Talk:LGBTQ rights in the European Union

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Table

The table as it currently stands only covers Sexual Orientation rights and not Trans* or Intersex rights. A separate table should be had for Trans* and Intersex rights as Gender/Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are not the same and making additions to the existing table in terms of columns would make the current table unwieldy and confusing. The current table easily portrays the information on Sexual Orientation rights and is titled accordingly. As such to adequately portray to the same standards the Gender/Gender Identity rights properly a separate table is needed. Sport and politics (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to have one table only if possible, to keep information per country. We could remove the column about the military, we can just add a note below for Cyprus. For anti-discrimination laws, we can distinguish between countries with SO only and SO & GI anti-discrimination laws. Same for hate speech laws. Then we could add a column for laws on gender change. What columns would you include in a separate table for laws on gender/gender identity? SPQRobin (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum GI Columns need to be IMO, Transsexualism declassified as a disease, Trans* people allowed to change documents and legal gender, The recognition of more than just male and Female Genders, and being allowed to change their gender and retain then marriage/union without being required to divorce/dissolve it for trans people and the right to marry for Intersex people. That is at least 4/5 new columns If there are separate columns on the rights to serve in the military and specific anti discrimination laws to GI then we are up to 6/7 columns, making a table with more than enough information and easily distinguishable that sexual orientation and Gender Identity are not the same and there are significant differences between the two in terms of rights and equality. At the moment the table gives a false impression that GI and SO are the same and the GI is on a par with SO when in fact it is far from it. Sport and politics (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SO and GI are of course not the same, but in similar tables they are always combined (LGBT rights by country or territory). I'm not opposed to a separate table on this article, but:

Transsexualism declassified as a disease: I didn't find much information about it, but I would be surprised if a EU country classified it as a disease. (We neither include a column about homosexuality being (de)classified as a disease.)
Trans* people allowed to change documents and legal gender: this should certainly be added
GI anti-discrimination laws can be specified in the existing column, like we usually do on LGBT rights articles
For the other rights you mentioned, they are often difficult to find and often not even reported on in the main LGBT rights article of the country.

I'm also not sure whether we should restrict the table to legal aspects relevant to EU law or if we can include any relevant LGBT rights. SPQRobin (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in LGBT rights in the European Union

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of LGBT rights in the European Union's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ILGA 2013":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malta do have civil unions and adoption now

I reverse the changes of the phantom user Knisfo about Malta, since the source that he is offering as exchange of mine is not contradicting mine but confirming that the bill passed its 3rd reading. --Stalik (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bill passed by parliament has not been signed yet. There is no Civil Union law (in force).

Malta does not have Civil unions. Knisfo (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits

So a few anonymous users have persisted to delete my edits. And I would like to know why.

- Same-sex marriage is not legal in Ireland, I am aware of that but it will soon be. It was approved via referendum. So it should be added even though it is not legal yet.

- Under "Recognition of same-sex unions", all types of recognition should be added. Civil union, Registered Partnership and Unregistered cohabitation are all types of recognition. Unregistered cohabitation recognizes same-sex couples but it does with less benefits than Civil union (or Registered Partnership). This means that Civil union (or Registered Partnership) outranks Unregistered cohabitation. Some countries (Portugal and Spain) have legalized unregistered cohabitation. Some other countries have legalized unregistered cohabitation and then later Civil union (or Registered Partnership). I think the easiest thing to do is only mention the highest level of recognition. For example: Portugal. Portugal legalized Unregistered cohabitation in 2001 but not Civil union (or Registered Partnership). Anyways Portugal does recognize same-sex couples. Another example: The Netherlands. The Netherlands legalized Unregistered cohabitation in 1979 and much later Registered Partnership in 1998. Like I said before the easiest thing to do is add only the highest level of recognition. So for The Netherlands only Registered Partnership should be mentioned.

- Lastly "Recognition of same-sex unions" means that recognizes same-sex couples. In Denmark and Sweden, partnerships are not performed but are recognized. Meaning that both Denmark and Sweden both recognize same-sex couples. 92.107.68.17 (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I would like to know why." You already do know why. Over and over again...

