Jump to content

Talk:Legal status of same-sex marriage/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Norway

Recently, Norway has been taking steps towards legalizing same-sex marriage. I think this is worthy of inclusion here. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia

There seems to be a dispute over whether Slovenia recognizes civil unions or civil marriages. I've added the marriage info twice based on this source: [1] (also: [2], [3], [4]) and was reverted by an anon IP both times. This is confounding, but I'm going to guess their point was the arguable one that if guests are restricted, it's not full marriage. If that's the distinction they're trying to draw, it's an arguable one. Fireplace 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not called "marriage" in Slovenia, so by definition it's not same-sex marriage, but only domestic partnership/civil union. (Pick your poison.) —Nightstallion (?) 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It s a cvil union (!) not a domestic partnership but also not a civil marriage.--GLGerman 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

Does anyone have a source for this? Again, see all the links above calling it marriage. Fireplace 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovenia has been up on Same-sex marriage for a couple days now (with a footnote about the ceremony requirements) and no one has removed it (other than a vandal) or provided a contradictory source. So, I'm going to float it on this article again, with a footnote. Again, the main justification is the news stories above which call it marriage. Fireplace 04:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is very tentative given what some editors have said. If anyone has contradictory sources, please post them. Fireplace 04:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As I've stated elsewhere before, that's most definitely wrong. I'd trust gay rights sources much more on the intricate details than just general news sources; compare http://365gay.com/Newscon06/07/072406slovenia.htm for instance, which calls it "domestic partnerships". A lot of sources also called the UK's civil union "marriage", but it definitely isn't (the distinction was even argued before courts quite recently). —Nightstallion (?) 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Italy

The European and world map need to be changed as no civil unions nor gay marriages are recognised in Italy.

Until now there are only some regions in Italy with civil unions; but late 2006 Prodi will introduce a bill in parliament for civil unions in whole Italy.GLGerman 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of states not allowing same-sex marriages

Data from the liberal organisation "Human Rights Campaign" suggests that there are 45 states in total that do not allow gay marriage. Of these, 19 have passed a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman. See http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=28225&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm. This information was last updated in July 2006 and may therefore be more accurate than the data provided by the Heritage Foundation that this article cites.

Mc andi 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.K

There isn't any mention of the U.K (where same-sex marriage is legal). Wikisquared 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is mentioned, and no, the U.K. does not have same-sex marriages. It has Civil Partnerships, which are not the same thing. - Outerlimits 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That s right: In U.K. we have civil unions (but the rights of a civil uion there is nearly the same as same-sex marriage)GLGerman 21:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

Organization of page -- Why the religious opening?

Here we have a page about SSM that opens with the line:

"Worldwide, most, but not all, religious traditions do not recognize or perform same-sex marriages."

It then proceeds to detail varying Jewish and Christian perspectives on SSM (and not those of other religions), before the page proper describes the status of *civil* marriage throughout the world. This seems more than a little sloppy. Why is a narrow religious overview the opening to this article, especially when it's the political, unconnected bulk underneath for which most users would be searching? How about moving the religious stuff into its own section, if not its own, expanded page? Maxisdetermined 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Since no one bothered to reply to your message, I can only assume that there were no objections to reorganizing it and have done so. Indecine (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

California 4-3 ruling is not yet final until 30 days

Lest non-lawyers readers be misled, the court decision 4-3, is not yet final, since it is highly divided, and one vote can change. So, under CA rules, an appeal or motion can be filed withing 30 days to stay it, and after May 15, as of now, no marriage can still be held pending the finality. Besides the November ballot might reverse or avoid this ruling by Constitutional amendment. I am a lawyer/judge, and our Philippine laws were copied from California federal rules of service. I repeat, just one vote can can change the 4-3 judgment. So I added this: Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed interracial marriages ban, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, (in a 4-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice Ronald George) struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (passed with 61%). The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.news.yahoo.com, California's top court legalizes gay marriage Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling --Florentino floro (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

The section on sweden needs major revision! Its way outdated and even talks of somthing that is supposed to happen in 2007, yet its almost 2009. Also, Sweden has assured that same sex marriage will be legal by March 1st 2009. Azcolvin429 (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Iowa

Seeing as how same sex marriage is offically legal in Iowa, shouldn't we update the map?Saberwolf116 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The ruling doesn't become effective until April 24. —EqualRights (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Please check Maryland, The governor said he would approve the recoginition of out of state same sex marriages. He would talk to the state's attorney.

