Jump to content

Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

United Kingdom

If England and Wales pass Same-sex marriage before Scotland would it still be 'United Kingdom' under marriage, or would it be 'Performed in some jurisdictions'? Also, If England and Wales, and Scotland pass would the both be listed under Marriage as the UK, both seperetly, or under Performed in some jurisdictions because of Northern Ireland? Would it be Marriage: United Kingdom (excluding Northern Ireland)?CH7i5 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that it should be listed in this way:
Legal recognition of
same-sex relationships
Marriage
Ron 1987 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ron. The issue with the UK is that it is the UK Government passing the bill, giving a national character that needs to be reflected, but the bill is sub-national in application. I think Ron's suggestion works well to clearly portray that. Climatophile (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, The UK with Northern Ireland missing should be treated the same way as the United States with Alabama missing. In both cases they are "Some juristictions". Let me throw out the following example. Let's say that Scotland had passed its bill first, it would clearly be listed in "Some Juristicitions". If the Northern Ireland had passed it, it would still be there. Why should England, Wales and Scotland having marriage equality be listed differently than Scotland and Northern Ireland? I think what legislative body (or even *if* it is a legislative body) passed things is irrelevant, we are only interested in where it is or is not legal.Naraht (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I think I remember being told on another talk page that England and Wales law is classed as 'UK law'. If this is the case it should still be pointed out the Northern Ireland (or Scotland if they do not pass it first) does not recognise same-sex marriage. It is a difficult decision to make, but it should be made now so that if/when it is legalised there will be no arguments. I think the main point for having it is that the UK Parliament (which is the supreme Parliament) will recognise the marriage. In the same way as the United State would if DOMA was repealed. CH7i5 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That would be me, at Talk:Same-sex marriage#Scotland. The point is that the British government is not fully devolved: certain matters that concern only Scotland or Wales may be considered by the devolved parliaments in those countries; but there is no devolved parliament for England, so an England-only matter can only go through the UK parliament. Any matter which is applicable to more than one country - commonly England and Wales together - is necessarily outside the remit of the devolved parliaments, so can only be considered by the UK parliament. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So we would be in the exact opposite situation that what we have in the US? Presuming that England, Scotland and Wales pass it, a NI gay couple could go to Scotland, get married by a Justice of the Peace (or equivalent) and move back to NI and the British Government would recognize it for taxes and such, but the NI government wouldn't for things like housing?Naraht (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The NI government would recognize it as if it was a civil partnership. - htonl (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The relevant clauses are in Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal made by Ron, mainly because of the peculiar relation between the UK and England in a not fully devolved government…. L.tak (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Instead of labeling it "United Kingdom", what about simply "Great Britain" (which encompasses the three: England, Wales and Scotland)? As it will still remain illegal in NI. 81.111.143.141 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not fond of that idea. For Great Britain, there are two meanings. The Kingdom of Great Britain, while covering the same areas hasn't existed since 1801. The closest US equivalent that I can come up with is if the 11 US States that were part of the CSA were the ones to allow marriage and we listed it as the Confederate States of America. The other use refers directly to the Physical Island that London and Glasgow is on which would improperly exclude a number of smaller island and island groups including the Isle of Wight, the Shetlands, the Orkneys and the Hebridies. I don't think we'd ever list Hispanola if both Haiti and the Dominican Republic allowed SSM.Naraht (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The "Great Britain" idea won't work for a while anyway, because the England & Wales bill is about to become law, whereas Scotland is only just starting on its parliamentary process. - htonl (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Template_talk:Same-sex_unions#UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexd (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

European Union template

When you look at the template on the European Union page, you can see that Denmark and Netherlands are listed as member states without any footnotes - although Greenland, Faroe Island, Aruba etc. are not parts of the EU. But nobody cares.

Aren't the people here a little too pedantic? When people think about Denmark they do not normally mean Greenland, even when they are eurobureaucrats from Brussels. Most wikipedia templates dealing with internal issues of Denmark, Greenland or Niue treats them as different entities because they are fully autonomous in home politics. Why are people become hair-splitting only when dealing with SSM? 78.9.101.90 (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That's because what is meant by Denmark etc in terms of member states of the EU is laid down in the treaties, and these are explained in the Special member state territories and the European Union article. I'd say that perhaps it is a deficieny of the EU template that this isn't footnoted, and not that it is a deficiency in the SSM template that it does include footnotes. Climatophile (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. We're basically saying that Greenland, Aruba, etc. aren't important enough to consider. I think I'd find that offensive if I were a Greenlander or Aruban. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I know Greenland isn't part of the EU in some or all ways, even though Denmark is. I'm not sure about the New World parts of France.Naraht (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
As I say User talk:Naraht, it's all here: Special member state territories and the European Union. Climatophile (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool.Naraht (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
If I were Greenlander or Aruban, I would be happy that the world does not treat me as a Dane or a Dutchman. The former are Inuit, the latter - Caribbean, neither of them is European. 78.9.101.90 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Which is a great reason to be pedantic when we talk of countries – I think you've answered your own question here. Climatophile (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The template is simply wrong. 89.74.153.33 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The decision has been made to only show the highest level of recognition of same-sex union for the country (or component). Do you have any suggestions on how this could be more clearly shown?Naraht (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That's true for countries, but I don't think it is for subnational components. It seems like (currently at least) we're treating England and Wales the same way we treat individual states in a federation - putting it under the "Performed in some jurisdictions" subheading. Now, Brazil used to have nationwide civil unions and marriage in some states, and we listed "Brazil" under "Civil unions and registered partnerships" - we didn't only list those states which didn't allow marriage. I think the UK is the same - we have nationwide civil partnerships, plus one component has marriage. - htonl (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense. — kwami (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Htonl, I agree, it is similar (roughly) to Brazil. I don't know if the recently passed law in the UK will allow couple to get Civil partnerships in England and Wales after the point when they can get marriages as well, though. But for now, I agree that having the UK listed as an entire country in the Civil Unions makes sense.Naraht (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 doesn't explicitly state that civil partnerships will cease to be performed, nor does it repeal the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (although the 2013 Act makes a number of amendments to the 2004 Act), therefore, civil partnerships will still be available. Section 9 of the 2013 Act describes the circumstances under which a civil partnership may be converted to a marriage, but does not make that action either automatic or compulsory. Section 15 of the 2013 Act provides for a review of civil partnership, but does not direct the course that is to be taken of any post-review action. So we must assume that once marriage becomes available to SS couples, they will be able to choose whether they go for marriage or CP, unless there is further legislation. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

UK

I think England and Wales should be under some jurisdictional, UK should not be on the top, it's some jurisdictions allow same sex marriage(that's what the template seems to say where it should be) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Template:Unsigned -->

