Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Additional details?

Please tell me what you think of my page for Same-sex marriage in the European Union. I tried to add as much as I could, and linked as many references that came to mind, but if you want me to change wording/phrasing or add additional info, feel free to correct me. Vickiloves08 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Appearance of this article

No text appears next to the various boxes until the one with the map, at least in the browser I am currently using. I have to scroll way down the page before I see any text. Aleta ^Sing 18:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have rearranged it so that the text shows up at the top of the page. Now all the "see also" links are just pushed down. I don't know why text is not showing to the left of the SSM template - that is not occurring in other articles with that template. Aleta ^Sing 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Albania to Legalise Gay Marriage??

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.108.13 (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Norway isn't EU member!!!

Could you stopped add Norway? That country isn't European Union member! Ron 1987 14:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my revert. Your edit had no explanation, and as with many where information is removed without an edit summary, I assumed it was vandalism. SultrySuzie (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Norway is still inside as an EU member...which is of course false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.87.241 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Norway is a member of the ECC and thought not politically a member shares many of the cultural traditions of the EU especially northern Europe, and it is important to note that Norway has legalised marriage as a comparison. Quee1797 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Liechtenstein is NOT European Union member

Liechtenstein is NOT European Union member! Please, before next changes see European Union or Member State of the European Union Ron 1987 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 (talk • contribs)

See above Quee1797 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this article really needed / ECHR

Same-sex marriage is not an issue for the European Union. It is an issue for the individual countries. Same-sex marriage in NATO would make as much sense. --Maitch (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Read the article and the sources and you'll understand why. Vickiloves08 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue IS a matter for the EU especially as the member states of the EU are leading the way in the liberalisation of marriage laws. In addition, the European Convention on Human Rights, though created by the EU, but applies to most if not all member states states in Article 12 of the right of all to marry. However, the Court has consistently denied this to same-sex couples. There is not article on this subject and it's too small to start one. It should be included here. Quee1797 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page Moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Same-sex marriage in the European Union → Same-sex marriage in European countries —

• Numerous concerns have adressed that this article covers same-marriage and legislation in European countries that are not part of the EU. It should be renamed for that obvious reason, and so it can cover the issue of all countries on the continent, the issue within the EU to be a secondary section in the article. Sir Richardson (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Change in scope should be debated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as formulated. Why not Same-sex marriage in Europe ? And why not just create another article, and have this one as a subarticle? 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the expansion to include all european countries and the EU sub-section Orionsbelter (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kazahstan

This country is not in the council of europe. is not an european country so. all the other countries are ok.

that's not a really good point! Belarus is not in the Council of Europe either..

But the case of Belarus is because isn´t a democracy, but it is considered by the council as an european state, and if they later are a democracy, they can be of the council. on the other case, Kazahstan is not in europe, and it doesn´t mind if is a democracy or not, becuase they are not in europe and that´s the reason they aren´t in the council, so it isn´t the same case.--RubencinMdE (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying "Kazakhstan is not in Europe" is like saying "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbeijan, Russia aren't in Europe". :) A Man from Poland (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

European Union or Europe???

I find it much more interesting to expand this article by including information about recognition of same-sex marriage in all other European countries not part of the EU - Norway has same-sex marriage and Iceland will follow soon, and I think it is more informative to present this in the article. In addition, the EU as a whole cannot impose to the member countries enactment of a same-sex marriage law, since this issue is left to the members, and not to a central EU institution. And besides...the map on this page is very nice and it shows the whole of Europe, not only the EU. The map is very informative; however, as said above, info on non-EU countries is not reflected by the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.17.219 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I kind of agree, other than the first paragraph, nothing in the article is actually related to the EU itself it's simply about the legal status and developments of European countries so I don't see why countries like Norway and Iceland should be excluded from this. Any future EU-specific matters could still be incorporated if the article was renamed. MaesterTonberry (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree, the article is about Same-sex unions in Europe, not "in the EU". --Joe Decker (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Belarus

Constitution of Belarus stands: "Article 32 [Marriage, Family] (1) Marriage, the family, motherhood, fatherhood, and childhood shall be under the protection of the State. (2) On reaching the age of consent, women and men shall have the right to enter into marriage on a voluntary basis and start a family. A husband and wife shall be equal in family relationships. Parents or persons in loco parentis shall be entitled and required to raise their children and to take care of their health, development, and education. No child shall be subjected to cruel treatment or humiliation or used for work that may be harmful to its physical, mental, or moral development. Children shall care for their parents or persons in loco parentis and render them assistance." I think we should acknowledge that Belarusian Constituion bans same-sex marriage. What do you think? A Man from Poland (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Done --Joe Decker (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To me this quote does not indicate a same-sex ban, only a constitutional protection of "marriage". One might even read the first sentence of (2) as allowing same-sex unions, since "men" and "women" are in plural. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

[2], page 445, footnote 9, is a reference for the interpretation that same-sex marriage is prohibited in Belarus by the Constitution, article 32. --Joe Decker (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: it occurs to me, too, that we should all exercise some caution in reading translations of the Belarus Constitution as a primary source. Legalese can be nuanced and ideosyncratic in meaning, and it's far from clear that those nuances translate correctly even in good translations. Whichever way this should read, a secondary source which provides an opinion, preferably something even more WP:RS than the PDF I provided above, would be optimal. --Joe Decker (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Future Legislation section.

I think this section needs a complete overhaul. The Government of Luxembourg is said to be finalising the Gay-marriage bill before the summer break of Parliament, this time has passed. Liechtenstein is said to approve civil unions in 2011, I though it was October 2010? And think maybe Cyprus should be removed as the issue seems to have frozen.

Also, maybe it should be updated to include: Malta, Isle of Man and Jersey, as all have some form of same-sex union in the pipeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is not part of EUROPE!!

I edited this article yesterday and removed kazakhstan from the list and included Kosovo. Please do not put kazakhstan in the list it is not part of the european continent and never will be I will remove it tomorrow if it hasn't already been removed. --Rctycoplay (talk) 00.56, 29 July 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC).

Partially is. 5,4% of the Kazakhstan's territory is located within Europe. Saying "Kazakhstan is not in Europe" is like saying "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbeijan, Russia aren't in Europe". Ron 1987 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If Kazakhstan isn't part of Europe, then by your criteria neither is Cyprus, Turkey, etc. Europe extends as far as the Ural Mountains, and part of Kazakhstan is on the European side. It is part of Europe. ConorBrady^.ie (caint) 12:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, with physical geography, Cyprus is considered 100% Asian. However, it's clearly socially very European. 68.227.163.169 (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I now agree that it is part of europe but why does the map not include it? Rctycoplay (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Marriage and other recognitions

I think the list should include other forms of gay union recognitions that are alternatives on the countries with marriage. For instance, in Portugal we have same-sex marriage and also a unregistered cohabitation law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.142.157 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Two separate maps of Europe

