Jump to content

Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel

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

Secular marriage

[edit]

The article currently states that "all marriages performed inside Israel are religious marriages." However, the Religion in Israel article indicates that as many as 37% of Israelis are atheist or agnostic. It seems strange that a country with such a high number of non-religious folk would have no provision for secular marriages. Can someone provide a citation for the claim that all Israeli marriages are religious? —Psychonaut 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such is the dichotomy of Israeli society. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain... only religious leaders of "recognized" religions are authorized to perform marriages. There is no civil authority that can marry. So unlike most countries, you can't go to city hall or a judge and ask to be married. Marriage is exclusively under religious jurisdiction. This causes problems for divorce in Israel, since the Family Law Courts can settle child custody battles and alimony, but they can't issue a divorce decree. Also only "recognized" religions can perform marriage... so Judaism, Islam, and some forms of Christianity (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox etc.) are able to marry, but if you come from an 'unrecognized', then you can't marry. You also can't 'inter-marry' people of different religions. As for the dichotomy between secularism and the current laws, it's just apathy and also people revert to conservatism in politics-- they may be secular, but they support more religious political parties out of traditionalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.112.134.122 (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full recognition?

[edit]

Article says:

It should be noted that rhetorically the recognition is only for the purpose of registration which entitles married couples to a variety of rights. However, it is for all practical purposes a full recognition.

I just read the following at [1]:

The high court ruling only directs the government to record the marriages for the purpose of collecting statistics. It does not require that the marriage receive official recognition or that the couples receive any of the rights of marriage.

So, which rights do they get, if any? It would be good if the article had this information. -René van Buuren 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

אלמה מאטר Says:
The second option is right. This articl is plainly wrong. If you read the parallel hebrew article, you can see it states the exact opposite. As it explains, gay marriage are not recognized in Israel, period. It does not matter if they are performed in foriegn countries or in Israel. so far, gay marriage have never been recognized by any law or any court in Israel. Also, registration does not entitle married couples any rights whatsoever. None. When foreign gay marriage are registrated (and they are registered in Israel), it has no legal significane. for the most, it can serve as evidence for the couple to be "married by habbit" (which is not marriage). אלמה מאטר 19:44, 03 May 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.200.234 (talk)

Same sex marriage between Jews not allowed in Israel

[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-VkydBHsU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.1.213 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress analysis

[edit]

The Library of Congress has attempted to analyze marriage law in Israel.[2]. It's complicated. See the sections on "Overseas Marriages as a Circumvention of Religious Law Impediments" and "Gay Couples’ Partnerships". John Nagle (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Same-sex marriage in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 February 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Israel → Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel – Per consistency with other countries that have not yet legalized same-sex marriage. 174.114.211.255 (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 21:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Surrogacy/Adoption Options for Same-Sex Couples

[edit]

In July of 2018, a new surrogacy bill was introduced to the Knesset (Israel’s legislative committee) proposing to expand the definition on who is eligible for surrogacy as a route to parenthood. Up until this point, the only people to which surrogacy was an option was “a man and a woman who are a couple”. The new legislation opened the option of surrogacy up to single women and women unable to become pregnant, but denied single fathers, and by extension gay couples, this same right. This denial of rights sparked action from the LGBT community in Israel and even a widespread protest where thousands of Israeli citizens walked out of their workplace to express their disapproval of the decision.

The issue of having children for same-sex couples is especially hot within Israeli society due to the large cultural emphasis on the importance of family. Currently, an aim of the LGBTQ community within Israeli is to expand people’s definition of “family” beyond a heterosexual marriage with children. While the denial of the proposed surrogacy law was undeniably a setback toward this goal, the LGBT community remains optimistic about gaining equality through parenthood. Recent statistics tell us that “between 89.6% and 98.8% of social workers deem any living arrangement involving children to count as a family”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merhawk (talk • contribs) 04:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shilo, G., Antebi, N. & Mor, Z. "Individual and Community Resilience Factors Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer and Questioning Youth and Adults in Israel." American Journal of Community Psychology, 2017, Vol. 55, p. 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9693-8

Gauriel-Fried, B., Shilo, G. "The Perception of Family Israel and the United States: Similarities and Differences." Journal of Family Issues, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 2017, Vol. 38(4), p. 480-499. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192513X15617798

Sommer, A. "Why the Battle for Gay Rights in Israel Passes Through Parenthood, Not Marriage." Haaretz, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-why-the-battle-for-gay-rights-in-israel-passes-through-parenthood-1.6294801 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merhawk (talk • contribs) 04:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combining multiple situations in one sentence

[edit]

caveat

[edit]

Please forgive me if this comment [section] is in the wrong place. For example, if it belongs

(a) with the comments in some existing section of this "Talk:" page
... OR,
(b) somewhere else, such as: on the "Talk:" page for the template "{{Same-sex unions}}").

