Kraft. (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Information in that link is unclear. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a bit conflicted on this one. I think that totally excluding Buenos Aires from the list overlooks the fact that there is a legally-recognised same-sex marriage in that jurisdiction. On the other hand, Kraft is right in pointing out that same-sex marriage is not offered to all couples, in the sense that it has not been administratively implemented. The Court only ordered the registry office to conduct the marriage of the plaintiffs. Of course, if other same-sex couples go to court, it is likely that the court will similarly find in their favor. There is also talk that the Mayor of Buenos Aires may pass an administrative decree to allow registry offices to conduct same-sex marriages directly, without the need for court intervention in any individual case. If this is passed, Buenos Aires should definitely be included. Until it is passed, I'm not sure what the best option would be. Perhaps we can include it, but with a footnote explaining the situation very briefly. Ronline ✉ 03:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Albania and Luxembourg

Anyone know what is current status of same-sex marriage bills in Albania and Luxembourg? Ron 1987 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In Albania, no progress appears to have been made since Berisha's announcement of the purported same-sex marriage bill. Indeed, there is controversy over whether the proposed bill would actually legalise same-sex marriage, or whether it was predominantly an anti-discrimination bill will would introduce a form of registered partnership. Despite the extensive press coverage on this issue, it's somewhat likely that Albania will not get marriage equality in the short term after all.

In Luxembourg, no concrete progress has been made. Recent newspaper interviews with members of the government confirm that same-sex marriage is still on the agenda. In fact, it's treated as somewhat of a "given" already. I think that the government is now working on the actual bill and its implementation. I don't know if a bill will be released by this year, but I definitely think in 2010 progress will be made. Ronline ✉ 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I found that link. What do you think? Ron 1987 (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the international press has been a bit blinded by enthusiasm and shock value by Albania and same-sex marriage. A similar thing happened with Romania in the 2004 presidential elections, when Traian Băsescu, the current president, announced during his election campaign that he "sees no problem with same-sex marriage". This was interpreted in some foreign media as "Romanian presidential candidate considers legalising same-sex marriage", and, just like Albania now, Romania was coloured yellow on the recognition maps. I think the same situation is happening with Albania, where a single statement by Sali Berisha has been given a positive spin and made to seem as if Albania enthusiastically and certainly will legalise same-sex marriage soon. Of course, Albania is providing some very good material for same-sex marriage campaigners worldwide. During a recent Senate inquiry on same-sex marriage in Australia, an argument was made that "even Albania is legalising same-sex marriage". All this is good politically, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily accurate.

There are two main reasons why I'm sceptical about Albania. 1) Gay rights groups themselves appeared very surprised at Berisha's announcement. It doesn't seem like there was any real campaign for same-sex marriage within civil society before the announcement. 2) The government has not supported or confirmed Berisha's remarks since then. In countries like Portugal or Slovenia, which are also considering same-sex marriage, there have been statements from numerous government officials, as well as draft bills. It is almost certain that Albania will pass an anti-discrimination law soon, since this is an EU candidacy requirement. It may be possible that such a bill will provide some rights to cohabitating same-sex couples. Of course, it may be possible that same-sex marriage will actually be legalised and that the media was correct all along. (This reminds me a bit of Nepal too). Ronline ✉ 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSTRALIA 92.234.186.41 (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any inforamtion about the SSM bill in Australia and how it's gettin on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.186.41 (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 marriage equality bill received a negative recommendation from the Senate Committee. This means that it is almost impossible for it to pass, considering that both major parties are opposed to same-sex marriage. Ronline ✉ 10:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

92.234.186.41 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the reply, sorry for hijacking the above discussion, I'm not to clever with computers. If I may ask another question? Realistically, which jurisdictions are likely to legislate and enact SSM laws in 2010? Regards

No worries. Given the generally unpredictable nature of the political process, it's difficult to make accurate predictions on SSM. However, here are some possibilities. In Portugal and Slovenia, the Government (Cabinet) has already approved SSM. All that is needed is a parliamentary vote. So, SSM is likely to be recognised in those countries in 2010. The governments of Iceland and Luxembourg have also announced their intention to vote on a SSM bill in 2010. So, I would say all four of these jurisdictions are very likely to enact SSM laws in 2010. In Argentina, Nepal and Albania, SSM bills are not as certain, but there is a somewhat likely possibility. At the subnational level, progress may take place in Mexico City, where the governing party has announced its intention to introduce a SSM law. So, on the whole, 2010 should be a very active year with regard to same-sex marriage. Ronline ✉ 09:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Selective listings of previous situations