I propose the creation of two separate maps of Europe. The first would contain only about the legal status of marriage between same-sex couples. It would contain those countries that allow or prohibit it and those that are considering now or considered it in the past (because they will return to this subject in the future and to tick that such country is also among those who are developing in GLBT rights). The second map would contain the same aspects but for the recognition or considering of legalization of any other form of union which is not marriage (partnership, cohabitation). Since both aspects (marriage, partnership or cohabitation) are included on the one map, the image is very blends and is unreadable. Poland, for example prohibits marriages, but also proposes to legalize civil partnerships. If you activate the map with the marriage ban, you will not see that there is a debate about the partnerships legislation. On the other hand, in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and even in Russia (1996), for example, the legalization of same-sex unions was considered in the past. This topic always comes back here (declarations of support from politicians or political parties, or even civil union bills.) Supplementing these data reveal that now almost all Europe (except Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina) has addressed the recognition of relationships between the same-sex couples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.57.146 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

communists and gays

"In comparison, support tends to be the lowest from former-Communist states, such as Latvia, Lithuania and Poland" that isn't really wrong, but saying it like that suggest that support is lower because these countries used to be communist. isn't it more propable that it is lower because these countries are for the most part very catholic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.6.49.138 (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Spain and France are also very catholic, and rather supportive. But if you have a reliable source giving this reason, we may add it to the article. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the source for the data given in the article states it's not only "former communist" states, but other Eastern European states (Greece, Cyprus) as well who have lowest support. Neither is this restricted to catholics, as Greece is orthodox. I've fixed the sentence in the article accordingly. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Italy

After yesterday's Court of Cassation ruling, I think Italy should be put under unregistered cohabitation and painted in light blue on the map. From now on, same-sex couples can ask the judiciary to grant them the same rights as married couples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finedelledanze (talk • contribs) 09:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC) hm...this was not really in the news though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.108.204 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Italian Election & Civil Union Bill

Pier Luigi Bersani "Italy. Common Good" electoral coalition has maintained a consistent lead in the polls of around 10 points over Silvio Berlusconi's centre right coalition. Bersani has promised to move quickly to introduce civil union legislation if elected prime minister and with the election happening in just over a month could this be added to the future legislation section?

Also with the German election in September the Social Democratic Party and The Greens have all endorsed same-sex marriage (As well as The Left) with the SPD & Greens neck and neck in the polls with the Christian Democratic Union should something be mentioned about Germany in the future legislation section?

Guyb123321 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo as independent country

Is that neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.242.59 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

on the map N Ireland in dark blue

Attention! Somebody to amend the dark blue colour of N Ireland on the map indicating same-sex marriage is legal there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.192.1 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Scotland in dark blue

Attention! Attention! Could Scotland now be painted in dark blue? I am not aware whether we are awaiting any additional developments there to proclaim it as a same-sex marriage country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.192.1 (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The new law there hasn't received Royal Assent yet. While in practice this is never withheld from legislation in the UK, it does mean that the legislative process isn't complete yet. (To take a parralel, I believe that on the US map we didn't change state colors until the governor had signed the local law, even when the governor was on the record that s/he supported marriage equality.) --Jfruh (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Iceland - Partnership

In its "CASE OF VALLIANATOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE" judgment the ECHR mentions Iceland as a member state recognizing marriage and "some form of civil partnership".

Has Iceland not repealed its Registered Partnership law ? Or did it authorize two kinds of "non-marital partnership" ... now one repealed, one still in effect ? Or is it just a mistake by that court ? Or...

Knisfo (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't have both forms; here in England (and also next door in Wales); SS couples may choose either civil partnership or full marriage. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, whether they should or should not is obviously a decision ultimately made by lawmakers; i.e. which we just document on Wikipedia. SPQRobin (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It was repealed. See [3], [4], [5]. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

this article is a big mess

Why are Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (England and Wales) not listed in the "other type of partnership" section ?

Why are Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Pridnestrovie and South Ossetia not mentioned at all ? - You will say "not recognized". Whether or not being recognized as independent, sovereign states - they are "jurisdictions"... they've got their own laws.

Why are Greenland, Aruba, the Caribbean Netherlands, Curacao, Sint Maarten and the British Overseas Territories (with the exception of Gibraltar) not mentioned at all ? - You will say "not Europe". If I asked you to define "Europe" you'd talk about "Ural mountains", "Caucasus mountains", "Bosporus"... - But...Why are Armenia and Cyprus included ? You will say "European socio-politically", "Council of Europe", etc. - So ... let me ask you again ... Why are Greenland, .......

Why does this article not give any information about the pending marriage bills in Austria, Germany and Switzerland ?

(and so on) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This article refers to an imaginary German Federal Diet. (I corrected it but someone reinstated the error.) The German legislature consists of the Bundesrat and the Bundestag. In English-language publications, the German government refers to them collectively as the Parliament, never as a diet. We should respect the terminology that governments adopt for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWC (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the error is being re-inserted repeatedly by an IP without giving any argument... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Future Legislation

At the moment, I think that the "Future Legislation" is confusing because it doesn't distinguish between countries where same-sex marriage legislation is either government legislation or at least supported by the government, and those where the legislation is brought by the opposition and has no real prospect of being enacted.

For marriage, I would say that only Finland, Ireland and Jersey are realistically going to see same-sex marriage introduced in the near future. All others (particularly Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland) are not realistically going to see same-sex marriage until there is a change of government (or government policy). I would suggest deleting these entries, or at least putting them in a footnote rather than in the main section. Otherwise, it indicates that the legislation is likely to pass, even where there is no real chance.

For civil unions, I would say that all four (Andorra, Greece, Guernsey and Italy) are likely to see civil unions introduced, but that there is unlikely to be any progress at the EU level and so the European Union should be removed. In any event, the EU cannot introduce civil unions as family law is exclusively the preserve of EU member states.

What does everyone think? Chid12 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree to remove opposition proposals with no realistic chance of success (or put them in a separate section/footnote, as you did). We don't mention the many past unsuccessful bills at all, and we should avoid recentism. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think having separate sections is the best option. I view the section as giving a kind of "status per country", i.e. that it's better to list e.g. Germany and Austria as having opposition proposals with no realistic chance of passing, rather than not listing these countries at all. And I think for this the issue of recentism is not relevant, since it's giving the "latest status" in an already rather quickly developing area of law. SPQRobin (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

SPQRobin deleted information on Finland about something that DID happen - his argument was "this should be kept short preferably" - but then the section on Greenland became longer by adding information about something that DID NOT happen.

Of course the Finland section is the longest - Finland's bill is the most advanced one. It was not only submitted (unlike Switzerland's), it did not only in addition have its first reading (unlike Austria's and Germany's) - it was voted on by the justice committee, that committee published its report, parliament voted on that report, the bill was considered by the grand committee, was voted on again, is awaiting the president's signatures. Finland's bill is in its final stage - of course the Finland section is the longest one.

How do you know that the marriage bills in Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland don't have "a parliamentary majority" ? There has not yet been a vote in any of those countries. If there would have been a vote and if those bills would not have had "a parliamentary majority" - then those bills would be failed bills now, they would be dead - and not be mentionend in this article anymore at all.

Being submitted by the opposition does not mean that the bill will fail. (If I remember right the change to New Zealand's marriage laws was proposed by an opposition party - and New Zealand does have marriage now.

Of Italy's four civil union bills only one is a "Government proposals or ..." - the one that has not yet been even submitted. The three pending bills were submitted by parties single MPs - and how do you know that those bills do or do not have "a parliamentary majority" - there has not yet been a single vote.