Gosh is anyone paying attention!!! West Virginia is having a hearing today(July 14,2009) in which lawmakers will decided on whether to put the same sex marriage ban on to West Virginia's constitution. Please UPDATE WIKIPEDIA!!! same sex marriage is a controversial issue and its always changing so please keep informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.240.24.55 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Page outdated

Glancing through this article, I've noticed that it is quite outdated. While the lack of updates for India's striking down of the homosexuality ban for the India sub-section is understandable, quite a few of the other nations need to be updated and corrected. Such as in Ecuador, where civil unions are not legal, but the constitution merely provided framework. See Recognition of same-sex unions in Ecuador. There are also lack of updates for recent debates on same-sex marriage, such as the recent proposals and court challenges throughout South America, which include Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and no mention of Venezuela, which is currently debating a same-sex marriage bill within the parliament. VoodooIsland (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no civil unions in Venezuela... yet

The recognition for same-sex civil unions is still on debate at the National Assembly. In Venezuela, states cannot have their own laws since all laws are passed at a federal level so the civil union is not being performed in the Merida state whenever the law is passed it will be nationwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.69.228 (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mexico: status and map

The paragraph description on Mexico indicates civil-unions nationally, but the map of North America shows "no status" for most of the country. We should really update the map if the body text is correct. LotLE×talk 23:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii Update: Civil Unions Moving Forward

This news article says that Hawaii is moving forward with civil unions. Should the information for HI be updated?
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/01/hawaii-update-civil-unions-moving-forward/
--Native94080 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maryland now recognizes Same-Sex Marriages

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/02/md-attorney-general-says-state-can-recognize-out-of-jurisdiction-same-sex-marriages/
Native94080 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rhode Island

....recognizes same-sex marriages?
http://www.marriageequalityri.org/www/learn/marriage_faq/
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/ri-marriage-guide.pdf
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/
Native94080 (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Second gay marriage in Argentina

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQoV_ctXiWM-0kpkWLH_tBRJDV6A
Native94080 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why wikipedia is always going to suffer from vandalism

When there are lines like:

Roman Catholic Church ... "reminds the governments of the need to contain the phenomenon [of homosexuality] within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality".

It is very hard not to add a snarky comment about priests and young boys... --86.173.140.91 (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe your heading is an irony? For the rest I can do nothing else but agree: I felt that itch in my fingers too. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland

I've put in the following information:

"On June 11, 2010, a law was passed to make same-sex marriage legal in Iceland. The law will take effect on June 27, 2010."

User AV3000 keeps removing it. However, this is supported by the sources, the source AV3000 tells me to read says: "Althingi, the parliament of Iceland, this afternoon voted to change the country’s marriage laws." I take it that there is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency between this and what I entered (see above), nor is what I entered misleading as it explicitly says that the law is supposed to take effect on June 27. (even though it already has, since laws passed by Althing take effect immediately even before they are ratified by the president; and even if the presedent refuses to ratify them, then they remain in effect until they're repealed in a referendum). Therefore I am changing this back. --Cessator (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jurisdictions with current or recent debates on SSUs

I don't think all those countries listed did have a debate or discussion on that matter ex: Paraguay, Chile, Bolivia. I think each country listed needs to have a source that supports that fact because anyone can put his/her country in the list. It's just ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.103.198 (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You should discuss it at the template talkpage here. Actually, the information is supposed to be on those links, and all Chile, Bolivia, and Paraguay present recent news about LGBT rights (2009/2010). So I don't see anything wrong with that listing. pmt7ar (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent date formats

I noticed that this article has inconsistent date formats – there are multiple instances of both mdy and dmy dates going back to the very first editor, thus rendering the article in violation of WP:MOSNUM but also unresolvable by WP:RETAIN. Do any of you watching this have any objection or preference for which format to align the dates to? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Philippines, even though there are a lot of gay guys still Gay Marriage or shall I say Same Sex Marriage is still a No-No.