As the recognition of same-sex marriage and unions is a temporally and spatially dynamic process (and takes imho much too long), there are numerous previous situations that could be added to this template. Doing so would make the template much too long and cumbersome. If we rightly concentrate on the current situation, including that of California, it does not make sense to list the previous situation only for California. gidonb (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Listing of Tierra del Fuego and Coquille Indian Tribe

I noticed that Coquille Indian Tribe has been included again as a jurisdiction that performs same-sex marriage. I am not necessarily opposed to its inclusion; however, I think that it should be discussed more before the change becomes entrenched. In particular, an article should be created about this so that the link can be more specific. I'm not entirely sure of the political status of tribes in the United States and I'm interested in exactly what the legalisation of SSM in Coquille means. According to this article, the same-sex marriage law is more than merely symbolic; it does confer the tribal benefits of marriage. In any case, what do people think about its inclusion? If I remember correctly, Coquille was included previously and then deleted on the basis that non-state jurisdictions such as tribes should not be included.

Another issue is Tierra del Fuego, which raises the same questions that Buenos Aires did a few weeks ago. I think listing TF is quite problematic, since only one same-sex marriage has been performed there, and it has been the result of an executive order rather than a change in legislation (although, presumably, the existing marriage law is not in conflict with the executive order). I think that jurisdictions should only be included when they systematically perform same-sex marriages under the regular law. One-off performances of same-sex marriage should not be included, since they do not amount to same-sex marriage being available to the general population of that jurisdiction. Indeed, there are several instances of individual (or even multiple) same-sex marriages being performed in San Francisco, parts of Oregon, Greece and France, which were permitted as a result of executive acts that were later overturned by courts. Indeed, there is already speculation (see here) that the marriage conducted in Tierra del Fuego was not legal and will be struck down, with the Governor who authorised it possibly facing charges for "disobedience" in office. This is very similar to what happened in France and Greece. For this reason, I have removed TF. Nonetheless, this issue may disappear early next year, when it is quite possible that the Parliament of Argentina approve same-sex marriage nationwide. Ronline ✉ 09:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While I would agree that there should be an article on the Coquille situation, I disagree that its inclusion on this template should be contingent on such an article; this template is here to document the world, not to document Wikipedia. - Nat Gertler (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nat. I would like to add that the case for including the Coquille Tribe, also in the previous discussions, is compelling. Here is an interesting article on the situation of SSM in this sovereign nation under federal law. The similarity between Coquille and Tierra del Fuego is in one wedding. It seems less clear, however, that the law or practice in Tierra del Fuego has changed and that SSM now has another legal status in Tierra del Fuego than the other provinces of Argentina. gidonb (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriages in the Coquille Tribe are only symbolic. Any jurisdiction recognize these marriages. It is very similar to marriages which were performed in Greece or San Fransisco. I think the Coquille Tribe should be removed. Ron 1987 14:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ron, where did you read that these marriages are only symbolic? The Coquille are a sovereign nation, so the case is very dissimilar to San Fransisco. But even so, we did include cities where various kinds of partnerships are legal. And what do you mean by "Any jurisdiction recognize these marriages."? gidonb (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

These marriages are not recognize by Connecticut, Vermont and other countries or states which legalized same-sex marriages. Ron 1987 {talk} 16:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point us to your reference? gidonb (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why Coquille was re-included, it's a tribe of 258 people. The fact that that Indian tribes are recognized under US law has been mentioned but what about internationally? Is it recognised by another nations? Coquille is an interesting note to place in the same-sex marriage article but it shouldn't be included in the template. MaesterTonberry (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that that the size of a nation is really a factor for inclusion. Also, the nation is not listed as a high level national entity, but as a jurisdiction of the US. Note that many of the listed high-level national entities are not independent and that some are very small. Coquille was included as a low-level national entity, a level at which we also have cities that are under state law that is under federal consitutions. Coquille is much above their level. gidonb (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe any jurisdiction listed is as small as a few hundred people. But I think the more important question is are these marriages recognised anywhere else? MaesterTonberry (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