There are many ways for a bill to make its way to parliament - government, group of MPs, single MP, parties, citizen's initiatives, NGO initiatives - the possibilities differ - we are talking about Europe - about 50-something (or so) countries / autonomous territories - 50-something different systems.

If separating bills by the way they made their way to parliament - we would have to create a bunch of sections. What is it usefull for ?

All those bills have in common that they are in parliament - and making their way through parliament - some will be rejected, others will be approved.

But we are no fortune tellers.Knisfo (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Chid12 wrote: "All others (particularly Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland) are not realistically going to see same-sex marriage"

In Austria and Germany there is (in theory) a parliamentary majority. If MPs are given a free vote - the bills are likely to pass. In both countries there's a grand coalition of social democrats and conservatives - in both countries the social democrats want that free vote - the conservatives are against. We don't know yet what is going to happen there - again: We are no fortune tellers.

The bill in Switzerland would make a change to the constitution. Sooner or later there will be a referendum. In Switzerland it is not only the government to decide the fate of that proposal.Knisfo (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Government proposals or ..."

In Ireland the government (strictly speaking) hasn't proposed the legalisation of same-sex marriage. It proposed to hold a constitutional convention. That constitutional convention was held and recommended holding a referendum - the government proposed to hold a referendum.

In Ireland it is not really the "parliamentary majority" that would approve marriage - it's essentially the people. The "parliamentary majority" would only mirror the outcome of the referendum. (It is highly unlikely that parliament would reject the proposal if the people voted for the proposal ... and even though political parties have stated their support for the change ... we don't know how they would really vote - there hasn't been a single vote in parliament yet.)

Everything is "what if ..."Knisfo (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Greece has been talking for years - about changing it's civil union law to have same-sex couples included. Nothing has ever happened.

(personally - i reject Greece being mentioned in this article at all - until there is a bill) (same goes for Cyprus)

The justice minister (who is obviously part of the government) has just recently said that he would never support same-sex marriage - and has also expressed his discomfort when it comes to civil unions.

If the government is to submit a bill - they would only do so because they are pressured by the ECHR. Would that bill really be a "government proposal" or a "ECHR proposal" ? Would there be a "parliamentary majority" or would MPs say "we don't care about the ECHR ruling" ?Knisfo (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

as said - 50-something countries = 50-something systems

"government proposal" "opposition proposal" is not enough - it doesn't fit (e.g.) Finland - but by adding even more sections to the list it would become more and more confusing.

already now it is more confusing than before - there were 2 sections only (one for marriage, one for civil union) - now there are 4.

On the one hand SPQRobin says ""this should be kept short preferably" - on the other hand this article became longer and more confusing by cutting it in pieces.Knisfo (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill imho.

About the new sections: we cannot indeed foresee what will eventually be approved. But we do base our articles on the available information. If a bill has been proposed by an opposition party, and it has not been considered for more than a year (which is a standard practice: these bills often get handled at the end of the legislative term), then based on that it has no realistic chance of passing. I eagerly await a change of the government's position. Nearly all European countries function with a parliamentary system so the government's position is determinative. I.e. if the government clearly supports passing legislation, that is a completely different thing, although in many cases it's going very slowly. Is the current separation based on whether it has majority support foolproof and ideal? No. Does it provide the information in a better way? I think it does. This separation generally corresponds to whether the proposals have any activity: those with a majority usually do (though often slowly) and vice versa; if you think that is a better way to word it, we could consider that.

As for the bit I removed from Finland, it was information that is no longer relevant to the current status: the bill is approved and little will happen for the coming months; what happened in its first steps is redundant for this overview. If you insist on mentioning it again, please add it, it's not that important after all. I would just like to mention you deleted no longer relevant information before too.

Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"If a bill has been proposed by an opposition party, and it has not been considered for more than a year [...] then based on that it has no realistic chance of passing."

In Austria the bill was on the justice committee's agenda in summer this year - but then the social democrats started talking about a free vote, started pressuring their smaller coalition partner, the conservatives. - The justice committee decided last-minute to postpone consideration of the bill. As the SPÖ is the biggest party in parliament it is not thaaat unlikely the bill will pass (at least it's not impossible).

The stalling of the German bill is actually a good sign. The conservatives would vote on the bill (and reject it) right now if they were given the chance. The social democrats try to make the conservatives agree to a free vote. It's the smaller coalition partner that blocks the bill's progress in the committees (they cannot vote against the bill as it is just a one-to-one copy of a bill they submitted themselves a few years ago).

---

Anyways ... your "no realistic chance of passing" and my "not that unlikely the bill will pass" are both not neutral - thus should in no way be reflected in the article.

The article was fine the way it was.

It was not confusing (by having both the marriage section and the civil union section cut in pieces)

It was more neutral (by not distuingishing between government/opposition etc.)Knisfo (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

that link to an old edit of mine:

In Luxembourg there was a new parliament, a change of government, newly appointed committee members ... - completely new conditions (after the parliamentary elections).

"You're making a mountain out of a molehill"

yes, maybe. It's just that I'd like to see one, just one, more or less good article on here - neutral, not much blah blah but just some plain facts. (In the end Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia.)

Look at Jersey - actually not much has happened yet - and even though nothing has happened yet ... the Jersey section takes up a lot of space. It could be shortened to two short sentences only ... without losing any of the information.Knisfo (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Slovenia

See Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Slovenia#Marriage legislation. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Croatia

Croatia first recognized same-sex unions in 2003. Yes, they were unregistered, but what is the difference? I changed it, and then somebody deleted who is not registered. Ridiculous. We try to create and update an article that will inform people properly, but unfortunately some people just seem to know better than others. What do we want to achieve? We want people to be informed,, and we need to give them correct information. Somebody not knowing much about LGBT rights and who comes across this article will never know that Croatian legislature recognized same-sex relationships 11 years before the new law on life partnerships. And I don't see the reason why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The section "Non-marital partnership", previously titled "Civil unions" was intended for registered forms of unions. I think that there a need to add a separate section/table to include the laws like the one mentioned above, named "Unregistered cohabitation". This name is used in Template:Same-sex unions. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if there is no objection, I will create "Unregistered cohabitation" table soon. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks 11raccoon1 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Iceland - cohabitation

Article 6 (chapter VI) of 2006 law says that cohabitation is a union registered in the National Register. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Spanish regions

I think Spanish communities should be removed from the list. They are not sovereign nations nor they are independently administered jurisdictions like in the case of Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Man, etc.). If we start adding subnational divisions to the list, the article loses clarity because of too much information. I propose that the Spanish regions' civil unions table be moved to the page 'Same-sex marriage in Spain'. Finedelledanze (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree. All jurisdictions should be listed here. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with parts from both your arguments. On the one hand, I think that the inclusion of each sub-national unit as its own entry has really cluttered up the article. However, we also have precedent for showing sub-national regions that legalized union before the national government stepped in. I'd like to propose a middle ground. Why don't we take the sub-nationals and place them under a Spanish entry, with their names, type, and entry into force date. If we did it this way, we wouldn't have the collage of flags in the "other type of partnership" column but could still maintain the relevance of why they are included at all. Let me know what you think. Chase1493 (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a matter of internal consistency of the page. The map showing state of recognition depicts countries; the links on the right refers to recognition of same-sex couples in countries. If I am a random reader, the table is meant to give me a quick representation of national developments regarding marriage and civil unions. I am not saying that it is not interesting to know about Spanish regions, but they are regions and could well be placed within Spain's main article, a page that already exists! Or shall we add also the 100 and more Italian cities that have passed civil unions? In Italy it is cities and not regions, that have the power of sanctioning civil unions. But if you start expanding the entries of this table, how can you argue to put Spanish regions in and not Italian cities? They are both subnational jurisdictions, with the same 'power' in terms of civil unions.. Also, it would be useful if the user Ron1987 can explain a bit better why 'ALL JURISIDICTIONS SHOULD be listed here'. Is it a moral law? Finedelledanze (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. There is no reason not to include Italian jurisdictions, if others (like the Spanish ones) are. But your proposal maintains inconsistency in this matter. I see two solutions:

1)The article lists all jurisdictions (including these in Italy).
2)The article present only the highest level of recognition. Informations about other forms of recognition are included in appriopriate articles. In this case, the Italian regions and these cities located in regions without civil unions should be included, because there is no civil unions at national level. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

then I would say option 2 is better. Having too much information in one single page is like having no information at all. That's also why hyperlinks exist: to make contents more tidy and handy. More than 200 Italian city halls have approved civil unions so far: http://www.wikipink.org/index.php?title=Elenco_dei_comuni_che_hanno_approvato_il_registro_delle_unioni_civili . Adding this content to "Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe" would make this page unviable, if I can be frank. Italian regions (except the autonomous region of Sicily) don't have the legislative power to pass civil registries for same-sex couples. I understand your point of being complete in one page, but you can list all that information about Spain in Spain's page and not make this page excessively difficult or unpleasant to read. You wouldn't lose information, but would gain in clarity. When you read on newspapers "X countries in the world have already legalised gay marriage" you are not really thinking of what is going on in Castile La Mancha.. or are you? ;) Finedelledanze (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

maybe this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_North_America could be a good model for a compromise, since it separates nation states from subnational jurisdictions. Finedelledanze (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

11 regions have registries. But we can wait with it for a while, as national Civil union bill is poised to be enacted by the summer.... I made a change in line with option 2. That reduced the article significantly. Finland should remain in the partnership section because the marriage law will take effect in 2017, and its full implementation requires further stututory changes. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank You. On Italian regions, I think sources are not reliable. To my knowledge all regions but Sicily have passed symbolic resolutions calling for equality but have not created a public registry recording cohabitations. This can only be done at city level, because it is cities that are in charge of demographic records in Italy. Sicily is different because it is a 'special status' region, like Sardinia, Friuli, Valle d'Aosta and Trentino Sudtirol. I've raised the issue in the talk page of the Italian wiki article. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Co-existence of marriage and civil union

An article on "Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe" should give proper information about "Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe".

Some European countries happen to offer two partnership recognition schemes. It's a fact. You can't ignore facts just to keep the article short.

As there are about 50 European countries, an article on something "Europe" has to cope with 50-something potential entries. Otherwise this article shouldn't even exist.

Spain's regions don't have to be listed separately. There is a national law laying down the rights and obligations of couples in a de facto union. There is just no national registry. The regions that established registries could simply be mentioned in the "notes" section. 176.4.112.111 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

They have to be listed separately, otherwise it is inconsistency. Spain, as a whole, with its 1994 law, belongs to unregistered cohabitation category, regions with registries to the partnership one. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a "Spain-as-a-whole" law on registered de facto unions. It is (in the main) that national law that lays down the rules. As said, there is just no national registry. Those regions that set up registries (in line with the national law) could be mentioned in the notes section.176.0.115.126 (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And to be "struggling" with Spain is no reason to delete information on BE, FR, IS, LU, NL and UK. All those countries do have civil union laws in force.

Instead of having those countries excluded there must be found a way to have Spain included.176.0.115.126 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Unregistered cohabitation and civil unions are two different things. Spain as whole cannot be classified in the partnership section, because there is no national registry. Besides, there is no law requiring the central government to recognize the union registered under a regional law. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Where did i write anything about "unregistered cohabitation" ?

2. There is in fact a national law dealing with the regions' registered unions. Those unions are recognized by the central government.

(e.g.: Foreign registered partners are given a residence permit thanks to the national law (dealing with the regions' registered unions) .176.0.115.126 (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Where you found information about recognition by the central government? Even if it's true, it's still union registered under the regional law, so Spain (as a whole) cannot be classified in partnership section, but in the unregistered cohabitation one. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I contacted Spanish embassies etc. So far two responses, saying there is a national law laying down rules...

- on requirements the unions have to fulfill (partners must not be married or already in a civil union; partners must live together, unions have to be registered in the region of residence)

- covering issues the regions don't have the competence to make decisions for (e.g. immigration)

(I am still waiting for them to send me a link to the law.)176.0.115.126 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

but still...

Not knowing how to handle Spain does not justify removing nine other countries. Maaaaybe Denmark, Norway and Sweden could be removed. However, BE, FR, IS, LU, NL and UK must be included. In this very moment they do have "Recognition of same-sex unions ..." in the form of civil union. They have civil union laws in force.176.0.115.126 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with reinserting them, but the Spanish regions also have to return. Spain does not have national registry, so can't be listed in the partnership section. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Spain has to return, too

But why think law by law, why not country by country instead

Why not use the "notes"-field to clarify

This way all Spanish regions would be listed - in a single entry ("Spain") instead of separately. The table would be shorter and less chaotic. And it would be consistent with France and the Netherlands (sub-national entities in the "notes" section)

	Jurisdiction	entry into force	notes
	Spain	(There is no national registry.	There are registries in Andalusia (29 December 2002 / "De Facto Couple") Aragon (21 April 1999 / "Unmarried Stable Couple") Asturias (1 June 2002 / Stable Couple) Balearic Islands (29 Januar 2002 / Stable Couple) Basque Country (24 May 2003 / "De Facto Couple") Canary Islands (20 March 2003 / "De Facto Couple") Cantabria (30 May 2006 / "De Facto Couple") Catalonia (19 August 1998 / "Stable Union") Castile and Leon (31 December 2002 / "De Facto Union") Castile-La Mancha(14 September 2000 / "De Facto Couple") Ceuta (11 September 1998 / "De Facto Union") Extremadura (9 April 2003 / "De Facto Couple") Galicia (28 January 2008 / "De Facto Couple") La Rioja (2 June 2010 / "De Facto Couple") Madrid (1 September 2002 / "De Facto Union") Melilla (1 February 2008 / "De Facto Couple") Navarre (7 August 2000 / "Stable Union") Valencia (12 April 2001 / "De Facto Union)

What do you think about this?