New Mexico out-of-state Same Sex Marriage

New Mexico Attoney General released an opinion on Tuesday, January 4 2011, stating that according to New Mexico law out-of-state same sex mariage would likely be recognized under the current constitution, althought it did not make any precedent or predictions as to how a court would rule on the issue. New Mexico has always honored marriages performed elsewhere and it would go against its policy to discriminate against legal foreign same sex marriages. [1] [2]

http://www.koat.com/r/26375783/detail.html http://newmexicoindependent.com/68490/king-says-new-mexico-can-recognize-out-of-state-same-sex-marriages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.240.2.221 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"A comprehensive legal analysis by my office concludes that valid same-sex marriages in other states would likely be valid in New Mexico". Ron 1987 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

“While we cannot predict how a New Mexico court would rule on this issue, after review of the law in this area, it is our opinion that a same-sex marriage that is valid under the laws of the country or state where it was consummated would likewise be found valid in New Mexico,” Gary King, New Mexico's Attorney General

Just like the Opinion provided by Maryland's Attorney General and which was taken by Wikipedia as being currently legal for out-of-state Same Sex Marriages recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.2.73 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Status of Same-Sex Marriage in U.S. States Is Incorrect.

In the section on states that ban same-sex marriage, it states that 29 states have constitutional bans, and another 14 ban it via statutes (for a total of 43 states). An earlier section states that six states have legalized same-sex marriage (total of 49 states). The following section describes three states that have nothing that supports or denies same-sex marriage (bringing us to a total of 52 states). I believe the error is in the number of states that ban it via statute, which I believe is 12, but I do not have a source to back that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westsider8 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Update

I have updated this section to note that some form of recognition is allowed in 21 states, currently, with 29 states banning it in some form (law, constitutional amendment or both). This, of course, will obviously change as there are currently 16 states where this is being debated in 2012. Citations are in the text. Bobubbabear (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Map of US Marriage Laws

I would like to see this map updated in some form, since it is out of date, but also confusing to the reader. I like the map produced by MarriageEquality.org as it is simple and easy to interpret at a glance.
http://www.marriageequality.org/sites/default/files/National%20Map%20%2301%20%28Ned%20Flaherty%2C%2008-Feb-2012%29.pdf
Bobubbabear (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (South America).svg

Four Brazilian states (Alagoas, Bahia, Piauí and São Paulo) should be dark blue on this map. See [5], [6], [7]. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In the sidebar, should the Netherlands be listed as a complete country?

I have moved a discussion started here on whether the Netherlands should be under "some jurisdictions" or not (with a similar discussion regarding UK/England/Wales) to the template that contains the sidebar. Feel free to contribute at: Template talk:Same-sex_unions. L.tak (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia

I suggest you all to have a look at Polish wikipedia. Our article is the most advanced and rigorously checked by far: http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rejestrowany_zwi%C4%85zek_partnerski&stable=1 just google translate it to understand all --81.100.242.0 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map USA

Could we replace the current United States partnership map with this same-sex marriage map [8]? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Map needs updating

  Marriage open to same-sex couples (ring = individual cases)1
  Recognized when performed in certain other jurisdictions (ring = individual cases)
  Government/court announced intention to recognize
  Federal recognition of marriages at the state level
  Civil unions
  Unregistered cohabitation1
  Same-sex unions not legally recognized
Worldwide laws regarding same-sex intercourse, unions and expression
Same-sex intercourse illegal. Penalties:
  Death
  Prison; death not enforced
  Death under militias
  Prison, with arrests or detention
  Prison, not enforced1
Same-sex intercourse legal. Recognition of unions:
  Marriage
  Extraterritorial marriage2
  Civil unions
  Limited domestic
  Limited foreign
  Optional certification
  None
  Restrictions of expression, not enforced
  Restrictions of association with arrests or detention

1No imprisonment in the past three years or moratorium on law.
2Marriage not available locally. Some jurisdictions may perform other types of partnerships.

