Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Oregon, Washington

Either there's some same-sex marriage debate going completely over my head, or the user who continuously added Washington and Oregon under same-sex marriage debated is inaccurate. There have been no recent updates about same-sex marriage legislation, the most was a simple "hint" that gay rights groups are "considering their options" about overturning the ban in Oregon sometime in 2012. Even still, this is nothing along the lines as in CA, where people have specifically vowed, and possibly even started gathering signatures, that such a move will appear on the ballot within the next few years. As for Washington, there was a SC ruling that just barely ruled against same-sex marriage in WA, but as there is no ongoing debate about such in Washington, it does not belong in the template under same-sex marriage debated. VoodooIsland (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island

I know this is a gray area, but according to a map released recently by the Los Angeles Times, Rhode Island recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. They mark New Mexico with having no recognition as our map does, so I thought I'd surface this here in case someone knows something I don't. VoodooIsland (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What's gray about it? New York and DC affirmatively recognize and mandate recognition of foreign marriages. Rhode Island, Wyoming, and maybe New Mexico don't have to say anything about it, so it's up to each court, each business, each town to decide whether or not they'll recognize the marriages that have no obligatory recognition under state law. It's like any other country in the world without a DOMA but without a SSM statute.

They interpreted RI as foreign-recognizing probably because its institutions have had a friendly defacto policy toward married Massachusetts couples. But it's not state policy. Fortuynist (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Formerly performed

I noticed that a user added Oregon under formerly performed, while another had added Tilos (Greece) in the same section at an earlier time. At the time being, only California qualifies to be listed under the given section. We should only include nations/regions that have legally established same-sex marriage and then revoked it, as I'm sure we could add over 30 countries/regions where licenses have been issued by a single person/group of people rather than government officials, and were later declared void. (Such as with San Francisco, CA in 2004, NM in 2004, France, Arizona, Montana in the 70s, etc.) VoodooIsland (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I think we'll keep getting this problem. "Formerly performed" can be interpreted to suggest any area where a same-sex marriage has been performed in the past, which includes a wide range of jurisdictions. I agree that the list should essentially only include jurisdictions previously included in "Same-sex marriage legal". Ronline ✉ 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ecuador

What is the latest situation in Ecuador? I know civil unions were approved in the new constitution, but when exactly is the government going to implant them? Are we sure that they are not already taking place? VoodooIsland (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done some research into this issue, and am still somewhat confused at the situation. So, Article 68 of the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador provides for the recognition of de facto unions offering all of the rights of marriage. However, these unions are to be put into practice "in the conditions and circumstances set out by the law". The interesting part is that opposite-sex unions have been legal in Ecuador since 1978, and are explicitly recognised in the 1998 Constitution. The 1998 Constitution contains an identical article to Article 68 of the 2008 Constitution, except that de facto unions are referred to in gender-specific terms. Thus, all that the 2008 Constitution did was make the definition of de facto unions gender-netrual. See [1] and [2] (both in Spanish).

There is already a law in Ecuador which governs (opposite-sex) de facto unions. It states, among other things, the procedure for how these unions will be formed and dissolved, and mentions that they can be formed after two years of cohabitation. The scheme appears quite similar to the (same-sex-inclusive) scheme in Uruguay, and is registered rather than "unregistered cohabitation".

The problem is that, despite the constitutional change, the enabling law on de facto unions still maintains the old gender-specific definition in the 1998 Constitution. The legislation does not appear to have been changed. See this site, which states at the very bottom that "La legislación ecuatoriana vigente no admite la Unión de Hecho entre dos personas del mismo género" - the current Ecuadorian legislation does not permit a de facto union between two people of the same gender.

All that needs to be done is change a few words in the existing de facto unions law so as to include same-sex couples and conform the new Constitution. Strangely, there's been no news of such a change since the Constitution has entered into force, even in the Ecuadorian press. There is, of course, the option that the unions are already occuring and that the Consular site above is outdated. I'll keep you updated if I find anything, and I will try to find an updated version of the exact enabling law.