It's still UK's legislation. UK should be treated in the same way as Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand. The template should be consistent. Discussion was already initiated above. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the template should be consistent. In "Civil unions" part, Scotland and N.Ireland are treated as countries. "England and Wales" could be treated the same way and be listed among countries without referencing the UK - that could solve the problem. 78.9.101.90 (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The way the "civil unions" part treats Scotland and NI isn't precedent for anything, though - until the passage of the act for England and Wales, the UK was listed as a single country under "Civil unions". The introduction of Scotland and NI was at the same time as E&W were added to the "Marriage" part. - htonl (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The United Kingdom has four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are theoretically equal (although some - e.g. Scotland and Wales - are self-governing). But now on the same template England and Wales are considered as a part (not parts!) of a country (the UK) and Scotland and Northern Ireland as countries (without any mention of the UK). Is there any sense in it? 78.9.101.90 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The Scottish Government and the National Assembly for Wales enjoy certain responsibilities that have been devolved from the Parliament of the United Kingdom; but not all powers are devolved, nor are the powers devolved to the Scottish Govt the same as those devolved to the NAW (see Reserved and excepted matters), therefore neither Scotland nor Wales are completely self-governing. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC) amended Redrose64 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a very different situation, the examples from the template. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 refers to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as "parts" of the United Kingdom in the following clause: "Each constituency shall be wholly in one of the four parts of the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland)". Again, England and and most of Wales affair are handled by parliament in Westminster because powers have not been devolved to them(this creates questions such as the West Lothian Question about Scottish and NI members voting on England and Wales issues)Predictor92 15:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The UK is a state with 3 legal jurisdictions(England and Wales, Scotland, and NI), thus it belongs under some jurisdictionsPredictor92 15:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Ron. The situation is analogous to that of Denmark. The legislation was passed by the UK legislature and applies to all parts of the UK where authority for marriage has not been devolved to an autonomous region. Just because the autonomous regions in question are a bit bigger in this case does not change the fundamental situation. The UK is not a federation. The Parliamentary Voting System Act is irrelevant as its reference to "parts of the UK" is just for the purpose of drawing up constituencies, not some general statement about the structure of government in the UK. - htonl (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur. The act comes from the nationwide level, and has autonomous exceptions. This is not analogous to the USA, Mexico etc which are "some jurisdictions", as there the bills come from each separate jurisdiction. Either we include the UK at the nationwide level (with the caveat note) or we take out Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand too. The former makes far more sense. Climatophile (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Under English Law, England and Wales are considered a separate jurisdiction, the law was made for that jurisdiction(since that's where westminster has the power to do that).The Bill's text very specifically state England and Wales(the parts that extend to NI and Scottland mostly deal with couples in the armed force) for the extant ,please read part 18 of the bill [1] Predictor92 15:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talk • contribs)
No one here denies any of those things. That isn't the important point we're making here. Please read the above comments and respond to those. Climatophile (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is the whole unitary state vs Federalism again. The UK is sort of both, which makes this very complicated. Predictor92 16:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talk • contribs)
you're quite right. It is also complex in other countries too, which is why we went for the consistency route, like NZ, Neth and Denmark. Climatophile (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the solution should be this, it should be clear in the template that states that are unity states can go under the full marriage(I should be added into the Inclusion criteria) with the footnote, that would get rid of this problem. States that have a federal system go under some jurisdiction(again it should be added to the inclusion template). It should list the criteria for unity and federalist states, that's the big issue we are having here, and these issues are not clear cut Predictor92 16:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Section 19 of the Bill as amended by the House of Lords states "This Act extends to England and Wales", but then goes on to describe how it affects Scotland and Northern Ireland. The final text is not yet available, but is unlikely to differ, since the Commons agreed to all the Lords amendments. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The Act is UK law, not England and Wales law, although the vast majority of the act only applies to England and Wales. There is no devolved English parliament with the power to legislate for England, and indeed, Welsh and Scottish MPs did vote overwhelmingly on the bill. In that sense, it's more like New Zealand than the USA. Sceptre (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Before the bill was passed, the NI assembly was asked to vote on whether they would let the UK Parliament legislate for them. They declined, and so were granted an exception from the UK legislation. Climatophile (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I read the debate over the Legislative Consent Motion. Marriage is a devolved matter to Scotland and Northern Ireland by virtue of not being a reserved matter, although the Assembly did approve an LCM (with some parts rejected). Sceptre (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the case of the UK is probably somewhat unique in its structure and difficult for this discussion. My view has altered over time and I can see merits in both sides. 'Some jurisdictions only' hardly seems to do justice to a situation where the Parliament for the whole country has legislated for same sex marriage in a manner that applies to 88.7% (of the population) currently and a good prospect of this being extended to 97.1% with Scotland. The case of the United Kingdom is very different to both Mexico and the US. In the latter two marriage law is assigned to federal states, some of whom have enacted same sex marriage. In the United Kingdom the central government (and Parliament) has legislated for same sex marriage but has devolved certain competencies to two different regions (Northern Ireland and Scotland). For this reason I would include the UK in the upper list but with a note saying that this applies to England and Wales only with the clarification on the detailed position in the relevant web pages (which is already present) Cpnlsn (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In this instance it is definitely incorrect to separate 'England and Wales' as for the purposes of marriage law 'England and Wales' (though distinct countries which are part of the United Kingdom) are one jurisdiction. See England and Wales They should therefore be restored to the previous correct usage of 'England and Wales' 86.0.172.220 (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I side with the "some jurisdictions" side of this. It's not uniform throughout the UK. If we do enter it not in the "some jursdictions" section, then it should say "England and Wales", not "UK". --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
To look at things from a pragmatic angle, if Scotland also enacts legislation at some stage then out of the whole UK 97% of the population are included and 3 out of the 4 home countries. That doesn't seem to fit 'some jurisdictions' to me. Some weight needs to be given to the fact it is UK legislation 86.0.172.220 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
That's an "if"; it isn't the situation now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, the situation is much closer to the Netherlands than the United States. Indeed, the Scottish Parliament has less powers (especially financially) than, say, the Parliament of the Cook Islands, but the lack of same-sex marriage there does not disqualify New Zealand from being listed in the Marriage column. Sceptre (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Only because of arguments that the Cook Islands aren't in New Zealand, but instead in New Zealand. Scotland and N. Ireland, however, are clearly in the UK: England + Wales alone cannot be called the UK. It is therefore only in some jurisdictions, not throughout the nation. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Ron, if we're going to claim that it's legal in the UK, with a footnote explaining that this is false, then we should add Mexico and the US too. Unless we change the headings to "legal for > 80% of the population" and "legal for < 80% of the population"? — kwami (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It's still UK legislation. It's similar case to Kingdom of Denmark or Kingdom of Netherlands. There is no reason to treat them differently. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Exactly; the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act is in force in Scotland (by virtue of Section 19), it just doesn't have any effect on Scotland. If you replace my argument regarding the Cook Islands to Aruba, my point stands. Sceptre (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should to reconsider Climatophile's proposition. Perhaps it would be more acceptable option. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Legal recognition of
same-sex relationships
Marriage
Yes, that might work. (I think I prefer it; the only drawback I see is that the US entry is rather unwieldy.) The claim that SSM has been legalized in the UK is simply false, so that's a non-starter. — kwami (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way that we can spread the US across the bottom of both columns? I know that Uruguay should be after the US & UK anyway but isn't in the current proposal. Does anyone have any idea of how many countries there are like the US, Mexico and Brazil where there are more than 15 first level subunits which can have different laws on SSM?
It helps if we make the US states small to match the other countries. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, it helps. I made a slight modification. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think in a summary item full of contractions, we can say 5 tribes rather than 5 tribal jurisdictions. -Nat Gertler (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