This map (about the United States) needs updating on the Same-sex marriage article, most notably on Texas and other states. It contradicts with the map on this article. 76.185.192.214 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Colombia

According to this article, Colombia only has civil unions, not SSM, therefore should be light blue on the South America map. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/06/high-colombian-official-urges-courts-to-ok-same-sex-marriage/ Czolgolz (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia not up to date

There was a referendum in Slovenia about marriage equality where they voted against it. Can someone add that? English is not my native language.128.131.95.99 (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Status of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Status of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Status of same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

South American Map

The map needs to be updated to reflect Colombia's status as a SSM nation. However, when you click on the map, Colombia is correctly solid blue. Can someone fix it so the correct map shows up in the article? Thanks! Czolgolz (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Israel

Israel DO recognize same sex marriages and should be added to the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennedyBroseguini (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Status of same-sex marriage. 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) 09:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Status of same-sex marriage. 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) 18:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Malta

Why is Malta not included in the table as recognizing same-sex marriage? It does.Continentaleurope (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Status of same-sex marriage. 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) 04:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Status of same-sex marriage. 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) 09:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oceana map

Can whoever uploaded the latest map of Oceana correct the the thumbnail to reflect the change in Australia? Thank you. 2600:1700:F541:94E0:58D3:3DC7:5B95:931 (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(I say "compound state", which AFAIK has no actual meaning, because I don't want the quibble about whether they're federations or what-have-you. Such issues may be relevant to how we address these countries, but I don't want to worry about it when posing the question.)

This is about which countries and dates to include in the table just after the lead.

I think we're agreed that SSM is legal in the UK since it's legal in all four member states / constituent countries. The fact that it's not legal in territories owned by the UK but not legally part of the UK is not sufficiently relevant for us to worry about -- now that SSM is legal in N.Ireland, it's legal across the UK, and we can handle territorial exceptions in a footnote ... right?

Similarly with the US. It's not legal in American Samoa, but that's not legally part of the US -- as with the UK territories, the people aren't citizens, and the US Constitution doesn't apply to them. Similarly with Navaho -- a sovereign nation, even if the sovereignty is somewhat fictional, and US law doesn't fully apply there, so we can say SSM is legal in "the US" even though it's not legal there.

With Mexico, it's legal nationwide even though not available nationwide. A work in progress, so no date for legalization but still a place in the table, since SSM is legal with full rights in every Mexican state.

But then we get to the odd cases of the Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand. Unlike in the case of the UK, where the mother country (where the federal parliament is, and which doesn't have its own lower-level parliament -- i.e. England) has a different name from the UN-recognized state (the UK), each of these names applies to two different states at different political levels: The Netherlands consists of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and St Maartin; Denmark consists of Denmark, Greenland and the Faroes; New Zealand consists of New Zealand, Niue and the Cook Islands.

Are the smaller polities in each of these to be considered like territories of the UK and sovereign reservations of the US, so it doesn't matter for the purposes of our table whether SSM is legal there or not, or are they constituent countries like Scotland and NI within the UK? If the Netherlands is a compound state the way the UK is a compound of England, Wales, Scotland and NI, then SSM is not legal in the Netherlands. In our table, if we wanted to list it yet, we would need to break it down into its constituent countries and list them separately, with "Netherlands" meaning only the lower-level state. If, however, Aruba Curacao and St Maartin are mere territories, equivalent to Gibraltar and Bermuda re. the UK, then it doesn't matter if SSM is legal there, we're just concerned with the dominant state.