UPDATED: De facto unions in Ecuador (currently opposite-sex only) are governed by The Law Regulating De-Facto Unions, No. 115 (1982). Here is the online text in Spanish. This is the law that needs to be reformed. Aside from legislative change, it could presumably be changed if a same-sex couple goes to Court claiming that Law No. 115 is unconstitutional when compared to Article 68 of the Constitution. Ronline ✉ 10:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! :) Maybe we'll see a challenge soon, but the same-sex union debate throughout South America seems to be rather unpredictable. VoodooIsland (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true that progress towards same-sex unions in Latin America seems quite unpredictable. This can be explained by two important and competing forces in the continent's political culture. On one hand, there is a strong left-wing progressive tradition, emphasising secularism and equality. On the other, there is a significant Catholic-conservative tradition, combined with the more recent spread of evangelical Christianity, which is opposed to divorce, abortion and gay rights. Perhaps as a result of these forces, the Latin American model of relationship recognition is quite different to models in other parts of the Western world. Features of this model include an emphasis on "de facto/concubinary unions", quite different to marriage, rather than European-style "registered partnerships", which are often specifically designed to mirror marriage.

Nevertheless, I think a lot of progress is being made. Uruguay and Colombia already offer full right to same-sex couples. Argntina and Chile and have pending national civil union laws, which will probably be passed in the next few years, while Ecuador will probably also sort out the constitutional issue discussed above. Brazil and Venezuela are also moving, even though it's quite difficult to pass a national civil union law there. In Uruguay, there is talk of legalising same-sex marriage. In Mexico, there is debate in more and more states to legalise civil unions. Ronline ✉ 03:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and it certainly will be interesting to see how the "slow route" works in South America, as one of the most divisive elements of the gay rights movement is between activists who feel that activists in the movement should move very slowly and wait for tolerance to creep up to them, opposed to those who want to continue to push for marriage/union legislation and protections to get the word out about gay rights and discrimination. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

I've added Denmark to the same-sex marriage debated section. The Social Liberal Party is a very vocal proponent of same-sex marriage, and the social democratic/green parties support it too. There is also very high public support for SSM; indeed, it is virtually guaranteed that SSM will be legalised if the current conservative parties are voted out in 2011. In other news, the Icelandic government officially has same-sex marriage in its governing platform (see [3]), so chances are that Iceland will be the 8th or 9th country in the world to legalise SSM (depending on when Portugal legalises). Ronline ✉ 14:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Europe will definitely make a lot of progress in this area throughout the next five years; and we can only expect more countries to follow. I think the next countries to legalize same-sex marriage in Europe will be Portugal, Iceland, France, and Denmark in that order; though I feel we could see additional moves from Switzerland, the UK and the Czech Republic in the near future as well. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire Part 2

The bill has been signed into law. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It, as well as the others listed in this template, need to be sourced - not just added to the template. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Navigator templates do not require citations or sources. Those are remedied in individual articles that the templates link to. --haha169 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But when the articles are missing the sources, then they need to be put in the template. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the articles are missing sources, then the articles need sources. Navigational templates cannot handle citations. --haha169 (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Faulty reporting, or does Mexico City recognize foreign SSMs?

I've read through several articles (including Spanish language ones), and while I would normally assume such a report to be a misprint, it was listed on Yahoo News so I wasn't as quick to reject the possibility. The article says:

Gay activists say that even though laws are improving in relatively more liberal places such as Mexico City — where legislators passed a law two years ago recognizing same-sex marriages — many are still reluctant to acknowledge their sexual orientation publicly

It's likely supposed to read as "civil unions," but maybe someone knows something most on this template don't.VoodooIsland (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To what Spanish language publications are you referring to? Fortuynist (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