So, if you get married in England, will it be recognized in N. Ireland? Or Bermuda? — kwami (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If you get married in England, it will be treated in NI as a civil partnership (see Schedule 2 Paragraph 2). Bermuda I don't know about. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Overseas territories such as Bermuda are not the part of the UK (at least de jure) and are not mentioned in the new law. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I would say this, but the UK issue has reminded me of the main benefit of my suggestion, which may now outweigh its negatives: it stops us having to decide anything other than whether SSM is legal or not, which is surely the clearest idea we need to get across in such a visible template. But to use it we need to sort out the look of the template vis-à-vis the USA. Climatophile (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Another point to work on would be what to call the subnational jurisdictions – they need to be short, but also as unambiguous as possible. A link to an article which explains the jurisdictional nature of these countries is most likely a necessity. Examples might be links to "Kingdom of the Netherlands: Netherlands", perhaps with different displayed names to the right of the | in the links. Climatophile (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm wary about adding too much on to people's plates, but it may be useful also to remember that this discussion is acting as a proxy on what to do about the nationwide issue in the main body text of several articles. At the moment many talk of the number of countries which allow SSM nationwide, which is also causing debate around the UK's position. Perhaps what the consensus turns out to be here might be useful for those articles too – i.e., it could be that itis decided that whenever the issue comes up, we list jurisdictions, rather than separate out nationwide and sub-national jurisdictions. Climatophile (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a question about British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies. Although these territories are not formally part of the UK, but are under its jurisdiction. Should we treat them here as a fully sovereign countries (like France or Norway) or as part of the United Kingdom? Ron 1987 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

that is tricky, as you say, they are neither. If the list we end up with is just 'jurisdictions with SSM/unions', I think seperately is best as it doesn't imply being UK or sovereign. Climatophile (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

So, anyone have objections to the proposed change? If not, I will modify the template in 2-3 days. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I say go for it! If anyone sees it who objects, that will help the discussion. Climatophile (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the choice of removing the "some jurisdications" part and integrating in the main part (let's say US and UK) a very good idea. I do find the "proper" solutions for New Zealand et al overly complicated. As said many times before, when people think about New Zealand, they normally think about the country and not the realm (and when people think about Denmark, they think about the part in the EU, not the Kingdom). To be fully clear, we could keep the notes there as we have now... L.tak (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with L.tak – that will be easier to understand, and stops us having to invent names for these parts. Climatophile (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think proper solution is overly complicated. We should be precise. Notes are not necessary. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ron here, though perhaps a different wording would be preferable. "Metropolitan" comes to mind. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Too long... I think proper is better option. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
We could just append (metropolitan) in parentheses, which would be shorter. But I agree that notes would be best restricted to when the law comes into force or other details. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Metropolitan is not appropriate as the Netherlands already for years says it has not true metropolitan part (and because also the caribean Netherlands have same-sex marriage). I have no idea if it is used for New Zealand at all… The notes are in the template for some time already, and I agree we should not make the notes section bigger, but surely there can be notes for those few countries? L.tak (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The "metropolitan" and "proper" solutions are a problem because most readers won't understand what those words mean in this context, especially since most readers don't know that Denmark et. al. have autonomous outlying territories. They're liable to interpret "metropolitan only", for example, as meaning "only in big cities"! The best solution IMHO is to use the numbered notes as we currently do. - htonl (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
We could. It's not that big a deal, but IMO notes should be avoided where possible. It doesn't take much space to point out that by "Denmark" we don't mean the Denmark with a seat at the UN. (Or have I gotten that wrong?) — kwami (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Metropolitan is not a good idea. In England, it's got a specific meaning for sub-national government: we have Metropolitan boroughs which form a geographically small proportion of the country, but a large proportion in terms of population. More at Subdivisions of England#Counties and districts. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is disagreement whether proper (or metropolitan) term should be used. So, let's see how the template will work without it. Still, I think notes are not necessary. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think saying "Denmark: Denmark" is even more confusing. If you're going to say "Denmark: Denmark", why not just say "Denmark"? The point is that most readers don't know that these countries have autonomous territories, and if we are to mention the autonomous territories we need to mention it in some way that actually explains what they are. I mean, I think you're basically proving the point that when people say "Denmark" they don't usually think of Greenland or the Faroes. Incidentally, I notice that we include Greenland in the "Civil unions" section as if it is an independent country. - htonl (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The clarification regarding Denmark and other similar countries could be added to the Template documentation where Inclusion criteria are included. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Template documentation is for editors, not for readers, though. As far as readers are concerned, the template needs to stand on its own merits. - htonl (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Each reader could edit the template. I think Template documentation could be a good place fot it.
Ron, I'm not opposed to "proper"; I just thought there might be a more elegant way of wording it. Don't compromise the template just because I suggested "metropolitan". I'd rather have your revisions with "proper". If others agree with me that it sounds a bit odd, we can always discuss it in a new section. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Some users (like Htonl) have objections to both "proper" and "metropolitan", so I'm trying to find other solution. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
If it helps, I have *less* of an objection to "proper" than to "metropolitan", and definitely less of an objection to "proper" than to the current "Denmark: Denmark" situation which is just logically unsound. - htonl (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW: The same goes for me regarding proper/metropolitan preferences… L.tak (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
i just looked at what the main articles on Denmark are called. What about Danish Realm: Denmark? Climatophile (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a solution: we are looking for the sovereign entity on the top; that would be the Kingdom and not the realm here…. How do you all think about:
  • Netherlands (Kingdom)
    • Netherlands