The choice is most apparent with Denmark. In that case, we can,

  1. List SSM as legal in Denmark from 2012, and ignore Greenland and Faroes as mere territories, much as we list it as legal in the US from 2015
  2. List SSM as legal in Denmark from 2017, when it was enacted in the final Danish constituent country, much as we list it as legal in the UK from 2020
  3. List SSM as legal in Denmark from 2012, in Greenland from 2016, and in Faroes from 2017.

Note if we make the second choice, then SSM is not legal in the Netherlands or in New Zealand. If we make the first choice, then we won't bother to add Aruba or Niue if/when they ever legalize SSM, just as we won't list Navaho. I've been operating on the premise that we'd want the third choice, but really we've been all over the place on these issues, without any settled consensus. I'd be just as happy with #1. #2 would be difficult, IMO, because there are lots of sources saying SSM is legal in Netherlands and New Zealand -- people would repeatedly restore them to the table if we took them out. — kwami (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth trying to come to a formal consensus so we're not working at crossed purposes. Notifying users who made non-trivial signed-in edits over the past 14 mos -- @Shawnqual:, @Llewee:, @Sceptre:, @TenorTwelve:, @Sandstein:, @Jdcooper:, @Alexander95015:

  • I vote for option 1. (This is my understanding), the UK is of those four constituent countries so it makes sense to list the UK from the last of those four. The US is of those 50 constituent states so it makes sense to list it from the last of the 50 states. In both cases the overseas territories are extra of the country. Denmark, New Zealand, Netherlands are the countries themselves, not compound countries, as I understand the concept, and the other parts are therefore extra. But we can continue to cover territorial exceptions with footnotes, I think the current system works fine in that regard. Jdcooper (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
So, if I'm not putting words in your mouth, we'd list Denmark for 2012, and add a footnote to the effect that the "associated states" of Greenland and Faroes joined in in 2016 and 2018, but not list them as separate countries in the table itself. (Though both are "countries" by many definitions, just as England and Wales are "countries".) We'd have Netherlands and NZ in the table with the current dates, both with fn's that coverage does not extend to the "associated states" of Aruba, Curacao, St Maartin, Niue or Cook Is, nor to the territory of Tokelau. Fn's for the UK and US would note that coverage does not extend to all territories or reservations. Greenland and Faroes would not count towards the number of countries with SSM, nor would passage in Aruba or Niue increase the count.
Assuming I'm not misrepresenting you, that seems a reasonable approach. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a few days, only JDCooper's given an opinion, seems acceptable to me, so editing the table per his choice. — kwami (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, yes, that was what I meant. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Mexico

Every Mexican state has legalized same-sex marriage (as the article states) on October 26th, 2022[1] [2] so shouldn’t it be listed as the 33rd country to have legalized same-sex marriage instead of just a “-” and no date? WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@WikiMakersOfOurTime: The date shown isn’t the date same-sex marriage is approved, but the date the legalization becomes effective. In a few states the legislation is still pending, so same-sex couples can’t get married yet. You can follow the progress here. It’s unlikely, but if it becomes effective in any state after 17 February, then Andorra would be 33rd and Mexico would be 34th. Brainiac242 (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah okay, although I feel like the map should also reflect this, as on the map, all of Mexico and Andorra are colored dark blue. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Conflict over Rwanda🇷🇼

This link states a constitutional ban in Rwanda🇷🇼: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Constitutional_bans_on_same-sex_unions_by_country.svg#mw-jump-to-license

However, the first map does not contain this information.

Sincerely A29374738 (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://newmexicoindependent.com/68490/king-says-new-mexico-can-recognize-out-of-state-same-sex-marriages
  2. ^ http://www.koat.com/r/26375783/detail.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legal_status_of_same-sex_marriage/Archive_1&oldid=1231304093"