576 people in the 2000 Census and the fact that the tribe is a sovereign nation should be much more than sufficient for being included as a sub-federal division in the template. However if such marriages would not be recognized by other sub-federal entities, it would not be true SSM, but another form of (semi-)legalized cohabition. I don't see why the Coquille and (e.g.) Iowa would not recognize each other's laws, but I am eager to see Ron's reference. gidonb (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I wrong. But have no references which confirmed that these marriages are recognize by U.S states which legalized same-sex marriages. It's unclear question. Federal law not recognize these marriages. [1]. I agree with MaesterTonberry concerning recognition of marriages by other contries. Ron 1987 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To cite one such recognition law (DC's): "A marriage legally entered into in another jurisdiction between 2 persons of the same sex that is recognized as valid

in that jurisdiction, that is not expressly prohibited by sections 1283 through section 1286, and has not been deemed illegal under section 1287, shall be recognized as a marriage in the District.”."--in accepting marriages, states do not separate out the source of the marriage. (That would cause Full Faith And Credit problems, I believe.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I feel that the tribe should not be included, or if it is to be included start an article about SSM status with native americans. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be honored to add that article. I have seen no proof that Coquille weddings are not recognized by Iowa or vice versa. The Coquille nation has the authority to marry people according to its laws. gidonb (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made a very modest beginning. gidonb (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And the assumption has long been that tribal marriages are recognized - which is why DOMA specifically includes tribal marriages in it ("No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.") So Iowa is not required to recognize Coquille marriages... but given that they generally recognize tribal marriages, I see no reason to believe they would not. Even Oregon recognizes the linkage created by such a marriage, although it treats it as a civil union or domestic partnership (can't quickly find the reference, and am about to board an airplane.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If tribal marriage is generally recognized across states then we should add the Coquille nation back to the SSM sub-US division. gidonb (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And as for TF, we could probably just wait. By Spring of 2010, I'm pretty sure the issue will be completely cleared up. --haha169 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Argentina as a whole is moving toward legalizing SSM and that TF just wanted to have the first wedding and/or help a couple that fell between chairs. I haven't seen a specific law or even debate for Tierra del Fuego. gidonb (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree now that Coquille should be included. The fact that states recognise tribal marriages as valid marriages, and the fact that such marriages confer actual rights, means that the same-sex marriage conducted in Coquille is more than merely symbolic. Even though only one marriage has been conducted, and the whole tribe only has a few hundred members, this is not a principled reason not to list the jurisdiction. If a microstate with a small population were to legalise same-sex marriage, it would still be listed. The factor that distinguishes Coquille from Tierra del Fuego is that, although only one marriage has been performed, same-sex marriage has general availability in Coquille, being open to other future couples too. Ronline ✉ 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case Coquille Tribe should be included. I think new article "Same-sex marriage in the Coquille Indian Tribe" should be established. Ron 1987 {talk} 17:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage among Native Americans in the United States#Coquille has been created. That should do. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Ron 1987 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We should create the article on the Coquille SSM when the chapter on the Coquillle SSM gets too long, not in order to repeat the same information in a separate article. gidonb (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the question of whether the Coquille should get a separate article is better discussed at Talk:Same-sex marriage among Native Americans in the United States; at the very least, that is closer to the topic. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, we have Ronline, Ron 1987, gidonb, haha169, and myself calling for inclusion, and only MaesterTonberry and knowledgekid standing against. Consensus is not unanimity. This looks like consensus to me. - Nat Gertler (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that the Coquille nation is being removed time and again while we have an opposite consensus. This is not how things should work on this page. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only does the situation as summarized by Nat represent a consensus, it is unclear that anyone in the above discussion still opposes to the inclusion the Coquille, as the expressed concerns (size of population, recognition and article) have been addressed. gidonb (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just putting a note here that when editing is unblocked, we need to change the Coquille link to Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions‎#Coquille Tribe - Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hekerui (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Aruba and Netherlands Antilles

According to that source, in July 2009 The Court of Justice for the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba ruled that islands not must recognize Dutch same-sex marriages. Apparently, that ruling is final. I think islands should be removed from section "Recognized, not performed". Ron 1987 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It says they are "under no obligation", not they must not recognize it. So do they recognize it or not? CTJF83 chat 19:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Apparently ruling is final. In that case, islands not recognize Dutch gay marriages, because local governments are strongly opposed gay marriages. Ron 1987 03:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 (talk • contribs)

Another source for confirmation. I will remove Aruba and Netherlands Antilles. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The court in question is the Common Court of Justice. This court is inferior to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands that ruled that marriages must be recognized by Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. So this Common Court cannot 'overule' the Supreme Court's decision. The (inferior) Common Court ruled that Aruba or the Netherland Antilles don't have to give the same benefits to same-sex couples as opposite-sex couples. The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba have their own laws about this. They didn't (and cannot) overrule the marriage decision itself. Therefore, same-sex marriage is still recognized in both countries, but they are not given all the rights and benefits. I will therefore revert the table to include the two autonomous countries.Thorin (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that Ron1987 reverted my edits, but did not leave a message. I undid his revert, and already stated above why I edited it all in the first place.Thorin (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you right. My rv was too fast. I changed Aruba and Netherlands Antilles to previous version. [2] Ron 1987 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)