Status	Jurisdiction	Legal since
Other type of partnership	Andorra	23 March 2005
	Belgium	1 January 2000
	Croatia	5 August 2014
	Denmark: Greenland	— 26 April 1996
	Estonia	1 January 2016
	France	16 November 1999
	Germany	1 August 2001
	Gibraltar	28 March 2014
	Malta	17 April 2014
	Slovenia	23 July 2006
	Spain: Andalusia Aragon Asturias Balearic Islands Basque Country Canary Islands Cantabria Catalonia Castile and León Castile-La Mancha Ceuta Extremadura Galicia La Rioja Madrid Melilla Navarre Valencia	— 29 December 2002 21 April 1999 1 June 2002 29 January 2002 24 May 2003 20 March 2003 30 May 2006 19 August 1998 31 December 2002 14 September 2000 11 September 1998 9 April 2003 28 January 2008 2 June 2010 1 September 2002 1 February 2008 7 August 2000 12 April 2001
	Switzerland	1 January 2007
	United Kingdom	5 December 2005

It is modelled (partially) on Template:Same-sex unions. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

1. On your list you can't tell on first sight what date belongs to what Spanish region as they are not in one line. What looks fine on your screen doesn't necessarily look fine on other screens. On my screen it looks like three dates don't belong to any region, while e.g. "Castile-La Mancha" appears in one line with Ceuta's date. I have to count regions and dates to know what date belongs to what region.

2. Andorra has got two forms of partnership (and Italy will likely be in the same situation from sometime this year). Both dates have to be mentioned. But just seeing the dates readers would be confused - "Why two dates for one country ?". So in Andorra's case the unions' names have to be mentioned - to tell the unions apart. And if you give the names of one country's unions, you have to give the names of all countries' unions.

3. France and the Netherlands each got two dates, too. Both dates have to be mentioned - with an explanation on why there are two dates. 176.2.10.171 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So I don't see any other solution than returning to this version. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Two options:

1. See the table as "law by law" - and list all Spanish sub-national units separately. But then we would also have to list certain British, Danish, Dutch and French sub-national units separately. When considering to cut countries (with special territories/situations) into pieces - it must apply to all of them or none

or...

2. See the table as "country by country" - and keep the British, Danish, Dutch and French sub-national units in their respective parent country's notes section and treat Spanish sub-national units the same.

The lack of a national registry could simply be mentioned somewhere.176.2.10.171 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Return to this version is still better option... Ron 1987 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Table on non-marital partnership - including Spain:

your proposal vs. my proposal176.2.10.171 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Spain does not have nation registry, so cannot be listed in the partnership section. Only regions with registries. Separately. Otherwise, it's inconsistency. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with a national registry ? It's a table listing countries, not registry offices.

Does the Kingdom of Denmark have a nation-wide registry - or do Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland have their own registries ?

Does the Kingdom of the Netherlands have a nation-wide registry - or do its constituent countries have their own registries ?

etc.176.2.10.171 (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And my proposal clearly states that there is no national registry - so readers won't be confused.176.2.10.171 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In the end both of our proposals include the same information - but my proposal doesn't make the table burst as much as yours. And all information on Spain is in a single entry - as is all information on France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom...

All countries' special territories/situations are in the notes section - that is consistency. 176.2.10.171 (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no national civil union law in Spain, so country as whole cannot be classified as having civil unions. It's very simple. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Then get Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom out of the marriage table - there is no nation-wide marriage law in those countries.

Get Denmark, France and the Netherlands out of the civil union table - there is no nation-wide civil union law in those countries. And isn't civil partnership in the UK also a devolved matter now? (e.g.:Scotland is considering to open CP's for straight couples while in other parts of the UK it won't happen. So somehow the one CP law became three laws over time)176.2.10.171 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You talk about "consistency" but at the same time you want to give Spain some special treatment somehow.

List all British, Danish, Dutch, French and Spanish territories separately then.

Cut countries into pieces, but ... either all or none - it's indeed very simple.176.2.10.171 (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe division would be usefull. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Such a table would be wonderfull to read. Oh so neatly arranged, mixing countries and territories all up

and yeah, having about 50 entries is so much better than having about 20 entries.176.2.10.171 (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

1. By your "division" you'd have four tables instead of two only. Your "division" cuts everything even more into pieces, makes the article even longer.

2. When a law applies to "England and Wales only" - it's not national. When a law does "not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland" - it's not national.

3. What about Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten then ? The Netherlands law does not apply but Dutch marriages are recognized there to some extent.

So you would need even more tables:

"Recognition of foreign marriage sub-national", currently for Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten.

"Recognition of foreign marriage national", currently for Malta.176.2.10.171 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The British, Dutch, and Danish laws were passed by the national parliaments and central governments are responsible for its enforcement. Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are not European jurisdictions, information in notes section is absolutely enough. Yes, there would be a need for Recognition of foreign marriage national table. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

1. There is not really a Dutch national parliament. Four countries, four parliaments - one country cannot make laws for another country. The Hague cannot enforce laws in Aruba.

2. To have information on Aruba in the Netherlands' notes section is indeed enough - because it's part of the Netherlands, not because it's "not European". This article isn't about geography, but about something (socio-)political.176.2.10.171 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyprus is "not European" - but I'm sure you'd insist on having Cyprus listed, wouldn't you ? But... in the notes section of which European country would you mention non-European Cyprus ?176.2.10.171 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it the purpose of tables to give accurate information in as few words as possible ?

You want five tables with a total of almost 60 entries - as opposed to my two tables with a total of 33 entries.

Both of our proposals give exactly the same information !176.2.10.171 (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, your proposal is not accurate and is misleading per reasons presented above. I will restore old version of the article. Spanish regions will not be included, as long as there is no consensus on this matter... ~Ron 1987 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"not accurate" ? Both proposals give exactly the same information !

"reasons presented above" ? The only reason you give is that there is no national registry.

My proposal cleary states: "There is no national registry" !

What is misleading then ?!?176.2.10.171 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This suggests that there is a national civil union law, just there is no national registry.. It is absurd. Civil union and unregistered cohabitation are two different things. Registry or its lack makes the difference between one and the other. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Again: Where did I say just anything about "unregistered cohabitation" ?

YOU are the who comes up with it again and again.

2. Again: There is some national law (enacted about 10 years ago, dealing with the regions' registered unions). There is just no national registry.

But...

Even if you insist on "there is no national law" it'd still be better to simply add one short sentence to the table ("There is no national law."), instead of causing a total mess by having 60 entries spread over five tables.

Why do you totally ignore the existence of the notes section and the possibility of using it to make things clear by adding just one short sentence ?176.4.108.40 (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that the size is a big problem in this case. I don't agree with that more tables and entities in the article will cause a mess. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC for the Recognition of Same-Sex Union Pages.

Could editors please join the discussion here? I don't want this to become inconclusive, other perspectives are needed. Thanks. Chase1493 (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Slovakia

Do they really have a constitutional ban? The Slovak same-sex marriage referendum, 2015 failed, after all...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The ban was passed by parliament in June 2014 and took effect in September. The proposal voted in February was different, citizen-initiated measure .Ron 1987 (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. How was the referendum's "Question 1 – marriage" different from the existing constitution's ban, as quoted e.g. in [6]? They seem to be almost literally the same... so was this a question on a constitutional change that already happened? (Questions 2 and 3 of the referendum were more far-reaching, indeed.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant the wording (slightly different), not the effect (the same in both cases). Apparently, proponents of the referendum saw the vote as a way to reaffirm the ban... They also wanted to ban civil unions, but question on this matter was blocked by the Constitutional Court. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My edits on the top section

I have quite a lot to discuss mainly because some anonymous user has kept deleting my edits for absolutely no reason as well as explication.