It's not ideal, but it avoids footnotes, proper, metropolitan and it is exact…. L.tak (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. I agree with your analysis of your suggestion. Not ideal, but at least it is precise and uses actual names. Climatophile (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
hmm... I don't see it. If we use the full name of Denmark, in one form or another, why not France or Spain?. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The reasoning is: it is for disambiguation reasons that we add a specification between brackets… We use by default the shortened name (Spain, Netherlands etc), but where it happens to be unprecisize and results in akward "Netherlands: Netherlands" arrangements (opposed by htonl) we disambiguate by indicating that we are talking about the Kingdom here… I know it's far fetched (I prefer some footnotes), but I am proposing it as a compromise… L.tak (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see it as good compromise. If we are using the full name, then we should apply this rule to all countries there, otherwise it's inconsistency. Yes, "Denmark: Denmark" solution was not a good idea, but I still think proper could be an acceptable option. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I see the advantage of not having footnotes, but it does bring a disadvantage: regardless of the words we use to describe Denmark, Netherlands and NZ, it means that the template wouldn't stand on its own – readers would need to go to the SSM article for each country to see what we mean by 'proper', 'metropolitan' etc. Our decision, it seems to me, revolves around how important that immediate understanding is: is it needed on a summary template, or is it best left to the more exact descriptions that articles can give? As I think on it, I'm slightly erring on the side of brevity on the template – it then means the template focuses on what its main objective is: whether SSM is legal or not. Climatophile (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2 for abbreviations.

There has been a recent change for the Mexican states to use the ISO 3166-2:MX codes for the Mexican States. Mexico uses three letter codes for its states in its part of the standard. This changed DF to DIF and QR to ROO. While I appreciate the effort to make a standard of the ISO3166-2 for each country, I think there are a couple of things which I think need to be looked at. First of all, for some countries this doesn't cause an issue. For the US, they are exactly the same as the postal abbreviations (other than the addition of UM for the addition of the unpopulated minor Islands under direct federal control). The Australian states, etc. are also just fine (split between two and three letters in a logical way, NSW and WA for example). However...

  • What do we do for the *state* of Mexico inside of Mexico, are we OK with just using MEX (yes, the full ISO-3166-2 is MX-MEX)?
  • Venezuela: For some reason, the states of Venezuela are designated in ISO-3166-2:VE with a *single* letter code which in some cases seems to have no connection with the actual state name. For example Merida is L (full is VE-L). I've done about 15 minutes of research including the Venezuelan post office for a clearer abbreviation, but the only ones I've found have been a three letter one from an apparently private Venezuelan phone company and a two letter one from http://www.statoids.com/uve.html , both of which are apparently simply made up by the people running the website.

Note, this is *not* an effort to change back to DF & QR, I'm fine with three letter codes for now (get back to me when we've got 19 of the 32 Mexican "States")Naraht (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Colombia

What is Colombia under? As http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2013/07/25/57622 mentions, as the legislature didn't make civil unions, does the court have to power to (because it sounds legislative instead of interpretative.....), and if so why should it instead of gender-neutral marriage? Apparently a couple got an "unnamed" contract like a civil union, which is......odd.--occono (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Colombian situation is *odd*. While I (personally) wish Carlos Hernando Giraldo Rivera and Gonzalo Ruiz all the best, as long as this is something in a tug of war between the Judiciary and the Congress, I'm not comfortable moving this up to the marriage section.Naraht (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Colima

An amendment to the state constitution, which allows civil unions still needs approval by municipalities. If I understood correctly, the changes in the state codes will be necessary in order to implement the reform. See [1], [2]. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The most recent edit summary reverting Colima says "Read the talk page", but there isn't much specifically on Colima here. My feeling is that entities, both National and sub-national should be in the list only if the government officials that issue marriage licenses by default will give Marriage Licenses to a same sex couple. That was what seemed to be the standard for Brazil. Reading the most recent reference in Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Mexico#Colima (http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/07/04/congreso-de-colima-aprueba-uniones-civiles-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo), "el enlace conyugal, entre dos personas del mismo sexo." it appears that what is being proposed is a separately named union for those of the same gender, which as far as I can tell means that if this passes Colima and Coahuila will have roughly the same situation meaning that Colima will be added to the "Civil Unions and Registered Partnerships" section. Does this sound correct?Naraht (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that we have various editors in disagreement about Colima, not just at Template:Same-sex unions, but also at Civil union, Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico, Same-sex marriage, possibly others. Each one has its own talk page, some of them have a Colima discussion, and it can be difficult keeping track of them all. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
As for the discussions: that is always the problem with those issues. I checked Redrose's pages however, and none have a talkpage discussion. On this page, the consensus is to wait until all legislative processes (or judicial processes) have finished before we add it; but that doesn't seem the case (yet?). If that changes, it should be added indeed.... L.tak (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Er, what about Talk:Same-sex marriage#Colima, Mexico? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Oops, you are right…. I thought they would all be the last item of the talk page… L.tak (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Amendment was ratified by the majority of municipalities. The state's legislature will soon begin its work to amend the civil code. See [3]. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The state Congress officially announced that ratification of the amendment to the state constitution was completed. The bill amending civil code still awaits for approval. See [4], [5]. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You are right, I agree and also removed this info from other articles as well. Cheers, --Xocoyotzin (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
BBC is reporting that enough Colima municipalities (seven of ten) have approved the constitutional change to legalize civil unions. Link Xnux 00:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the constitutional amendment was ratified, but the bill amending the state civil code still awaits for approval. See sources above. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mexico

Hi Ron 1987, I think your edits to the Template:Same-sex unions were are a bit misleading: You cannot include the entire country of Mexico in a section called Recognized, not performed because:

  • Same-sex marriages are being performed within the country (at the very least, in Mexico City and in the state of Quintana Roo).
  • They seem to contradict the "standard practise" that (apparently) you guys seem to be following according to htonl (See the discussion regarding France: "It is our standard practise with this template to only list a country at the highest level of recognition that it grants, not at every level. - htonl (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)" If so, Mexico City or Quintana Roo should not be included twice (by adding them once again to this category).