They were basically news stories from Spanish-language news sites and direct excerpts from the mentioned law, though they provided nothing of additional worth; and were even murkier than the article from Yahoo. I would be pleased if I could get my hands on a copy of the full text of the law, as google certainly didn't help much with that. I'll keep searching. VoodooIsland (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The law governing civil unions in Mexico City is very similar to laws in South America on this issue. It provides only limited rights and definitely does not recognise SSM. The Spanish Wikipedia article on Ley de Sociedad de Convivencia provides some more information about what rights are provided. The text of the law is here. It doesn't seem to provide for recognition of foreign SSMs. Ronline ✉ 02:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, I guess it was just a misprint. And thanks for including a copy of the law; it was very helpful. VoodooIsland (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) More often than not, references to "same-sex marriage" in jurisdictions that have not legalised them really only refer to civil unions or registered partnerships. I have read countless newspaper articles in several languages that list the United Kingdom or the Czech Republic as countries where same-sex marriage is legal. See this for a glaring example. Indeed, I was quite surprised to see that, back in the 1990s, even gay rights groups would refer to civil union laws as "same-sex marriage" (e.g. a shorthand way of referring to "the same-sex institution equivalent to marriage"). Even nowadays, many use the language of marriage to refer to same-sex civil partners. Whether this should be done is an interesting political question. For some, purposely using the language of marriage ("married", "husband/wife" etc) is a way of dissenting against the "separate but equal" nature of civil unions. Others refuse to use the language of marriage, in order to draw attention to the fact that civil unions are not equal and are not a satisfactory substitute for marriage. Ronline ✉ 10:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed civil unions being referred to as "marriages" in several nations as well; particularly in the UK; where I rarely hear anyone refer to the civil partnerships as what they are: civil partnerships. I remember also reading an article on the subject of civil unions in Germany; to which it read "Germany legalizes gay marriage." I suppose such unions were such a new phenomenon back in the early through late 90's; with few expecting a country to actually make their marriage laws gender neutral; that they just presumed civil partnerships were going to be marriage for same-sex couples and that would be it. Anyway, I guess I got excited about the possibility of Mexico City recognizing foreign same-sex marriages; as it's always nice to see progress in such areas; so I wanted to check and see if Yahoo simply misreported the news as they did, or if Mexico City in fact really did recognize foreign SSM. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical note about references

The fact that this template uses {{Reflist}} might make problems when it is transcluded on other pages. See e.g. this diff. My advice is to use group names for the references in this template, like this: <ref group="ssuref" name="BBC"> etc. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch.  Done Fortuynist (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way that we can make the [ssuref 2]s smaller; or replace the text? VoodooIsland (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ssuref is the name of the group, which you can change to something with less than 6 letters. Read the Ref template documentation. It doesn't bother me, and I think it helps distinguish the template references from the article references. Fortuynist (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently, I find the longer superscripts distracting. I do think there should be a way to use a single character in the superscript to link down to the Notes section. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that's the reason we added the reference notes in the first place; to even out clutter. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is, and the code is there, and is defaulting on [1], [2], [3] (but can be changed with the 3rd parameter in {{ref}}). Now it uses {{note}}s instead of the reflist, so there are no conflicts. Fortuynist (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Why are the notes references starting at 12, and 13… instead of 1, 2 ,3…? I'm either confused or misunderstanding something, but it seems a little odd? Nevermind, fixed! Andrew Colvin (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You said "Good catch". But you forgot to remove the {{Reflist}}, so the problem persisted and I have had to addept another 2-3 articles since my post here. Therefore I have now removed it myself, with your permission of course. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cambodia?

Is it just me, or does this article make it seem that same-sex couples can wed if they have children? VoodooIsland (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"As per Cambodian law on marriage, stated in the Constitution, marriage between people of the same sex is illegal." is from the article. I'm not sure about the children policy, but the constitution explicitly banns SSM. --haha169 (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the situation raised in that article is a really interesting one. In many non-Western cultures, there is a tradition of same-sex unions receiving recognition, usually on an informal/customary basis. Homosexuality in India#Recognition of same-sex couples similarly notes that some same-sex couples have been married under Hindu religious custom, and are thus arguably legal under the Hindu Marriage Act. Similarly, the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon recognises same-sex marriages under tribal law. Nevertheless, I think a jurisdiction should only be included in the template if same-sex marriage is officially conducted by the state in a consistent fashion. Ronline ✉ 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, I've heard about customary law applying to polygamous marriages as well; though the subject has always been quite vague. Anyway, I agree that Cambodia should not be included on the template; but Just for my own personal knowledge, do couples who register their marriages under customary law gain benefits of any kind? VoodooIsland (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the Cambodia case you refer to above, the couple were apparently officially married and recognised by the state. Thus, they would presumably gain all of the benefits, but I'm unsure exactly what benefits married couples gain in Cambodia. In a lot of non-Western countries, marriage is more a cultural and religious act than a civil one. So, as pointed out in the Homosexuality in India article, there are many opposite-sex couples who will not have their marriage registered with the state, since for them marriage is seen as a social, religious and familial institution, outside the bounds of state regulation. In India, aside from the Hindu Marriage Act which governs marriage between Hindus (and Buddhists and Sikhs), there is also a Special Marriage Act which provides for (secular) civil marriage. There are also separate marriage acts for Muslims and Christians. For all religious marriages, there is the requirement that, following the ceremony, the marriage also be registered with the state, but the extent of compliance with this provision isn't all that high. In civil marriages, registration takes place contemporaneously with the ceremony. It is unknown if the same-sex couples which were married according to Hindu rites registered their relationship with the state in order to receive benefits. It is more likely that they did not. Ronline ✉ 02:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; and the Hindu Marriage Act is definitely an interesting "loophole." And as you said, considering how few benefits are often granted in countries in the region, it's no surprise that so few couples choose to register the marriages with the state. It will be interesting to see if Cambodia chooses to recognize same-sex marriage (officially) within the next ten years; though I'm not holding my breath. VoodooIsland (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