1) Recognition:

a) Marriage is a form of recognition, too.

b) You contradict yourself. You say (e.g.) you want only the highest form of recognition to be listed, but in the cases of Portugal and Spain (and only in the cases of Portugal and Spain) you insist on having all forms of recognition included;

Portugal: unregistered cohabitation (and marriage)

Spain: unregistered cohabitation and registered union (and marriage)

There was a section "unregistered cohabitation". You simply could have added information on all countries, but you still insisted on Portugal and Spain only. This article is on something "European Union". There are more than two member states. Add all or none !

2) Denmark and Sweden:

Their registered partnerships are listed ! So what's the problem ?176.2.7.56 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia

It seems that the same-sex marriage is now legal in Slovenia, see [1]. :D 193.198.162.14 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Romania

There is an ongoing project in Romania on changes to be made to the constitution.

https://www.romania-insider.com/initiative-changing-family-definition-romanian-constitution-voted-deputies/

https://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-mps-decide-project-change-family-definition-constitution/

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/redefinition-of-family-adopted-by-romania-s-chamber-of-deputies-03-28-2017

I wonder if this should be mentioned somewhere in this article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ares857 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LGBT rights in the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in LGBT rights in the European Union

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of LGBT rights in the European Union's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ILGA":

From Sodomy law: ILGA World Legal Survey (Last updated: 31 July 2000, accessed 19 April 2006); updates from Homosexuality laws of the world.
From LGBT rights in the Post-Soviet states: "State Sponsored Homophobia 2016: A world survey of sexual orientation laws: criminalisation, protection and recognition" (PDF). International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. 17 May 2016. Retrieved 19 May 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a bit of editing

I find this article oddly constructed at times and I think it would be better with some editing. For example, the lead says that same sex sexual activity and employment rights are protected and that states have different laws on other aspects. But the first para of section two appears to say that it is also EU law that any discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited. This is confusing at best. Under 'discrimination in the provision of goods' it says; "a proposal...has been introduced" and describes what it "would do". But the date is 2008 - it's hardly current and indeed seems irrelevant in 2024. This section also talks about "the literature" without saying what literature is being referred to. Under "same sex unions" it says the following: "European Union law (the Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38/EC) requires those member states that legalised same-sex partnerships to recognise each other's partnerships for the purpose of freedom of movement.[19] The European Parliament has however approved a report calling for mutual recognition". This doesn't make sense, to me. If a directive requires members states to recognise each others partnerships, why would there be a later report calling for mutual recognition? Finally, the references are not very good. For example, reference one is a dead link. Reference two is nonsensical, apparently to an unrelated article. Reference three is a primary source document. Referencers for and five seem to be dead links. Of the rest, a lot are also primary sources which shed little light on the subject they're supposed to refer to, and others are essentially blog pages with no provenance.

I will edit to improve this article, as it is an important subject. I will leave it a day or two to see if anyone has a view. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here goes. I intend to start by deleting the first two paragraphs headed Treaty Protections using the principle of WP:BRD. The lead says that only some discrimination is unlawful (ie, prevented by directives) in the EU. The first para under Treaty Protections implies that any discrimination is unlawful. The second para does the same. This is inconsistent with the lead. Of the three references which support the two paragraphs, two are dead links and one is a primary source which doesn't explain anything to the reader of itself. Reference to these directives in the article either need explaining or deleting. I can't explain them so I am deleting. I will leave it another day in case anyone else wants to comment. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a revert of my edit, but as far as I can see the most recent revert was done in error (i.e. my edit was explained at the edit and here but the revert said at the edit section that no explanation had been given). I am assuming at this point that the revert was automated in some way and that the editor may not have actually read my comments there or here. I put this here to give other editors a chance to reply again, but as things stand the first two paragraphs under "Treaty Protections" do not make sense and have no references to support them (two don't link anywhere and the third is just a general link to primary source; a very large piece of quasi legislation). This section does not seem to be improvable as no other sources seem available to support; that means the correct action is to remove the section. This does not preclude the same information being put back in if evidence for the section's claims is found somewhere in future. I do not wish to engage in anything even close to edit-warring so I will try again one more time in due course if no comments are received here. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]