Cheers, --Xocoyotzin (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the "not performed" part. Just "recognized" is sufficient: Mexico as a whole recognizes marriages performed anywhere in Mexico. That includes DF and QR, which of course recognize each other's marriages. No need to say "not performed", because if they were performed, the whole country would be navy. — kwami (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this should be changed; and like the "recognized" solution as a simple one. Putting things between brackets (as suggested by Xoco) is not going to help us much, because two things are then between brackets (from which legislatures they are recognized; and where they are performed). And the explanation of it all in detail is only 1 click away! L.tak (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try it. — kwami (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem with such wording (to leave it simply as Recognized) is that it also includes, AFAIK, the 15 countries that also perform it. To me, the best solution is to leave the description as it appears now (Recognized, not performed) and simply include the country as "Mexico (all states but DIF and ROO)". I think such observation is way more relevant and coherent than the current one "(when performed in Mexico)", particularly because: a) such details have long been left to the main articles in the past, such in the case of Canada[6] or the U.S.; and b) is just contradictory to describe Mexico as a country that "recognizes but does not perform" gay marriages as long as they are "performed in Mexico". Cheers, --Xocoyotzin (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection. — kwami (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I think it doesn't make sense to create a separate category called simply Recognized because every country that also perform them would need to be included in it as well. I believe it doesn't provide information as useful as the old one. The old category provides information that is way more useful by specifying which jurisdictions do not perform same-sex marriages but do recognize them, so here is my second suggestion: 1) Remove Mexico from the Recognized, not performed category; 2) Simply add a footnote to its entry in the Marriage category (such as the ones you have for "† Not yet in effect") stating: "Recognized in all 31 states" or "Recognized nationally" or something like that. And that's all! The whole issue here is that you want to communicate that:
a) same-sex marriage is recognized throughout Mexico,
b) but only if it is performed in Mexico,
c) and only two jurisdictions perform it in Mexico.
So let's save ourselves the extra step of including Mexico in yet another category with all sorts of observations and simply specify that the marriage performed in those two Mexican jurisdictions (DIF and ROO) and valid nationwide, which is exactly what the Mexican Supreme Court stated. ¡Cheers! --Xocoyotzin (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Jumping the gun...

Just noticed that when Ron1987 changed over to the new style yesterday, the new one didn't have the daggers for Minnesota and Rhode Island, so we jumped the gun on that by about 12(?) hours. However, Rhode Island and Minnesota started today, so now it is correct.Naraht (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

New template

I'm sorry, but the new template simply doesn't work: it's too poluted and confusing. The former one was much better organized. Raniee09 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with that the template is too poluted and confusing. Unlike to previous version, the new one is more consistent. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, I didn't find it very consistent:
  • Do we expect the casual visitor to understand what "Denmark proper" really means?
  • Curaçao et al. are not part of the Netherlands but the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is a separate entity.
  • I believe footnotes should be used for exceptions: Same-sex marriage is valid in the entire country except in these regions. People expect same-sex marriage to be valid in the entire country listed in Marriages. Exceptions are Denmark, the Kingdom (but not the country) of the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States, but not the case of Mexico, which appears mixed with a restriction from Curaçao et al.
I propose the template located in sandbox, which I believe is is more consistent. --Xocoyotzin (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Your proposal is not consistent and is unacceplable. The template was changed mainly because there was a dispute whether United Kingdom should be treated in the same way as Denmark, the Netherlans and New Zealand. The change was made in order to avoid similar disputes (and edit wars) in the future. See Template talk:Same-sex unions#UK. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all, I believe "unacceptable" is a word way too strong to be used in this discussion, so let's concentrate on whether the template has any merits when reflecting the legality of same-sex relations across the globe. I don't mind removing the exceptions to Denmark and New Zealand if they are linked to the proper country, but that's not the case applied in Curaçao et al, and the U.S. gets no footnote despite the fact that there are more states not recognizing same-sex marriage than those recognizing it. --Xocoyotzin (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Footnote for US? What for? I don't see reason to use full names such as Kingdom of Netherlands. And Curacao' current description is not confusing. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: I've added links to the Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands and Realm of New Zealand articles. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I do like the new version, and I agree with the changes you just made. I just have two more suggestions: 1) Instead of having a footnote stating that same-sex marriages in Mexico are valid in all 31 states, let's remove it and add the same footnote to the UK and the US stating: "Not recognized by some jurisdictions" or "Not recognized by all jurisdictions", because they are the exception, not Mexico. As far as I can tell, in every other country specified under Marriage, the marriage is valid nation-wide. 2) To change Recognized back to Recognized, not performed, which clearly describes the difference between Israel et al and the top 15+ countries under Marriage. Cheers, --Xocoyotzin (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that these changes are necessary, but I can live with that... Ron 1987 (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the new template is unnecessarily confusing. The UK is indeed a special case since there is no 'federal' marriage law unlike Mexico and the US so it cannot be treated in the same fashion. However, like New Zealand and Netherlands, marriage law has been adopted at the highest possible jurisdiction even if this is valid in England and Wales only. I suggest we should manage the UK link in the template as we did when it was under the civil unions section, even when these were not available in Northern Ireland: UK should be in the marriage section for non-federal countries. A reference note should read 'not in Northern Ireland and Scotland'. US and Mexico should be dropped from the list simply because the highest court/parliament of these countries has not yet ruled/passed legislation valid across the whole nation. Finedelledanze (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I strongly agree with your position, but there was a dispute among users where UK should be included. See Template talk:Same-sex unions#UK. The change was proposed in order to avoid such disputes (and edit wars) in the future. Ron 1987 (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@Finedelledanze: - not sure what you mean by "as we did when it was under the civil unions section, even when these were not available in Northern Ireland" - NI was included in the Civil Partnership Act 2004, and in fact, apart from a single exceptional case in Worthing (England) on 5 December 2005, the first civil partnerships under the Act took place in Belfast. See Civil partnership in the United Kingdom#The first civil partnerships. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I don't know why I remembered civil unions kicked in later in NI Finedelledanze (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I also think that the new template is too cluttered. I think it's important that countries where SSM is only legal in some areas need to be separated from countries where SSM is legal nationwide. Otherwise, one might interpret that SSM is legal in all of the US, and that the individual state articles are just "detailed" subset articles. Also, the use of "Netherlands proper" and "New Zealand proper" is excessively technical and causes confusion. Ron 1987 - I know that you're responding to a long dispute about these issues on this talk page. In my view, many of these disputes are trivial and overly technical. I think the England and Wales issue can be easily resolved just by listing "England and Wales" in the template as a top-level entity. Yes, this might not be 100% consistent with the other cases but it is a reasonable exception that would improve comprehension. In any case, I think the template should be changed back to the old template. Ronline ✉ 12:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad that Ron 1987's bold editing has prompted discussion of this, because it really needs sorting. I think that clarity issues are exactly the reason why the new template is better, despite a couple of things which could be better. The new template is clearer because it doesn't separate jurisdictions into national and sub-national, because that isn't a line which is easy to sort some places either side of. Instead, the new template ignores that distinction, merely listing places with SSM, regardless of their size/independence/federal nature/devolution/whatever. This, to me, is what the template is really for. That isn't today improvements aren't possible. There may be a way of arranging it so that the US part isn't so cluttered, and there may be some combination of notes, naming and links which is clearer in explaining NZ, Denmark etc. Climatophile (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the flaw in general with this template is that it's trying to do more than it should: it's presented as a navbox but also attempts to show in detail where same-sex marriage and unions are legal/recognized, which is really not possible in such constrained space. It should just link to the relevant articles and leave the issue of legality to the main article space. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the template should be changed back to the previous version. I don't believe that there is consensus for the change, given the views expressed on this page. I have outlined above my problems with the new template - namely, its cluttered nature and difficulty to read for the average reader. Ronline ✉ 05:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
There was a consensus on the template until the UK legalised marriage in England and Wales. I propose going back to the older version (no dk/nz/nl proper; notes for the abovementioned countries/mex and usa in separate paragraph) and leave the UK issue aside to solve. Why not adopt the same approach as for Mexico and USA? England and Wales could be separated as two distinct jurisdictions, as they actually are two distinct nations within the UK. 79.8.238.178 (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
UK is the similar case to Denmark and Netherlands. Law passed last month it's UK legislation and applies to all parts of the country where authority for marriage has not been devolved to an autonomous region. There is no reason to treat UK differently than Denmark. Return to the version with obvious inconsistency is not a good solution. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico

I propose adding New Mexico under the United States heading with a footnote stating the counties in which same-sex marriages are performed (currently Bernalillo, Dona Ana, and Santa Fe counties). -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  1. Things are changing on a daily basis
  2. I've seen conflicting answers as to whether these marriages would still be valid if the cases that are going to the New Mexico Supreme court go against SSM
  3. The Recognition of same-sex unions in New Mexico page is still iffy on the subject
So, for the moment, put me down as a 'no'.Naraht (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia can update on a more-than-daily basis; the New Mexico Supreme Court declined to hear a same-sex marriage suit and directed it to district court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs; and that page expressly states that same-sex marriages are being licensed in three counties, two of which have been compelled by two separate judicial rulings. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
We have always been on the safe side with this; and for good reason. It is hard to identify the true value of these events and whatever cutoff we decide, there is going to be continuous edit warring over it. With Brazil we have taken the conservative approach that a jurisdiction should fully allow it and I think a jurisdiction to accept its own decisions (e.g. give legal effect to the marriages) is the absolute minimum... And that's still pending... L.tak (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we should be safe, but unlike the questionable districts in Brazil, it's not up to individual judges, and unlike NW in 2004, to individual clerks. We have rulings in several counties now, and people are getting married. The only question is, IMO, do we color the state blue county by county, or do we stripe it. — kwami (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
My question is 'who is recognizing SSM?'. Are the other counties and the state government recognizing SSM marriages performed in Dona Ana county? What about recognition of SSM performed in NY? And I think with striping, you are confusing the discussion here with the discussion at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#New Mexico blue? which hopefully will come to a decision consistent with the one here.Naraht (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Dona Ana County is the only real question for me, as the clerk there followed the lead of the Sandoval County clerk before him and the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, registrar of wills more recently and decided to begin issuing licenses on his own initiative. The court's actions in compelling Santa Fe and Bernalillo county clerks to follow suit suggests the Dona Ana County clerk's decision was legally sound, but that particular case has not yet been adjudicated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Six to Seven

The New Mexico entry was bumped from 6 to 7 on the basis of Grant County, but Grant County won't start issuing them until the second week of September. Should we change it to something like 6 counties/1 county† ? Or are we in a situation where if we formally discuss it, it will change to some other number by the time we get finished? :)Naraht (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mexico 2

I think it's probably time to review the situation in Mexico. 2 states or 5? — kwami (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The question becomes is this list those in which *a* legal same sex marriage has occured or one in which the person who grants marriage licenses will be kicked out on his/her can for saying no.Naraht (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It's been the latter — kwami (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly phrase it as "the person who grants marriage licenses will be kicked out on his/her can for saying no," because different jurisdictions have different consequences for government officials who fail to carry out their duties, and some jurisdictions make special arrangements for officials who have religious objections. I would say the criterion is, "Can a same-sex couple, that otherwise meets the legal requirements of marriage, go to the government office responsible for marriage licensing or registration, and reliably expect that their marriage will be licensed or registered in substantially the same way that an opposite-sex marriage would be, without having to go to extraordinary efforts such as lawsuits?" - htonl (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with hton; if not, we have to remove the Netherlands (where there are so called weigerambtenaren (refusing civil servants), which has been tolerated as long as marriage is possible in any municipality).... L.tak (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So, does Chihuahua count by that standard? — kwami (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, in Mexico's legal system a single decision for one couple doesn't set precedent that would apply to other couples, so each couple would have to go to court specially and get a similar order. If that understanding is correct, then no, Chihuahua doesn't meet the standard. - htonl (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I keep thinking that the number in Mexico's legal system is five for *each* state, I read something indicating how many court cases would have to reach the Mexican Supreme Court to actually get a Legal override to give SSM in all of Mexico.Naraht (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Guernsey

Guernsey recognizes UK civil partnerships for succession purposes. See sections 4 and 30 and paragraphs 7, 12, 13, 19 and 21 of the Schedule of the Inheritance (Guernsey) Law, 2011 which took effect on 2 April 2012. See also Private client law in Guernsey: overview (questions 37 and 38). Ron 1987 (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oregon

I agree that the Willamette Weekly Blog is not a good source, but I think that Same-sex marriage decision leaves Oregon in an ironic spot from the KATU TV station 2 website is.Naraht (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jalisco

Congress of Jalisco has approved civil unions. Can someone update the maps File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (North America).svg and File:World homosexuality laws.svg. I'd do it but I don't have .svg. Thanks. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. World map doesn't need to be done. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

San Marino

Back in June 2012, San Marino passed a law granting in practice an unregistered cohabitation for gay couples. Shouldn't San Marino therefore be included in unregistered cohabitation along with Australia, Croatia and Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.205.167 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2013

Sure. Source? — kwami (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

-

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/san-marino-axes-medieval-law-let-gay-couples-live-together270612[2]

This source can also be found on the page Same-sex union legislation under the table "National level", next to San Marino. Law passed in June 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.89.2 (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Illinois

Please do NOT include Illinois in the list until the Governor signs the bill (won't happen until towards the end of November 2013!). Even then include the + sign indicating it doesn't come into effect until June 2014!! Jono52795 (talk) 10:40, 6 November (AEDT)

Agreed. Quinn will sign it. The delay now, as far as I'm concerned is figuring out what day/time is available for a big public signing ceremony with everyone involved in getting it passed, etc. Theoretically, if Quinn doesn't sign it within 60 days, it becomes law without his signature, but that isn't going to happen, he spent political capital getting this passed, he wants a big celebration.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
November 20th at University of Illinois, Chicago.