This comment [section] is intended to be about [only] the combining of multiple situations in one sentence.

That sentence (which is quoted below, and discussed below) could potentially lead to some reader confusion or misunderstanding.

Background

[edit]

That sentence (in which multiple kinds of situations are mentioned) came to my attention thanks to a hyperlink from an entry (in the "Common-law marriage" sub-section of the template "{{Same-sex unions}}") that just says "Israel" (well, the entry is just displayed as "Israel"); but that entry links to (or, it points to) the article about "Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel".

That entry in that template also seems to have a little "Note" (no. "6") that can be seen only by "expanding" the "Notes" section of the template "{{Same-sex unions}}".
In that "Notes" section, once it has been "expanded", Note no. 6 says:

6. Cohabitation. Registered foreign marriages confer limited rights. Marriage recognized in Tel Aviv.

The potentially confusing sentence

[edit]

As of the "Latest revision as of 19:30, 31 January 2021" version of the article, the last sentence of the lede says:

Cohabitating same-sex and inter-faith couples in Tel Aviv may register as married in that city.[2]

What's the problem? Ambiguity or potential for misunderstanding

[edit]

To some extent, the author or editor who wrote or revised this sentence, may have been relying upon the idea that, since the sentence is part of an article that has the title or "subject" of "Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel", the reader will already know (or, will be able to figure out) what the sentence quoted above (under "the potentially confusing sentence") means.

If so, then that might be considered a departure from the custom of careful use of language to avoid ambiguity and to prevent misunderstanding.

For example, relying on the reader to know

  1. whether the mentioning of "inter-faith couples" is (or is not) intended to refer to a category that includes a couple who are married (e.g. via a wedding that took place somewhere else); and
  2. whether the mentioning of "inter-faith couples" is (or is not) intended to refer to a category that excludes a couple who did not get married [somewhere else] and who do not want to get married, [at this time ... or maybe "ever"], but who would prefer to have some sort of "civil union" or something like that; and
  3. whether the phrase the words "may register as married" could be interpreted as implying that (in certain cases, at least), a couple has the option to register as a cohabitating couple (as in a "civil union" or something like that) ... perhaps without being an "inter-faith couple" and/or without being a same-sex couple; and
  4. whether the mentioning of "inter-faith couples" is (or is not) intended to refer to a category that includes a couple who are not the same sex (but they also are an "inter-faith couple");
    and / or
  5. whether the mentioning of "Cohabitating same-sex [...] couples" is (or is not) intended to refer to a category that includes a couple who are the same sex, and who want to live together, but who would prefer -- (for some reason .. but that "reason", if any, is outside the scope of this "Talk:" page section) -- to have some sort of "civil union" arrangement, as opposed to what is usually called a "marriage".

... might be considered to be less than rigorously careful use of language.

Reasonable persons might differ regarding whether (and how much) to rely upon the assumption that the reader will know -- and will keep in mind (not forget) -- and will realize the implications of the fact that

In my opinion it would be advisable (in most cases) to use language carefully, (and to state explicitly what is meant, rather than implying it from the context or the reader's "background knowledge") ... in order to minimize (or at least to "reduce") the probability of misunderstanding. YMMV.

Any comments?

[edit]

Thanks for listening. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Update

[edit]

The legal situation concerning civil marriage in general and same-sex marriages in particular has drastically changed since a 2022 decision by the Central District Court upheld in 2023 by the Supreme Court that has given legal recognition to wedding ceremonies performed in Israel and registered with foreign jurisdictions (specifically Utah) enabling Israeli same-sex couples to get married in Israel. I have cited multiple up to date sources. It is no longer appropriate to claim that same-sex marriage is not legal in Israel as the Supreme Court rulled to allow and recognize such marriages in Israel. Thus the Israeli Supreme Court de facto broke the monopoly of religious courts on marriages in Israel. As of 2022 Israeli same-sex sex couples can get legally married in Israel ,in a civil ceremony, obtain their marriage certificate online and officially register the marriage in Israel.

