Talk:Same-sex marriage in Brazil/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Same-sex marriage in Brazil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Update

Could someone please update the article? An update on that ruling on gay marriage that the article said would be expected in late 2006 would be good, as well as the impact on a national level of the 2005 ruling on gay adoption in São Paulo (can gay couples everywhere in the country adopt now, or is it just SP, or just that specific couple).

The first ruling is updated now. The adoption issue still needs to be updated. A.Z. 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It would appear that most of what we can say about Civil unions in Brazil relates to Civil unions in Rio Grande do Sul. I don't think two articles are justified and having them entails unnecessary repetition. Both pages have to discuss Civil unions in Rio Grande do Sul. Other regional pages in the "Civil unions in..." and "Same-sex marriage in..." series have been merged into national pages. For example Civil unions in Toscania, Umbria, Emilia Romagna and Civil unions in Catalonia and other 10 of 17 spanish regions link to Civil unions in Italy and Civil unions in Spain respectively. Both of the latter pages discuss the regional situation. Caveat lector 16:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça?

There is no such court in Brazil (there is one in Portugal, though). There is a court called Supremo Tribunal Federal and another court called Superior Tribunal de Justiça. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.152.194 (talk) 16:43, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Those names all look alike, though. A.Z. 03:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Can anyone fix this? There is so much wrong with it... I don't even know where to begin. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the worst article about the status of same-sex unions...I'd appreciate it too if someone could fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.156.251 (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fix translation please

I have no idea where this information came from - I assume it's a website in Portuguese - but could someone who speaks English please translate it all properly, instead of running it through Babelfish and throwing it on the wiki? Roscelese (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why all those pictures?

Articles on other countries' gay marriage legislation don't have similar pictures. 187.112.21.176 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No SSM yet

That some judge allowed one couple to marry does not make same-sex marriage legal for everyone in Brazil and this issue is not settled. In fact, Brazil's Supreme Court ruled in May that SSMs are not constitutionally required. Hekerui (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I reverted the recent changes. They are not sourced in detail, have serious language problems, and provide too much unnecessary detail (not the summary style we want) and too many long quotes. In addition I have doubts on whether they are closely paraphrasing the sources and/or are mostly done using translation software. There are English sources available. Hekerui (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest developments, October 2011

I'm posting this flag for anyone "watching" this article: I'm surprised no one has updated it to reflect the development from October (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/top-brazil-appeals-court-upholds-gay-marriage-highest-court-to-make-such-ruling/2011/10/25/gIQAx9DyGM_story.html, for example) about the top appeals court upholding the June lower court decision. I'd do it but I figure someone more closely familiar with the Brazilian legal environment ought to, and would be better suited to condense the earlier information. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

State of Tocantins, Brazil.

A forgotten conversion case was revised by me today, in the State of Tocantins. The link for the editors to confirm what I've said and change the color of the state into a darker blue. http://mixbrasil.uol.com.br/noticias/justica-do-tocantins-realiza-seu-primeiro-casamento-gay.html Rafavargas (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

State of Espírito Santo

The same decision of the Court of Alagoas, too occurred in the Court of Espírito Santo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hentzer (talk • contribs)

Can you provide a source? Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

http://correiodopovo-al.com.br/v3/?p=7213, It's in Portuguese. I remember reading that the ruling from Algaoas was going to be sent out to other states to persuade them to follow suit. I guess in Espirito Santo it was successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.150.234 (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. The only thing Tribunal de Justiça do Espírito Santo did was standardize the understanding of registration of civil unions (stable unions, actually). After that, no one can refuse a civil union contract in a Notary's office. Raniee09 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

State of Rondonia

First case of conversion from civil union into a marriage took place in Cacoal, Rondônia, The color of the state should be changed into a the dark blue, making the 12th state of the country to have same-sex marriage granted in its territory. http://midiaextra.com.br/site/archives/12035?fb_ref=facebook&fb_source=home_oneline-- Rafavargas (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