Add a "Legislation imminent" section

Should we perhaps add a "Legislation imminent" (or something like that) section to list those jurisdictions where legislation is sufficiently close to enactment as to make it virtually certain - such as, as the moment, Illinois and Hawaii? It might stem the tide of people coming to add them to the template. Thoughts? - htonl (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the problem you wish to solve; but I am afraid we would just move the battle field to what is imminent and what is not; and that is a lot less of a bright line than the ones developed until now… L.tak (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
True, I suppose; people would want to start adding jurisdictions even earlier in the legislative process. Ah well. I have left hidden comments in the template to deter people from prematurely adding IL or HI. - htonl (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
We do have a "Government has intention and ability to legalize" category on File:World marriage-equality laws.svg. If we'd add such a section here, Scotland and Luxembourg would qualify as well, but I agree with L.tak's concerns. It is possible though to define inclusion criteria: e.g. it needs to be currently going through the legislative process, with a high likelihood of passing (in parliamentary systems it is clearer: it would need to be supported by the government). SPQRobin (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with an "imminent" section, with strict specifiers:
  • A bill must be already forthcoming.
  • A working majority of legislators must have explicitly already indicated support, or all substantive votes on the matter must have been won.
  • There is no chance of any veto by the executive.
  • In the case of judicial review, there is no chance of the ruling being overturned.
In practice, this would have pushed the UK into the imminent section in June (once the Dear amendment had been defeated) or July rather than the time of royal assent, California to the time SCOTUS handed down the ruling, Illinois to the time Quinn scheduled the signing ceremony. It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to state that, at those exact times, marriage had already been de facto legalised. Sceptre (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii

Should it be removed from the Civil Union section?Naraht (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think not. Hawaii is still keeping its civil union law and the relationship recognition entitlements scheme from 1997. It's a pretty unique situation in fact, both opposite-sex and same-sex couples now have the choice of 3 different relationship recognition schemes under state law (marriage, civil union, relationship benefits scheme). Only Illinois (once it's new law goes into effect) will also keep civil unions open for gays and straights. It might be wise to add this to Hawaii/Illinois' SSM articles and even include a section titled 'impact of SSM on civil unions' for this article. Source: Slate: Civil unions and same-sex marriage Jono52795 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Several other states have kept civil union schemes alongside marriage, and in every case we have removed them from the civil union section when they are added to the marriage section. - htonl (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, the pedantic in me says that if a state retains its civil union law, it should be listed as such under the 'Legal recognition of same-sex relationships' title. After all, if it's an active and accessible part of the law (even after SSM is legalised), shouldn't the template reflect that? If it's common practice on wiki to remove a state from the civil union list once it legalises SSM yet keeps it's civil union law, I'd be inclined to mount an argument against that practice...purely on the grounds of maintaining an accurate reflection of the law. Regardless, not a huge deal though. Jono52795 (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, technically we should lists all states with such laws. Do people still get CU's? Are there maybe advantages in some cases? — kwami (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Extra Footnote?

"For inheritance and other succession purposes respecting interests in property; if performed in the United Kingdom" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcc27 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

State-by-State listing is unpractical

Let's consider a case where SSM is allowed by more than 30 but not all the US states, let's suppose at the same time more than 10 mexican states performs SSM, plus some Australian States, and there is a possibility of state-by-state recognition in Germany, don't you think that would make the template really hard to read and visualize if the current configuration remain?, I suggest something like mentioning all countries with laws or judicial sentencies allowing SSM and using a warning at the top of the template indicating that for further details countries' SSM page shall be consulted, in that case just United States, Mexico or Australia would be listed (supresing the : and state listing), but with some asterisc for the warning of not fully nationwide perform but details to be consulted in each country page (not in the template). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.101.122 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that state-by-state would be impractical under a certain set of conditions that do not yet exist. Luckily, should those conditions arise, we can adjust the template at that time; we need not commit to that format now. Should the time come, there are different ways of summarizing, and we're already using one: saying "7 tribes" in the US rather than listing the tribes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a resource to determine for which countries a sub-national piece can have a different law on who can get married and for which countries there is only marriage law at the National level? For example, the United States goes in the first category and San Marino (and Israel?) in the second.Naraht (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
in Germany, family law which includes marriage law is a federal issue laid down in part four of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), the 16 states of Germany are not entitled to pass own laws on marriage ... and I think, it is similar in Switzerland and Austria 155.245.69.178 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Missouri

Missouri does not recognize SSM. This isn't Oregon. All they've done is reduce the paperwork when filing state taxes, but you are explicitly not recognized as married for the purposes of of those taxes. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide the "refs" you are referring to...? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You provided the ref. I'll have to track it down. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Missouri recognizes SSM for tax purposes. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
That's not state recognition of marriage.
Here:[7]
"According to Nixon’s office, the decision will not open state-level exemptions, deductions, or credits to same-sex couples, but it will prevent them from having to file their taxes differently at the state level than they do at the national level."
and here:[8]
"The executive order doesn’t allow gay and lesbian couples with a marriage certificate to take advantage of state tax breaks already available to straight couples."
So all this means is a bit less paperwork. Now, maybe it's a foot in the door – Nixon favors SSM – but it would violate CRYSTAL to for us to assume this is going anywhere against the vehement opposition of the legislature. This is an entirely different situation than Oregon, where the court mandated that out-of-state marriages be recognized as marriages by the state of Oregon. — kwami (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe I ever said that it was full recognition of marriage. It still is some form of recognition however. --Prcc27 (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
But adding it to the table implies that it's actual recognition of marriage, as in other states which recognize marriage. It clearly is not. We've been using the cat to mean, "you can't get married here, but if you are married, then you're married here too." In Oregon, married SS couples are married. In MO they are not. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In Missouri SSM is recognized for tax purposes. In Michigan SSM is not recognized. --Prcc27 (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with kwami. Jurisdictions should only be listed here as recognizing 'foreign' same-sex marriage if they recognize those marriages fully, not just for limited purposes. For the same reason, Guernsey should not be listed. - htonl (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case we should also remove Sint Maarten, Curacao and Aruba… (they have to register them, but are not required to give them the same effect as traditional marriages)… I have no opinion on what to post, but note that there is a strong difference between Guernsey and Missouri: Missouri merely allows a certain form to be used and thus accepts the fact that such marriages exist in the US… There seems to be no material effect at all… 10:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)L.tak (talk)
I didn't know that. I just assumed that recognition in those islands meant that if I got married in the NL and moved there, I'd still be married. If that's not the case, then I'd agree that they should be removed or at least clarified. And certainly from the map: The whole idea of the map is to show where you can be married, or sort-of married. — kwami (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the Dutch Wikipedia, the legal case that established this recognition (Oduber-Lamers/Aruba) requires that a marriage license (or any other license) granted in the Kingdom of the Netherlands have the same legal force and effects in all parts of the Kingdom. SPQRobin (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
We say s.t. very different. Maybe we should clear up that article first, and then change back the map if it turns out to be justified? — kwami (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it appears to be nuanced and the nlwp and enwp articles don't differ that much (though the enwp article's lead isn't quite accurate/nuanced afaics). Maybe someone with more knowledge about this can explain this, but it seems the general idea is that they have to recognise SSM licenses but they can still treat them differently. It don't see a reason to suddenly remove them from the map. Anyway, it is usually not really clear to what extent they are treated equally, and at what point we should list them as "recognition only" jurisdictions. SPQRobin (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Just because you aren't legally considered married in Missouri doesn't mean that the state of Missouri doesn't recognize that the marriages are valid in some way or form. If the state of Missouri doesn't recognize that the marriages are valid then why would they let same sex couples file joint tax returns..? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
We don't base our edits on speculation. AFAICT, this is simply a matter of simplifying paperwork. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Footnote markers