1. There are currently 25 countries which recognize some form of recognition for same-sex couples. 12 as marriage, 12 as civil union and 1 as unregistered cohabitation. Though unregistered cohabitation in San marino doesn't recognize same-sex couples in all entitlements, it does in immigration. It means same-sex couples are recognized for only that entitlement (of course one of them needs to be an immigrant). Eventough it's not a lot, there are recognized. Therefore San Marino should be treated as the twenty-fifth country.

2. Though there are 50 countries in Europe that are fully recognized as countries, there are also 6 which are partially recognized (or not even recognized). Should we mention them or not?

3. There is no reason why on the page "Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe", we should put notes which state "Excluding Aruba..." If these territories are not even in Europe. Or do you think it's useful to mention them?

4. I really don't think we should mention under countries with legal civil union, countries where civil union was outranked by marriage. I think we should just put the ones where it's currently legal and for example state: "currenty there are thirteen countries with an alternative form of recognition for same-sex couples other than marriage". I presume no couple (in countries where same-sex marriage and civil union are legal) enters into a civil union nowadays. There marry. I think it's useless to mention them. And not to mention much shorter if they aren't there.

So I hope we come to an agreement. And so I also hope to hear your ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.107.68.17 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

1) All countries that got marriage and/or civil union and/or unregistered cohabitation are mentioned in both, the respective table(s) and the introduction. San Marino does appear on the list on unregistered cohabitation and even got its very own sentence in the introduction. So what are you complaining about ?

2) Those unrecognized countries don't recognize same-sex couples. Whether or not to include them is, as of now, not necessary to discuss. That problem will arise once they are about to plan to recognize same-sex couples.

3) This article is on something (socio-)political. Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are European countries, obviously. They happen to have territories that are geographically associated with non-European regions. This article isn't on something "geography" though. Certain Dutch and French territories don't have any autonomy at all. Those territories are politically as Dutch as Amsterdam, as French as Paris. Bonaire's laws are decided in Amsterdam, Mayotte's laws are decided in Paris. It was London that legalized same-sex sexual activity in the British Caribbean territories and could bring marriage and/or civil partnerships to those territories, if it wanted to etc. (When comparing European integration, which also affects LGBT rights to some extent, Guadeloupe is more European than Andorra; Greenland used to be more European than Ukraine ever will be.)

4a) "I think we should just put the ones where it's currently legal"

In all countries listed it is currently legal. I agree that Denmark, Norway and Sweden could maybe be removed from the civil union table. Although their laws still know registered partnerships, those laws apply more or less only to partnerships registered at home before 2009/2012. Registries are closed for new entries.

4b) "I presume no couple [...] enters into a civil union nowadays" "[They] marry"

Facts vs. your presumption - sorry, I prefer facts.

What you presume is of absolutely no interest when it comes to giving proper information, when it comes to facts. Wikipedia calls itself "encyclopedia", not "Tangotopaz's diary".

In (e.g.) France and the Netherlands civil unions are actually very popular. Both countries regularly publish statistics. Malta released its first report this year. Civil unions are, in certain cases, not just a copy of marriage by another name. They form a real alternative to marriage, exactly because they don't include the same rights and obligations. Ever thought of the likelihood of some couples going like "We don't want to carry all those burdens that come by marriage", "We don't need all those rights that come by marriage", "Let's first try a civil union and if we still get along in a few years we could still get married maybe", ... or something? (And don't forget: In all countries (except the UK) that offer both marriage and civil union, those civil union laws are gender-neutral. They are an integral part of equality regarding opposite-sex and same-sex couples.)

Not listing those laws is 1. denial of the very fact that those laws do exist, and 2. dicriminatory, discriminating against all those couples that have, for whatever reason, chosen a civil union over a marriage and those that ever will prefer a civil union over a marriage.176.2.78.96 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I appreciate your response. There just a few things I'm not sure you understood correctly. So you agree San Marino recognized same-sex couples. At the very top it states 24 out of 50 countries. That was all I was talking about. It shoud be 25 out of 50. The partially recognized countries, I was just asking if we should count them. 56 instead of 50. (As there're 6 partially or unrecognized countries) That's all really. I agree you're right for the rest. Thanks a lot. 92.107.68.17 (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I still have to disagree about mentioning twice the countries which have legalized both marriage and civil union on the top. How about we just put it like so: "Currently there are 12 countries which have legalized same-sex marriage. Currently there are 13 countries which have legalized only an alternative form of recognition for same-sex couples." People can still see on the tables, the countries where civil union and marriage have both been legalized. Maybe we can insert a sentence, which for example state: "In most countries where same-sex marriages are performed, civil unions were legalized beforehand and are still frequently performed". 92.107.68.17 (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage section

An IP editor has raised concerns (after edit warring and getting the page protected) that this section is not appropriate for this page as it deals with the banning of same-sex unions, which they claim is adequately covered in other articles. What are your thoughts? Pinging the editor who added the section, Sdino. Sam Walton (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the section should stay, because the ban on same-sex unions is the union being recognised that it exists by law, but that it is not allowed in that country. Sdino (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No country's constitution makes reference to "same-sex unions" (,as far as I know). The non-recognition of same-sex unions is not explicitly recognized. "Marriage is a union of one man and one woman" is not the same as "Same-sex marriage is banned". You don't find the latter in any constitution.176.4.4.194 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

But that is how all bans are worded. Sdino (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. So your "same-sex unions [...] being recognized [...] by law, but [...] not allowed" is not correct. The non-existence of same-sex unions is not explicitly recognized. The existence of opposite-sex unions is.176.2.92.252 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And what about the "bans" in all other countries' laws (civil codes, ordinary laws...) ? All countries not allowing same-sex couples to get married define marriage as a union of one man and one woman in some law, don't they. If all laws regulating marriage were gender-neutral, same-sex couples could get married. Rewording the laws, from "one man, one woman" to "two persons", from "husband and wife" to "spouses" etc., is exactly what those countries that allow same-sex couples to get married did.176.2.92.252 (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but how is that relevant to the inclusion of the table in this article? Sdino (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want a table listing countries that ban same-sex marriage ... Why not listing all countries that ban it (that would be all countries that don't allow it). Why only those that ban it in their constitutions ? That's biased. A ban in a constitution doesn't give you any less rights than a ban in a civil code, ordinary law etc. Your rights are non-existent anyways. The way of banning it doesn't make any practical difference. The effect is always the same: Same-sex couples are banned from contracting marriage.46.114.81.21 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The current effect is the same, but constitutional bans are harder to overturn than "normal" bans, reducing the chance of future SSM legalization. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

1. The section's title is "current situation". The "current effect", yes, is the same ! So all countries that currently "ban" same-sex marriage have to be listed.