One conversion does not make SSMs legal in the state for every couple interested now, does it? Hekerui (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

One convertion makes Rondonia the 12th state to have AT LEAST one same-sex marriage granted in its territory. The map of Brazil showing the situation of the same-sex unions in the country was made for it.--Rafavargas (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)--Rafavargas (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

State of Espirito Santo

The mention of one case of same-sex marriage granted in the State of Espirito Santo should be overturned, because the notaries statewide were forced to accept only civil union licences, not marriage.--Rafavargas (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)--Rafavargas (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

State of Minas Gerais

First case of same-sex marriage granted in its territory. Color should be changed into a dark blue to mark the state the 13th one to have at least one case of gay marriage recognized.--Rafavargas (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Map is not useful

I removed this map of states where each one or a few same-sex marriages occured. One or a handful of marriage allowed by a judge does not make SSM legal in the state and does not mean marriage is available for everyone. Making a map for whole states based on isolated incidents is totally overstating their significance. Hekerui (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

main map

I changed the color of File:World homosexuality laws.svg to reflect the situation in Brazil as a whole, which we summarize in the main article as "Marriages performed in this state will then be recognized throughout the whole country." However, I have been twice reverted, with the argument that "The claim not supported by reliable sources."

So, is Brazil equivalent to Mexico at the federal level or not? Either the map should be restored, or the claim of recognition in our main article removed or reworded. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the claim from the page. Cited refs dont't confirms that the states are obliged to recognize Alagoas same-sex marriages. Mexican Supreme Court in August 2010 ordered the states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Mexico City. There is no such order by Brazilian Supreme Court. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find this sufficiently verified in the sources given in the article "same-sex marriage in Alagoas" (which are largely redundant, but that's another matter). The "whole country" sentence seemed like conjecture regarding the statement that followed about the "attempt to extend the measure across the country". If in doubt, she should always vigourously check the sourcing. Hekerui (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Alagoas

A report dated May 2012 on the status of LGBT rights around the world was released by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. This report looks comprehensive and omits Alagoas. We have seen many sources on individual civil unions being given marriage-rights, but the sources for a whole state changing its marriage regulations look ambiguous and are probably mere claims by advocates repeated by some media outlets. I clarified this in the article. Hekerui (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Full marriage recognition in Alagoas and Bahia

Today, October 10, 2012, the highest Court of the State of Bahia issued guidelines to all State Registrars/Notaries/Clerks for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Full text of the opinion in the PDF file accessible via the following link at the Court's website: http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142

I am aware that the same has happened in the State of Alagoas a few months ago, will look for the source link.

Could anyone help me update? I'm new here.

Araujo.alan (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Alagoas

I trully agree with the statement above.

The state of Alagoas was the first to authorize. The article is outdated and ignoring the facts. I already had this discussion before, I brought it many people did not like it. The Court of the State of Alagoas ruled that the civil registration records of Alagoas are forced to file lawsuits to people of the same sex to marry, just as occurs in cases of heterosexual marriages. Here are the links for information:

http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/noticias/0,,OI5546036-EI306,00-Iniciativa+da+Justica+de+Alagoas+facilita+casamento+gay.html

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/1034007-cartorios-de-alagoas-sao-obrigados-a-registrar-casamento-gay.shtml

http://aquiacontece.com.br/noticia/2011/12/20/provimento-autoriza-casamento-homoafetivo-em-alagoas

http://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/alagoas-facilita-casamento-de-homossexuais/

I wonder why people 'did not like it'. Perhaps us Brazilians are doing a poor job of explaining the legal terminology in English? I will locate the actual Order from the High Court of the State of Alagoas. Does anyone know if that would suffice to demonstrate the full marriage equality which is the reality in that state? The fact is that in both Alagoas and Bahia, same-sex couples DO NOT need judicial approval prior to obtaining their marriage licenses since the State Registrars, Notaries and Clerks are specifically authorized and directed to issue marriage licenses to such couples. They are also authorized to issue civil union certificates and to convert civil unions into full-fledged civil marriage. --Araujo.alan (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Brazil - Additional information - 370 homosexual unions have been converted into marriages.