Why are there two different types of footnote markers, both numbers and the dagger? It seems that the dagger should be changed to a nubmer for consistency. 22:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.13.119 (talk)

The dagger is a generic note that potentially applies to all countries. The numbers are country-specific. The difference makes SSM status easier to track. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory

Very unique situation developing. The date of effect is now official, December 7 (2013). High Court (most powerful court in the land) will decide if the law is legal under complex Australian state/federal laws on December 12. Could result in a 'California style result where SSM is legal for a brief time only. Should an asterisk/small note be placed next to ACT on the table for the period between Dec 7-12? Source: Same-sex marriages to come after High Court reserves decision Jono52795 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Brazil

For several months, Brazil has been shown as allowing SSM nationwide. Yet today there was an article in the news about a mass wedding to celebrate Rio's first SSM (http://news.yahoo.com/couples-tie-knot-en-masse-rio-39-first-025551850.html). Is or has the information on Brazil been incorrect? Is an asterisk needed?

50.135.209.86 (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ACT

While civil unions were repealed by Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, civil partnerships, established in 2008, are still avalaible. See part 4a of the Domestic Relationships Act 1994. Ron 1987 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Caribbean Netherlands

Same-sex marriage is legal in the Caribbean Netherlands. The islands are governed as special municipalities of The Netherlands, but I doubt most would consider them "Netherlands Proper," as same-sex marriage wasn't even legal there until 2012. Andrew1444 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)andrew1444

It is a matter of definition.... They form part of the country (land) the Netherlands, which exists within the Kingdom of the Netherlands (confusingly often shortened to Netherlands) with the other countries Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. Nevertheless, they constitute in most aspects a separate jurisdiction within the Kingdom (with its own adherence to treaties; its own civil code etc). This formulation is the result of an implementation after much discussion, which didn't result in a clear consensus on any consistent representation that would be formally correct for Denmark, UK and Netherlands, while still being consistent.... L.tak (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It all depends. When Netherlands Antilles were dissolved, some islands were integrated into Netherlands special territory. Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten were not, they became countries within the kingdom of the Netherlands. The Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles is rather complex and one would have to look at the webpages of the governments of these countries.--LadyGodiva99 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Chile con carne y con amor

http://santiagotimes.cl/senate-takes-first-step-toward-gay-civil-unions/ (in English) http://exame.abril.com.br/mundo/noticias/senado-chileno-aprova-medida-que-beneficia-casais-gays (in Portuguese) 177.195.67.244 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Mexico

Have I missed s.t.? Why is Mexico not listed under 'recognized'? — kwami (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It could be because the two states that do allow them have a note stating they are valid in all of Mexico. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Utah

As much as I'd like to add Utah to the list, I think it might be premature to do so. I haven't yet seen a reference that says that SSM will begin, only that the court struck down the prohibition. I think that puts it in the grey area, not blue. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This is from ABC news... "It was unclear what the immediate effect would be, because the state can still appeal. The Utah attorney general's office said it would issue a statement on the ruling later." -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The state will appeal and is seeking a stay of execution to prevent any SSM ceremonies from taking place. See Here Yet I think for the moment it's appropriate to include Utah in the list due to the fact that we have hard evidence that tells us gay couples are legally getting marriage licenses in at least one county. County clerk starts issuing same-sex marriage licenses after judge strikes down Utah ban (Minneapolis Star Tribune) Jono52795 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the judge didn't issue a stay himself, there is no stay at the moment. If the appeals court issues a stay, Utah can be removed at that time. Until that time, the ruling is in effect, so "UT" should appear. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I am now seeing reports that say that SSM is legal in Utah, so I have no more objection to the change. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm also not clear on if the marriages that took place were invalidated(don't think so, but) so I'm not sure if that needs to be reflected either. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it a California situation? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I think so. I haven't seen anything stating that the marriages performed were invalidated, so it looks like that until this case is resolved that s.s. marriages performed during that period will still be recognized, as they were in California a few years ago. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, in which case we should show Utah in the same way that we showed CA prior to June 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
It's very different from CA. In CA, SSM was made illegal, but the 8,000 or so existing marriages were grandfathered in. In Utah, the most recent legal decision is that SSM is legal; the ruling is simply stayed until the appeal is decided. If the ruling is overturned but those 900 marriages are grandfathered in, then we'll have a situation like California. If the ruling is upheld, then we'll have legalization with a hiccup. If the ruling is overturned and the 900 marriages are nullified, then we'll have the status quo ante. — kwami (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Based on that logic (which I agree with, that is my understanding as well) Utah should still be listed as a state where it's legal. Dave (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I went to revert the removal of Utah, but then I saw the following hidden text at the bottom: "When marriage has been legalised through a US court decision, we wait until either the supreme court in the jurisdiction affirms the decision, or a stay upon appeal of a lower court's ruling has been denied." I'm not sure where that was decided but I will wait and see what consensus is before taking any further action. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That's for before there are any actual marriages. But once marriages take place, we add the state, though in this case perhaps in parentheses with a note that it is pending. — kwami (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I want to add a footnote like that but I do not know enough wikicode to do so. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-2014/0034/14034.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/san-marino-axes-medieval-law-let-gay-couples-live-together270612
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Same-sex_unions/Archive_15&oldid=1138528921"