An article in English regarding the Supreme Court rulling: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-must-recognize-online-marriages-conducted-via-utah-supreme-court-rules/

An article by an Israeli attorney explaining the situation in detail (in Hebrew): https://www.mako.co.il/news-law_guide/2023_q1/Article-f9197a3b5779681026.htm 2A01:73C0:603:322B:0:0:5BFB:BB24 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already being modified to reflect this. This is no need to remove other large sourced paragraps without reason. Panda2018 0 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OKAY. So let's resolve this.
What does it mean for something to be legal or not? If something is not legal then one is actively prohibited, by the state, from enjoying it. A failure to build a civil marriage system from scratch is not an active prohibition. Same sex couples can indeed be married WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO LEAVE ISRAEL. There is no punishment. Under the law all valid performed marriages are treated the same.
If there are some who do not follow the law, that does not mean that it is not legal. It means that there are those who are breaking the law. Under that consideration, same sex marriage is probably legal... nowhere. And so what utility does the discussion of same sex marriage "legality" even provide? Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete map of same sex marrige in Asia

[edit]

not sure what the relevance is to this map of arab countries that don't allow gay marrige, it really seems like pink washing. Loudstrawberry (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature of Legality

[edit]

Perhaps all discussion of whether it is legal or illegal should be removed from the initial opening paragraphs. This article is, after all, about "recognition" rather than "legality." However, if it is to remain, then we must recognize that same sex marriage is indeed legal in Israel.