From May 2011 until now, the Justice Department turned 370 stable homosexual unions in marriage. The data are from the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals (ABGLT). The count started when the Supreme Court accepted the stable homosexual in Brazil.

According to gay rights expert Maria Berenice Dias, the number of conversions should be much higher. Such a scenario would occur because there are places in Brazil where that procedure is no need to go to court; it only takes to request the switch on the public notary.

http://paroutudo.com/2012/09/27/pelo-menos-370-unioes-homossexuais-foram-convertidas-em-casamentos-no-brasil/

http://www.cenag.com.br/noticias_ler.php?id=MTAzNjQ= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.70.91 (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's true, then marriage would be open to everyone, and we should change those states to dark blue. But we'd need confirmation that this actually is happening, without a judge. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see my note in the section above 'Same-sex marriage in Alagoas'. Would a citation to the actual Court Order/Directives from both states directing Notaries to perform same-sex marriages suffice? Those Orders are very clear directives that same-sex couples DO NOT need to obtain a special order prior to obtaining their marriage licenses. --Araujo.alan (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If we have reliable secondary sources confirming that that is what they say, then yes. This is what we do with US states, even before any marriages are performed. But it would be OR for one of us to read the decision and make a claim about its legal intepretation. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Bahia

Reading a translation of the page it's not immediately clear that SSM is legal for everyone in Bahia, because of lawyer-speak. Maybe someone can find a newspaper source or analyze the linked ruling, but in the absence of further confirmation I suggest we remain cautious before changing maps and templates. Hekerui (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a really late response, but I tried to dig up what I could from Portuguese-language news sources (since I can't find any English-language ones covering the topic, à la Quintana Roo). Here is one article (translation) from a fairly well known Brazilian web portal (Globo.com) that claims that same-sex marriage was legalized in October based off a previous article (translation), which claims that "As normas para o casamento civil são as mesmas para qualquer pessoa, independente da orientação sexual" (or, roughly translated, "The standards for civil marriage are the same for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation"). The article also claims that couples wanting to marry would have to register on this site. I don't feel like trawling through the rest of the registration process, but unlike the situation in Alagoas, it seems that same-sex couples don't have to have a civil union converted into a marriage—it's just a matter of filling out an application. X n ux 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU! This is what I'm trying to say! The OFFICIAL facebook page's court says that. And if it's not enough, there was even a report from a major TV station! You can watch it here: http://globotv.globo.com/rede-globo/bom-dia-brasil/v/bahia-aprova-o-casamento-gay/2185795/ (in Portuguese). But I doesn't matter: for some people it's stil "unclear" if it's not in english... I rest my case. Raniee09 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Four states of Brazil now offer same-sex marriage

I hope they don't overturn my latter edit. These Court rulings are true, but I know that when any page is edited in another language that is not english it gets "unclear". I'm Brazilian and I offer myself to help editing all the pages related to gay couple recognition in my country, but it's unfair when they delete my changes. There is the Google Translator bar right up when you open a foreigner-language page. I know the translation is not perfect, but it helps a lot. The changes are all in "Same-sex marriage in Brazil" page. Rafavargas (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please Rafavargas, understand that this page has been changed a lot over the years when it was truly too prematurely; language is a handicap, but not a fundamental problem for establishing a fact. I have struggled a lot with google translate from Portuguese, and it is not easy to interpret it. However, if you provide the sources, and if they are ok; it can be in relatively fast. I saw the source for Piaui (diariodeteresina.com.br/chamadas/corregedoria-do-tj-regulamenta-casamento-gay-no-piaui/# here), that does sound convincing to me. My two questions: do we have a second source to back this up? Is this procedure exactly the same as for other couples (I guess it is...)? When will it take effect statewide? Rgds! L.tak (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I recognized your efforts to make it as correct as possible, because it's a relevant information for everyone to know which country does grant same-sex unions and which country doesn't. First of all, Alagoas state does recognize and order all its notaries to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses. It means that gay couples can get married without any judge's approval, like Bahia, Piauí and São Paulo state (there are some other state's courts that opened same-sex marriages, but notaries are not obliged to authorized, but they can refuse to initiate the process of conversion, needing to wait for a judge's approval, like Rio de Janeiro state). About the effect of the same-sex marriage in a state after ruling, it starts on the same day the Court publishes its decision, like those you and I added before. By the way, from now a lot of decisions nationwide may happen, then we'll both need to discuss the changes to be made. Thanks for you patience. -- Rafavargas (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Three new states of Brazil now offer same-sex marriage