2.Civil codes are not really "normal" laws, are they. Civil code amendmends tend to require more than just a simple majority - as do constitutional amendments.176.0.114.40 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

1. I'd say that the current situation consists of more than the current legal effect. If a country went to the trouble of a constitutional ban (instad of just doing nothing, like Italy), it "actively" declares same-sex relationships as inferior, which influences the situation these couples find themselves in (at least psychologically). But I wouldn't mind replacing "Current situation" by "Legal situation". AFAIK we also list SSM legalizations that are not yet in effect, after all. 2. Civil code is just a collection of laws. I'm not aware of marriage laws requiring larger majorities than other laws in general; it's not true e.g. in Germany. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

MALTA IS WRONG

The info on Malta is wrong in the map and in the charts. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Malta In both places you have Malta as only recognising foreign marriages. This is wrong. Malta has civil unions that are equal to marriage in all but name (including equal adoption rights - so better than a same-sex Portuguese marriage). Part of their civil union law says that foreign marriage and civil unions are recognised as Maltese civil unions. this is the same as all other civil union laws. Malta should be light blue on the map and included in 'other type of partnership' on the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.246.165 (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Malta

I know this may seem like a bit of a technicality, but I have a source that says marriages entered abroad are treated as marriages. Would this warrant a change in any way? While it seems odd that the republic would offer civil unions for its citizens and not marriage, I think the fact that they will recognize same-sex marriages from any jurisdiction as a marriage in their country warrants changing the color. Perhaps we could take the bright teal color from the world map and use it on the European one? Let me know your thoughts.

Here is the source: http://www.kaleidoscot.com/malta-2704. It is quite recent as well. Chase1493 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Foreign marriage recognized as marriage; indeed it is.

according to the civil registry office's website, according to the law, according to plenty of news articles, (and, just btw: according to my own experience)

Around the time the civil union act was considered by parliament there were dicussions on some other pages. Some people on here are not much into facts though.

Thus unfortunately Malta is still not mentioned as recognizing marriage as marriage, although it has done so for almost a year now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.130.118 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

For more than a year now, Malta recognizes foreign same-sex marriages and provides for same-sex civil unions within the country. That should be reflected in its entry in the table. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Chart Numbers Don't Add Up

Please update the chart. Some of the columns are misaligned. In addition, Italy is missing from all the categories (it should be under "no recognition" for now).

It is also clear that the percentage shares of Europe don't add up. In addition to having Italy missing (~60 million people) which skews the numbers, the decision to move UK and Netherlands to a separate chart means that the ~80 million people who live in those countries aren't counted toward the total European population. I suggest for clarity that this second chart is merged with the first chart, so the totals can be read at a glance. It's also quite confusing to see the chart not include Netherlands and UK in the list of countries allowing SSM (especially since the only parts of Netherlands not allowing SSM are not *in Europe*).

I would also suggest removing Russia and Turkey from the table, as most of their populations are not *in Europe*, in the same way that the parts of France and UK that are overseas are not counted toward the total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.9.138 (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

To your first point, you are completely correct. The numbers do not add up and that fault is entirely on me. Another user and myself had a discussion about the UK and the Netherlands, his argument was that since the Netherlands is merely a constituent country within the kingdom, it should be listed in the sub-national section. I think I have an idea of how to clean this up and will be playing around with the table to see how it pans out. As for Turkey and Russia -- If there is a viable way to delineate the populations of the European sections of these countries, then I am completely open to changing the numbers. However, the way we are defining Europe is a point of confusion. There are many points of reference we could use, but the scope of the page and primarily the map as it stands includes more than "just Europe". I would like to see the the North African and Middle Eastern countries which fit none of the criteria removed completely (i.e. Jordan, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, etc.). That leaves us with others, like Kazakhstan which has no European ambitions whatsoever, but has territory that is geographically defined within Europe. So my question is, how do we define what is included in this page and the other geographical pages at large. Should it be physical, cultural, institutional participation (i.e. Council of Europe or European Union), or something entirely different. Until then, I'm hesitant to start knocking out countries because of one's POV. Perhaps we can start a more lengthy discussion and list countries of particular ambiguity? I think we often forget that these maps and pages are political in nature and thus do not have to completely align with a physical location when the there will inevitably be overlap else where (i.e. Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan). That is my opinion, others views would be great though. Chase1493 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Map is mislabelling Malta

Please update the MAP. VoxEurope News published it and it's not entirely correct, which is confusing and embarrassing. Malta shows as light green (indicating that it recognises marriages from abroad), but the map makes it look like that's all Malta does, which is incorrect. Malta also has Civil Unions that are equal to marriage in all but name, and include adoption rights (so legally superior to a same-sex marriage in Portugal for instance). Malta should be a striped with light blue and light green so indicate both situations (like Croatia is blue and red, due to having civil unions and a marriage ban). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.138.17 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) 84.92.138.17 (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)MT

I understand your point, but trying to stripe Malta would only make things more complicated. The small dot split into two colors would barely be recognizable on most screens. For a very long time now, we have had a policy of higher forms of relationship recognition superseding the lower ones. Though this has created a point of contention with one user in particular; I want to be respectful to all I understand their view though it has certainly made things more complicated. Chase1493 (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The new table

1. Bonaire, French Polynesia etc. were removed, while Greenland was kept, and Armenia and Cyprus newly added.

What makes Armenia, Cyprus and Greenland more "Europe" than Bonaire, French Polynesia etc. ?

2. So far there has been no need to discuss the inclusion of Abkhazia, Pridnestrovie etc. But now, that the tables list all European countries, (including those that don't recognize same-sex unions,) ... What about Abkhazia, Pridnestrovie etc. ?

3. Why do the population figures on Azerbaijan, France, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Spain, Turkey, etc. each cover the whole respective country, when non-European parts of transcontinental countries' areas are not relevant to this article anymore ?

4. Where do those numbers (on all countries) come from ? Article says "last census count". What census ? Those numbers are not consistent with the data given in the articles about the countries.

5. Finland was removed from the civil union section and now appears in the marriage section only. For the next one and a half years (or beyond) there won't be any married couples.

Now the table suggests that Finland does currently not recognize same-sex couples at all, and that marriage from 2017 is a done deal.

As the former table stated ...Further legislation needs to be passed. Now the article doesn't say so anymore. There is no link to the governments timetable anymore.

6.Estonia's cohabitation agreements are no done deal yet either. Information on that was removed, too.

7. :"Since 2017", "since 2016" and "since October 2015". Well, those dates are in the future.

8. Marriage in Greenland is still pending. The link on the table is about merely a resolution passed by Greenland's parliament. An actual bill has to be passed by Denmark's parliament. That bill is still pending, as the link in the future legislation section clearly shows.176.2.47.255 (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

9. In both, Denmark and the United Kingdom, (marriage) legislation was passed by the national parliaments, and in both that legislation applies to certain territories only. Why are all British territories listed as "sub-national", while the Danish territories are split into "sub-national" and "national" ? What is it that justifies not to treat DK and UK the same ?176.0.86.222 (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

10. "Current legislation" section: In addition to Finland, which now appears as currently not recognizing same-sex couples at all !!!, ... BE, FR, IS, LU, MT, NL and the UK do currently have a registration scheme other than marriage, as an alternative to marriage. These forms of "current legislation" are denied the right to exist on here. An "encyclopedia" cannot at its own will repeal countries' laws.176.0.86.222 (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

11. The Netherlands is given as "national" on the Europe table, while Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are given as "sub-national" on the North America table. All four constituent countries got the same status within the Kingdom. The three Caribbean constituent countries of the Kingdom are not sub-national units of the European constituent country. All four countries are equally sub-national units of the Kingdom as a whole.176.4.71.43 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Well for starters, those countries are members of the council of Europe. Cyprus is also a member of the European Union. I would be open to removing Greenland from the list entirely, as it has an entry on the North American page.