European Union

While I think the article on Same-sex marriage in the European Union is a good idea, having it in the template seems a bit redundant as the EU has no power to change the Legal recognition of same-sex couples within Member States. Suggest removing it from the template. Johnhousefriday (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read that there is a pending proposal to require all members to allow same-sex civil partnerships, which the EU can apparently enforce. Reading through the archives, apparently the page was created as a placeholder for European nations (which all happened to be EU members) that weren't actively debating same-sex marriage; and the page would be included under foreign marriages if the EU passes the proposed law to require all members to recognize each others civil unions and same-sex marriages. I'm open to removing it from the template, but because of the mentioned proposals, I'll wait for others to put their two cents in before removing it. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposal wasn't to require all member states to allow same-sex civil partnerships, but rather to allow mutual recognition of same-sex unions in states that had already recognised them. Actually, there were two proposals. The strong one would oblige all states to recognise same-sex unions registered in other states. So, for example, while Romania would not be obliged to perform registered partnership, it would have to recognise a same-sex married couple from Sweden as married, and a British civil-partnered couple as civil-partnered. The rationale for this is the EU right of free movement of persons, which stipulate that a person should have the same benefits in a foreign EU member states as they would in their home state. The weak version of this proposal is that only states which already recognise same-sex unions would have to mutually recognise other union schemes. So, for example, France would have to recognise British civil partners as PACS partners, while Finland would have to recognise German "life partners" as registered partners within Finland. The second approach is a lot less controversial, since it doesn't involve the granting of new rights. It only seeks to harmonise recognition across countries already providing recognition.

There is, of course, the question of whether, in the future, the EU has the right to oblige all states to perform civil partnerships or marriage. The EU Parliament has at various times passed resolutions calling for recognition of same-sex unions, but these are not legally binding. The only way to legally bind states to perform same-sex marriage/civil unions would be to issue a regulation or a directive in this area. It is unknown whether it would actually have the power to legislate in this area, since it has no specific jurisdiction over family law (it does have a "social policy" jurisdiction). Indeed, EU representatives have at various times stated that family law remains a responsibility of national governments. Thus, at least in the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that there will be any EU-wide legislation in this area. The movements towards mutual recognition of existing national schemes may, however, make progress. Ronline ✉ 07:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maryland

I think it's kind of misleading to say that Maryland "performs" same-sex unions. You can't go to any state body and be enrolled on any kind of registry, as is the case in other states that have such unions. Instead, the state government grants certain enumerated rights and responsibilities to a couple if they can prove that they are "a relationship of mutual interdependence." This strikes me as more along the lines of the "Recognized, not performed" header. --Jfruh (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Recognised, not performed" section refers only to jurisdictions which recognise same-sex unions performed in other jurisdictions, but does not have any local recognition schemes. You are right in saying that the Maryland scheme is a registered partnership scheme like that of California, Nevada, Oregon, etc. Instead, it is a form of "unregistered cohabitation", similar to what is offered in Austria, Croatia and Portugal. My only fear is that moving it to "Unregistered cohabitation" would clutter up the template too much, since we would have to create a new subsection stating "Recognised in some regions". Ronline ✉ 05:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: I think that is an excellent idea that in the Unregistered cohabitation section MD should be added next to "performed in some regions" Add - United States (MD, NY and RI). For example, Rhode Island and New York also have the same thing as well in some statutes (no registory) - Just like Australia, Columbia, Hungary (1996 law). It is also called the common-law marriage. Both Hawaii (since 1997) and Colorado (effective from 1 July 2009) have about 17 rights/benefits as a registory.