Here are the links:

Bahia:

http://g1.globo.com/bahia/noticia/2012/12/forum-realiza-primeiro-casamento-civil-entre-homossexuais-em-salvador.html g1.globo.com/bahia/noticia/2012/11/casais-gays-ja-podem-oficializar-casamento-em-cartorios-da-bahia.html http://www.vermelho.org.br/se/noticia.php?id_secao=58&id_noticia=199862

Piauí: http://g1.globo.com/pi/piaui/noticia/2012/12/tj-regulamentara-pedidos-de-casamento-de-casais-homossexuais.html http://g1.globo.com/pi/piaui/noticia/2012/12/corregedoria-do-tj-regulamenta-casamento-homoafetivo-no-piaui.html

Sao Paulo: http://g1.globo.com/sao-paulo/noticia/2012/12/tribunal-divulga-norma-que-regulamenta-casamento-gay-em-sp.html http://www.jcnet.com.br/Nacional/2012/12/norma-do-tj-obriga-cartorios-de-sp-a-registrar-casamento-gay.html

--189.104.29.5 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Piauí, Diário da Justiça (official; 17 december 2012): http://www.tjpi.jus.br/site/uploads/diario/dj121217.pdf ('PROVIMENTO N° 24/2012 – CGJ/PI', page 2) Paucazorla (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Alagoas, 'Provimento nº40' (official): http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/32979605/djal-jurisdicional-e-administrativo-07-12-2011-pg-46 The correct date is December 7, 2011; not January 6, 2012! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paucazorla (talk • contribs) 04:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Brazilian Federal District (DF) and gay marriage

From now on, the Brazilian Federal District (DF) has been allowing gay marriages to be conducted in its territory. According to the Notary of the District of Sobradinho (different from the other states, there are not cities, but divisions called districts in DF), same-sex marriages licenses are now possible without judge's intervention. The second civil union-to-marriage convertion that took place in Brazil was conducted in the DF (the first being converted in the SP city of Jacareí). --Rafavargas (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Source: http://noticias.r7.com/distrito-federal/noticias/df-tera-primeiro-registro-de-uniao-civil-entre-pessoas-do-mesmo-sexo-20121004.html

From what I read from the source (via google translate), there is no official change, but -just- an accepted request for a marriage license. If that is true this falls under "individual cases" and we should mention it like that... Or is this the result of general decision of a court official (like in Bahia, Piaui, SP, Alagoas?) L.tak (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've found another trustful source about gay marriage in DF. The decision came from the Court of Public Registers of the DF, allowing marriage licenses to be given to gay couples, on December 1, 2012. --177.18.75.11 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Source: http://www.jornaldebrasilia.com.br/site/noticia.php?id=436132 177.4.218.188 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Following the link confirming same-sex marriages in the DF, the color of the District should be changed to dark blue. --177.18.75.11 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

copy editing

I just saw a copy editing template in the top, focussing on reliable sources. Hekerui, could you specify a bit what you have in mind in excess of what we have already? L.tak (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