2. Last time I checked, the only countries that were placed in these pages were sovereign states, hence why neither the ones you mentioned, nor ones with even more recognition (like Kosovo) are added.

3 & 4 The population counts should be listed as last estimate, the census thing was my error, much of this table was built off the ones existing on other other pages. As for the whole vs. European population, that is a very hard thing pin a number on. If you feel so strongly about it then by all means, find out how many live in the European parts of the transcontinental countries and revise the number.

6 & 7 Yes those dates are in the future, however they were passed and signed and are going to legally enter force on those dates. The situation in Estonia may go through some hick-ups (i.e. being worked out in government or parliament) until there is a change or repeal, it is still a law. Finland can fall into the same boat, although their parliament added a clause which forces the incoming parliament, regardless of its new power dynamic, to bring the law into effect.

8 While we could say the point is moot if we remove Greenland, the parliament of greenland did pass the Danish marriage law, it must be followed up in Denmark's parliament by decree. However, the parliament of Greenland doesn't pass a mere "resolution" it passed an extension of the law on its own territory.

9 once again, the situations in the U.K. and Denmark are not entirely the same. Once Northern Ireland has same-sex marriage, the U.K. will find itself in the marriage column, bar the dependencies and territories. Denmark isn't made up of constituent countries in the same way that it plays out in the U.K. this is even more true if we remove Greenland from the page entirely, which I'm fine with.

10 I know this is your most important thing. To rectify the so-called discrimination against civil unions (which were created entirely as a homosexual alternative too marriage) we can add a point below the marriage column pointing out that in the countries (i.e. Belgium, France, Luxembourg, etc.) that have passed marriage, they still offer other forms of partnerships.

11 The Netherlands in the scope of this article is fully national. The kingdom of the Netherlands kinda says it all in the title. While you are correct that Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Maarten are constituent countries, they still are not independent out right and the "metropolitan" Netherlands acts as their voice in many instances within the international community.

P.S. Sorry I can't always respond right after you do I have a busy life to live. That said, don't revert the articles because you think that by no-response, you have consensus. I see you as the only one bitterly arguing to the end about some rather asinine points. Chase1493 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

1. a) The British, French etc. overseas territories are part of the Council of Europe, too. They are as bound by the European Convention on Human Rights as are the non-overseas territories of the countries concerned.

b) Certain French, and the Portuguese and Spanish overseas territories are part of the EU, too. Saint Barthelemy was part of the EU until 2012. Greenland was part of the then-EC until 1985.

So ... what makes Armenia and Cyprus more European than Aruba, Guadeloupe etc. ?

2. Greenland did pass a mere resolution; not a law. This is the document passed by Greenland's parliament. It is not a law. And this is the actual law proposal that would bring marriage to Greenland. That law proposal is currently still pending in the parliament of Denmark.

3. Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are not any less "independent outright" than the (constituent country) Netherlands. The constituent country "Netherlands" is, within the Kingdom of the "Netherlands", in the same situation as the other constituent countries. All four countries are subordinate to the Kingdom as a whole. All four countries' constitutions are subordinate to the Kingdom's constitution.

It is not the constituent country ("metropolitan")-"Netherlands" that "acts [...] within the international community" (in respect of Aruba etc.). It doesn't even have the right to do so. It is the Kingdom of the "Netherlands" that does so.

(The constitution of the Kingdom [7] and the constitutions of Aruba [8], Curacao [9], the Netherlands [10] and Sint Maarten [11].)

Family law is no Kingdom affair. It is constitutionally impossible for the Netherlands to have national laws on marriage and registered partnership.176.2.124.177 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright.

1 & 4. As for any of the territories, dependencies, or constituent countries - if they have a place in another recognition table, the point is moot. If you want me to put the Netherlands in the sub-national for consistency, I will. I think it does over-kill on what we're trying to present, but I can respect your desire for accuracy.

2. The Spanish, Portuguese, (or French for that matter) that you mentioned are integral parts of those countries and aren't delegated much autonomy; they are wholly tied to the main article and don't warrant a special mention, anywhere.

3.The fact that Armenia and Cyprus are both sovereign states and didn't get piggy backed into the council like the territories you mentioned means a great deal. They had to stand and be measured on their own merits, without any "colonial" government bringing them in under a superior governing body. I really don't think you're being fair when you weigh a state against a dependency. Chase1493 (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If this page is about the european situation, why are there also countries that are not part of Europe? Georgia is not in Europe. Alex 21/12/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.22.235.163 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There are a variety of ways of assigning Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Cyprus to Europe or Asia. See Boundaries between continents#Europe and Asia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Greece

Please add Greece.As of today Greece recognises same-sex unions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is normally not considered as an European country

Kazakhstan is normally considered an Asian country ( a very small part -less than 10% is sometimes regarded as European). The calculation (%) of people living in a country with some sort of same sex recognition in Europe in the table is clearly influenced towards a low percentage due to the inclusion of a massive amount of folks actually living in Asia instead of Europe. Including 100% of Kazakhs, 100% of Turks and 100% of Russians is incorrectly decreasing the percentage of Europeans living in a country with some sort of formal recognition. Grsd (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Bulgaria banned same-sex marriage???

On the map it appears that Bulgaria has banned same-sex marriage; however, I have never heard of such a measure. In Bulgaria, marriage is defined as between man and woman, but the situation in Sweden was the same before the adoption of gender-neutral definition (so you cannot say that Sweden had banned same-sex marriage and then allowed it!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.15.181 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But it wasn't in Sweden's constitution. Niew (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a constitutional matter. Unfortunately the country should change the constitution. Mark45 (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

EUROBAROMETER 2015

http://www.lavanguardia.com/vangdata/20151006/54437898165/paises-ue-mas-menos-proclives-aceptar-matrimonio-homosexual.html

Acceptance: Netherlands 91% Sweden 90% Denmark 87% Spain 84% Ireland 80% Belgium 77% Luxembourg 75% France 71% United Kingdom 71% Germany 66% Finland 66% Malta 65% Austria 62% Portugal 61% Czech Republic 57% Italy 55% Slovenia 54% Hungary 39% Croatia 37% Cyprus 37% Greece 33% Estonia 31% Poland 28% Lithuania 24% Slovakia 24% Romania 21% Latvia 19% Bulgaria17% — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardaAlba (talk • contribs)

I had already added these results to LGBT rights in the European Union; I now also updated the oldest data on Template:Same-sex marriage opinion polls Europe (used on this article) with these Eurobarometer results. SPQRobin (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Can the opinion poll table be edited? apparently not! Can someone please update with new poll for Italy (source: Demos http://www.demos.it/a01231.php?ref=HRER3-1): for gay marriage (56%), against (40%), DK/NA (4%). Thanks.Finedelledanze (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Poland

I can't say that Poland imposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Article 18. states: Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland. This means only that this special type of marriage as unions of different sexes is protected but simultanously it not constitute ban for ssm. If legalised, it would be the other type of marriage not protected by article 18. Marriage as unionen of man and woman is established in The Family And Guardianship Code from 1964. Ewa Łętowska, the first ombudsman in Poland accept it as a correct way of interpetation.

http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,13622028,Prof__Letowska__Konstytucja_nie_zakazuje_zwiazkow.html

Aight 2009 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)