California, Nevada (effective from 1 October 2009), Oregon, Washington State and DC have domestic partnerships which gives the exact same 365 rights, benefits, obligations, responsibilities as marriage. New Jersey have civil unions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• DONE - fixed the unregistered cohabitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the other states you metion should be in the "Unregistered cohabitation" section. My understand is that in New York (and arguably Rhode Island), same-sex couples who are married in another state will have their marriage recognised and gain all the rights stemming from that. However, there is no other scheme which recognises local domestic partners. "Unregistered cohabitation" refers to a type of recognition where there is no need for same-sex couples to register; they can claim rights (usually on a one-by-one basis) simply by proving that they are in a same-sex relationship. The scheme in Maryland appears to confer this unregistered type recognition. Note that the distinction between unregistered cohabitation and registered partnership is one of process rather than substance. Some unregistered cohabitation schemes (Australia, Portugal) are very comprehensive and offer pretty much all or almost all of the rights of marriage. Conversely, some registered schemes (Colorado) offer quite few rights. Ronline ✉ 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maine

In Maine I have noticed that it says "mid" September - Is there an ACTUAL date 12, 14, 16, 18??????. It just seems that no none has a clue what is going on, so I will assume it is 1 October, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that SSM will take effect a certain time after the legislative session closes, and there is no set date for when it will close. 14 September is thus just an estimate (but don't assume it's 1 October, since 1 October would be just as arbitrary as 14 September, if not more =). Ronline ✉ 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Same Sex Marriage Debated, and Civil unions and registered partnerships debated should be removed from the infobox

Is this section about currently debated or a history of debated? I dont think topics that dont have a current debate bill or a planned one in place should be included.

Same Sex Marriage Debated:

DC - This section just covers civil unions and in no place does it say that that there is an ongoing bill proposed or debate reguarding SSM. Just this: "The move was hailed as a possible gateway to legislation of same-sex marriage in the near future"

Michigan - NOWHERE in this article does it mention that SSM is debated or that any bill has been proposed the only thing in there is a poll.

Minnesota - A bill that was proposed on March 5th failed to get a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Civil unions and registered partnerships debated:

Hawaii - There have been no new debates or bills proposed as the last one "failed to reach the full body for a vote" in March 2009.

Utah - last debate was in 2008 with an outcome of "all of the measures of the Common Ground initiative failed, some in committee"

Knowledgekid87 11:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

With D.C, an anti-marriage referendum is being proposed to halt the recognition of foreign marriages (which is in the Congressional review period), and the sponsor of that foreign recognition bill says he wants to introduce a new bill fully legalizing SSM in the future.

In Michigan, a repeal effort for the constitutional ban is in force, because voters' views, according to a recent poll changed drastically.

In Minnesota, there are a variety of bills relating to same-sex partnerships, with at least one passing giving same-sex partners health care agency. On marriage, no bills have moved forward, this is probably the weakest.

I could not find anything on Hawaii and Utah. Fortuynist (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not just including states that currently have bills pending; as all of the states you mentioned have proposals that supporters have vowed to introduce the next year. Only including states with pending bills is much too narrow, and we agreed on a criteria about a month ago. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay so there are references on the SSM sections for debate (They should go in the sections). "Only including states with pending bills is much too narrow, and we agreed on a criteria about a month ago." So what are you including? How does saying that "Civil unions and registered partnerships debated" when they arent? Anyways there are no current debates going on in HI or UT that relate to a propsed bill or such. Knowledgekid87 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a criticism for how the current inclusion criteria are handled. First and foremost, this template is a link to articles. If you're going to say X is debated in one area, Jalisco, Mexico, for example, the link should be X in Jalisco or X in Mexico#Jalisco, not Jalisco. If there are interesting developments in places, such as hearings and committee reports, or a broader debate outside of government that may spur a referendum, and if that is in the appropriate article, the template should link to it, because readers will want to read that. Otherwise, the links are useless. Fortuynist (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)