also, is it really copy-editing that you mean (if I read that article, I find nothing about sources..) L.tak (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there are zero reports of all the people who would get married if SSM was allowed in this many states makes me suspicious of the translation - on this topic there are lots of overeager activists on the wiki who want to portray the situiation more rosy (I had to open a copyright investigation about that a while ago). When it comes to English one can check the source and evaluate its quality, but here the language gets in the way and we are just running with marriage being allowed when no English report of the time period is that definite. I'm also worried that the countless reports of individual judges allowing, somehow, unions to be upgraded to marriages get mixed up in this and may be mistaken for marriages being legal. We don't even have a third party with no skin in this to ask whether the sourcing/translation is valid and I don't trust Google translate (as everyone else seems to). This is why I ask for better sourcing. Hekerui (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done my best, and will add some sources in the next days; feel free to specify if there is info left that you don't trust.... I do not trust wikipedia or google translate fully, but sometimes it is possible to get info out of that; and all discussions have convinced me that something seriously is happening there (some sources are really well translatable....). Can you give a link to the copyright investigation? How did that affect this situation? L.tak (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have finished by efforts and removed teh template. I think the mentions of the judges are now mainly focussed on official statements by the judiciary authorities, which is good IMO. If you have more copy-editing that you suggest, feel free to detail it here so we can discuss it... If there are (still?) copyright concerns then please let that know as a matter of urgency! L.tak (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Minister Nancy Andrighi is a woman

Nancy Andrighi said that recognition of this relationship as a family unit must be preceded by a clear demonstration of the presence of the essential elements of the characterization stable. "Demonstration of coexistence between two persons of the same-sex, public, ... In a decision of 14 pages in which he approached doctrines, laws and principles, among them the dignity of the human person, the Minister stressed that the affective union formed between people of same-sex can not be ignored in a society with structures of each family life increasingly complex, to avoid that because of prejudice, are suppressed human rights of those involved.

Also, her full name is Fátima Nancy Andrighi.

datestamping for later archiving L.tak (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

New Brazilian states on the map

Please include the new states Mato Grosso do Sul and Paraná in the equal marriage maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.199.142 (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was Rondonia removed from the map?

Yet another vague case

It is claimed per this source that SSM is legal in Mato Grosso do Sul. However, the source also uses the wording civil union and claims that the Supreme Court of Brazil allowed SSM in 2011. As long as sources are as bad as this one in making distinction between civil unions and marriages, we should be cautious with claims that more states made SSM legal, lest it looks like activism. Hekerui (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I Clarified the mato grasso do sul case with the primary source; the new article was wrong indeed (although within the bounds of what journalism is: a bit of a "short" explanation... Which other case do you consider vague? L.tak (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The source says that both are offered now, marriage and "stable" unions.MKleid (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Official. Mato Grosso http://www.tjms.jus.br/dj/ (click on 2 April, PDF) and Paraná http://www.tjpr.jus.br/destaques/-/asset_publisher/1lKI/content/corregedor-de-justica-do-parana-determina-uniformizacao-para-o-casamento-homoafetivo/18319?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tjpr.jus.br%2Fdestaques%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_1lKI%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-3%26p_p_col_count%3D3 Paucazorla (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not even our Paraná article covers this. Is it actually happening, or it is just some judge that says it should happen? — kwami (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about our Paraná article (will look tonight), but we have 2 sources in the listing at the bottom of the chapter. One is a news-like source, the other a reproduction of the primary source. It is done by the Corregador General (who is empowered to do this; and did it in the other states), addressed to the Notaries/Civil Service offices (so not in a specific case, but in general) and calls for implementing consistently based on a recent court case and the hight court. So for me Parana is a clear case (as far as Brazilian cases ever are clear...) L.tak (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Parana article is a bit of a template-based article that is very similar to other LBGT in .... articles in Brazil and was indeed not updated. I guess that can be done with the info on this page. We have now multiple refs on teh last two cases, which are to me quite clear (and make a difference between the stable union and same sex marriage); which makes us go on on the "cautious" path we're following. L.tak (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

With the references last week in the dedicated section (both primary and secondary) I assume that the activism-concerns are sufficiently addressed. Feel free to add more problems with the section here though…. L.tak (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You need better colors

The author needs to revisit the color scheme, because the two extremes are have extremely similar colors that render the same on some monitors. The extremes should be at opposite ends of the spectrum. It is also unclear what the difference is between unrecognized and not recognized.

For this map, I'd suggest the following colors: Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red.

Blue connotes safety. Green, Yellow, and Red have the same meaning as a traffic light: go ahead, be careful, and danger. Orange is commonly used for construction sites; it is between orange and red in meaning as well as on the spectrum. In this case, the shade of blue must be immediately discernible as blue to a person with normal vision. (Many people with normal vision cannot tell the difference between dark blue and black except in bright light.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWC (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

To cut a long story short; the colour dark blue and black are too close in your opinion... I agree... I suggest solving that by changing the colour black to something else... what doesn't matter to me... Any ideas? otherwise I'll be implementing in a few days.... L.tak (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Santa Catarina and Paraíba

Could someone find the texts of the rulings. Source cited in the article say that the judges in Paraíba are not obliged to issue marriage licences for same-sex couples. See [1]. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed doubts about Paraiba; everything hinges on whether it is possible to marry everywhere in the state. It will be published on 30 April (which will be some hours) on that side of the Atlantic… L.tak (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Text of the ruling (PROVIMENTO CGJ N. 006/2013) was published (pages 4 and 5). Source above was updated. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I just found it too…. I am not sure, but I guess it is ok… (only paragraph 1 might be interpreted to give powers to the judge?). Article 9 and 10 seem to state it is truly "just" a a normal marriage. Any more opinions… L.tak (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Are we OK to leave this edit in, then? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ruling of Paraíba (page 4 and 5) This say nothing about judges aren't obliged to issue licences. It's clear case. Paucazorla (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro

Some sources like this say that the judge ruled that civil unions should be automatically converted into marriage 15 days after being performed. Could anyone find the full text of the ruling? Ron 1987 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The text is here; it's one of those texts where google translate is not very helpful… (much talk about when a judge should be called; and the suggestion that that is not needed is somewhat vague…) L.tak (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Brazilian lawmaker Jean Wyllys' statement, judges will not be obliged to issue marriage licences for same-sex couples. See [2]. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting! The point is whether registries should be permitted to issue marriage licenses/register marriages of same sex couples. all other justica's general decided this was not necessary anymore (at least, unless there was a reason to that would also arise in a opposite-sex marriage). This State's Justica general leaves it unto the individual local judges, thus de facto creating mini local jurisdictions within the state; this seems (I am emphasizing "seems") a consistent explanation with the directive of the Justica… I hope we get some more sources on this! L.tak (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I just changed Rio to blue on the map. Reverse me if that was premature. — kwami (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why has Rio been removed from all the lists? It seemed like a solid case to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What about having Rio de Janeiro recognized as allowing same-sex marriage, but with an asterisk explaining that the particular license issued is left to individual judges? Either way, the civil union is automatically a marriage. Teammm ^talk
_email 16:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a good idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not legal for everyone if you're at the mercy of personal taste. Hekerui (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It should still be listed since the rights/benefits will be recognized by the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC) I think we should vote on whether or not to have it listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is good to make a statement in this article (including doubts and advantages….); but to wait with adding info in the template (as there it only list a full marriage equality…)… L.tak (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the ruling, 15 days after a same-sex couple enters into a civil union in Rio de Janeiro, they will be considered legally married without having to apply to a court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

According to this interpretation (corrected from by Acapa)as well as this one, everyone is free to i) apply for a marriage a the civil service registry, which will be forwarded to the local judge, which should decide within 15 days. ii) If the judge is positive the marriage can be performed (and in future it can be assumed without checking that this will be ok), but for those judges that do not approve (as Luiz Henrique Oliveira Marques, from the first court of rio), it's not possible. Note that this report is a correction on earlier, more enthusiastic reports by the same paper…. L.tak (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In some areas of the US, judges and notaries have been refusing to marry same sex couples and go unpunished, yet marriage is still considered legal in said jurisdictions. I just don't think the General Magistrate would make such a bold statement of the constitutionality of the issue while setting these kinds of limitations. I'd say include the state of Rio de Janeiro on the list with an asterisk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

True, but this case is different: the Justica explicitly makes a decree that allows district judges (thus in charge of a district; not just the "judge-of-the-day") to disallow marriage, thus giving certain locations (Rio de Janeiro city as an example) judicially-accepted way to say that there no same sex marriages take place... That is quite a bit different than a few "rogue" judges in the US... L.tak (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is equally untrue that same sex marriage is banned in Rio de Janeiro. Therefore, Wikipedia does not display accurate information by rejecting mention of the state. MKleid (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm really tired of this. IP users still add incorrect informations. Could someone ask admins to make this article semi-protected?. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure the disturbance is big enough. They should know by know that convincing users on this page based on arguments is the best way to go. If they keep edit warring I will ask for semi protection in 24 hours…. L.tak (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You might as well ask for it. Edit warring by IP users is going to continue until there is a resolution to this mess. MKleid (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to include Rio de Janeiro as a same-sex marriage state but include the word "(conditional)" as we do with California in the Template:SSM. Because same-sex marriages are legal in Rio, but as we have seen, some judges won't perform them and some will, but that doesn't change the fact that all those same-sex marriages performed in Rio are legal. --DrkFrdric (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but the in those districts where the judge doesn't approve, they are still not performed (also under the convenient cover of this new regulation), which renders RJ in the category "possible [and thus legal!] in some places within the state". That is not much different from those states wehre the Judica general had not spoken out, but the marriages are just being performed (see many examples in this article). I don't think this "decree" is enough to make RJ have a "conditional" status. If we are to add that, then it would be more appropriate to add Brazil as a whole with the text "conditional/regional" (and I don't think that is very helpful). (btw: in order to avoid repeating this; shall we (now the situation is solved for this page, move it to the template talk page?)L.tak (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The current map scheme does not accurately reflect the situation. Eligibility of same sex marriage in Brazil is growing in complexity, as it is in the United States. The same color category treats Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro under the same generic limitation, when clearly their situations are very different. MKleid (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite that I think that the implementation by the Corregador General is not complete enough (with the judicial test) to be added in the template, we have had it for several weeks on this page, as here we have the possibility to exactly describe what is the current situation. I therefore think it should be in and have reverted an IP-removal twice now… Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Marriage licenses in Brazil are issued in the name of the state. If a same sex couple can get a marriage license in the state of Rio de Janeiro without conditional approval by a judge in even one district, then it is a same sex marriage state, because the license isn't issued by the district. It is issued by the state. If you feel that the subtlety is encyclopedic information, then by all means add it. However, Wikipedia reports which states issue same sex marriage licenses, and it is completely untrue to exclude Rio as a same sex marriage state just because some districts do not issue the license automatically. I would also argue the same for Minas Gerais, because the city of Santa Rita do Sapucai now issues marriage licenses without judicial approval. However, that is not an edit war I'm willing to start. MKleid (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what the above poster says. It should be included in the template but maybe with an asterisk. I wouldn't add Minas Gerais yet since as far as I know there are no guidlines issued yet which apply to the whole state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.73.209 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider adding it in the template with a proviso (such as the "conditional" we use for California). Excluding it is equally incorrect as including it without any distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.82.202 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Too broad and nonspecific. California no longer marries same sex couples, while Rio de Janeiro does. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Blue rings

I think it is ok to add them for Rio de Janeiro, the place where that municipality in Minas Gerais is located and if it is still unclear, Paraíba. That is what we did for the world map when the situation in Alagoas and São Paulo was unclear from late 2011 to early 2013. Hekerui reverted it because those were individual judge decisions (that later became statewide), but now we don't have just a random decision but a statewide initiative to do so set by the Corregedoria Geral de Justiça. While it is true that we have neither marriage equality nor a complete legalization, I think this would please both Greeks and Trojans and serves the original purpose of the rings. Lguipontes (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)