What does it mean for something to be legal, or not? Answering this question is at the center of the debate. Something is not legal, in a given region, if one is prohibited from enjoying it, either through punishment or intentional limitations. A same sex couple, without ever having to leave Israel, can be married, and that marriage is not punished, and indeed is recognized, with full benefits under the law. To call such a thing "not legal" let alone "illegal" is an absurdity and makes the very concept of "legal" a useless thing. Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage is not legal in Israel. The Human Rights Campaign [3], Pew [4], CNN [5], and many more, do not recognize same-sex marriage as being "legal" in Israel. Do you have explicit sources that same-sex marriage is legal in Israel?
"Something is not legal, in a given region, if one is prohibited from enjoying it, either through punishment or intentional limitations. A same sex couple, without ever having to leave Israel, can be married, and that marriage is not punished, and indeed is recognized, with full benefits under the law." Same-sex couples cannot marry under Israeli law. Sure, they can marry using this online U.S. registry but the marriages are thus performed under U.S. law not Israeli law, even if the couples did not leave Israeli territory. Whether the marriage is "not punished" is irrelevant as same-sex couples throughout the world have held non-legally recognized marriage ceremonies in various countries where such marriages are not legal and recognized, e.g. India and Vietnam, and were not "punished" for it. Israel indeed has "intentional limitations" to same-sex marriages, as the government has repeatedly denied recognition to the Utah marriages and there is no source (that I know of) that these marriages enjoy the "full benefits" of marriage. This is further supported by the fact that some municipalities, including Tel Aviv-Yafo and Ramat Gan, have independently agreed as a form of "government protest" to recognize the marriages. Not to mention that the government explicitly denied same-sex couples the right to enter civil unions in their 2010 law and the Knesset has repeatedly shot down civil marriage bills. Panda2024 (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same-sex couples cannot marry under Israeli law.
According to what legal provision?
> Whether the marriage is "not punished" is irrelevant as same-sex couples throughout the world have held non-legally recognized marriage ceremonies...
But again, any same sex couple living in Israel can have a marriage ceremony and have it recognized in Israel. Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Same-sex couples cannot marry under Israeli law." I think this is pretty obvious. None of these marriages were performed under Israeli law, but under U.S. law. If I am wrong, could you please provide me the exact Israeli law and article/section that defines marriage as "the union of two people" (as is the case in every country that has legalized same-sex marriage) ? "But again, any same sex couple living in Israel can have a marriage ceremony and have it recognized in Israel." They must marry under the laws of a foreign territory not Israel. And again, we are not certain that the government has offered these marriages equal protection and benefits as opposite-sex marriages upon registration. If so, could you please provide a source that the government offers these marriages all the benefits and rights of marriages ? Panda2024 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Same-sex couples cannot marry under Israeli law." I think this is pretty obvious.
By "under the law" you mean performed by the Israeli government? Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This source [6] states: "Hila Far, chair of The Aguda – The Association for LGBTQ Equality in Israel, said that while the state sends couples overseas to formalize marriages and fights to stop them from being recognized, the High Court of Justice has once again proven the importance of an independent judiciary to protect citizens’ rights. However, she said that while the ruling is important, "it isn’t a substitute for LGBT marriage in Israel, which is still prohibited by law."" That seems pretty clear cut to me. Israeli LGBT activists themselves recognize that same-sex marriages are not possible under Israeli law. Panda2024 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I have edited the article again to take into account this discussion. I have made sure that it is consistent with the idea that a marriage being "not legal" means that it is not performed by the state's government. Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the article is now completed false. Marriage is indeed "legal" in Israel, but only if performed by the religious authorities. I'll update the lead. Panda2024 (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made sure to ask you first. I asked you point blank whether "not legal" means "that it is not performed by the state's government."
You concurred. You have now backtracked on the very condition that you set. Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are now showing bad faith, and I have yet to see these sources I asked for previously. Panda2024 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who at first showed bad faith by failing to rely on your own criteria for legality. That being said, I accept your most recent edit. "Complex" is acceptable. Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to miss this original discussion, but surely "Same-sex marriage is recognized but not legally performed in Israel." is more precise and accurate than the vague and mysterious "complex"? I'm sure we've used that wording before on various other articles. Jdcooper (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. What do we mean by "legally performed?" Performed by a government officiant? That's true for any marriage in Israel. There's no civil marriage at all. No marriage is legally performed in Israel. And indeed, if any of the millets chose to officiate same-sex marriages there is no legal prohibition against it, and it would be recognized under the law. It is absurd to call such a situation "not legal" or "illegal." Their performance or lack-thereof has nothing to do with the law. It is reasonable to consider it "complex." Either that or we have to just say that no marriage in Israel is legal. Dgoldman0 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"if any of the millets chose to officiate same-sex marriages there is no legal prohibition against it" But they don't.
"Either that or we have to just say that no marriage in Israel is legal." But they obviously are, performed by religious authorities and recognised by the government.
Just because there's no civil marriage doesn't mean there is no legal (religious) marriage? That's reductio ad absurdum, and no doubt news to most married couples in Israel. And same-sex couples cannot get legally (religiously) married in Israel, therefore it is true to say that "Same-sex marriage is recognized but not legally performed in Israel." The rest of the article goes into detail about what this means, we don't have to solve every possible ambiguity in the first sentence. Jdcooper (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> "if any of the millets chose to officiate same-sex marriages there is no legal prohibition against it" But they don't.
Correct. They don't. If same sex marriage were illegal then even if they did recognize it in a millet it still wouldn't be recognized by Israel and likely the millet in question would get in trouble. That's not the case. There's no law against it. And indeed, Israel made sure to find a way to accommodate same sex marriages, interfaith marriages, etc.
It is absolutely absurd to claim that same sex marriage in Israel is not legal.
> "Either that or we have to just say that no marriage in Israel is legal." But they obviously are, performed by religious authorities and recognised by the government.
Then same sex marriages are too. They're performed by tele-authorities and recognized by the government.
> Just because there's no civil marriage doesn't mean there is no legal (religious) marriage?
Just because there are no civil marriages doesn't mean that there are no legal (non-religious) marriages. They're just performed overseas or through the internet. It's like saying that a course in archaeology of Israel is not legal in my area because there are no classes that offer it here, but I can just go online and take the course without ever leaving my home.
> And same-sex couples cannot get legally (religiously) married in Israel
I contest your conflation between "legally" and "religiously." There's nothing in Israeli law that defines marriage as a religious thing. Thus religiously is not "legally."
Perhaps if you could define the parameters of what "legal marriage" is in general and then you can show that same sex marriage in Israel does not fit. Go for it. Try it. Let's see what you come up with. Dgoldman0 (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, there's a conflation being made between accessibility and legality. Something is legal if there are no governmental actions which prohibit it. There aren't. There simply isn't any civil marriage performed by the Israeli government. That's not a governmental action which prohibits it. And indeed, the government went out of its way to accommodate to make same sex marriage services accessible without ever having to leave the borders. So same sex marriage is legal and accessible in Israel. It's just complicated due to historical structuring of marriage in the region. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this version satisfy you, @Jdcooper and @Kwamikagami? Perhaps with the inclusion of some of the citations I provided in other versions?
"An officiated and registered marriage, same-sex or otherwise, is recognized by the state of Israel. Same-sex couples enjoy many of the benefits that married heterosexual couples do, including inheritance, adoption and surrogacy. However, same-sex couples currently rely on foreign civil servants, including teleservices, as Israel lacks a civil marriage service of any kind and instead relies on a version of the Millet (Ottoman Empire) system, none of which currently agree to officiate same-sex couples." Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't vandalize my talk page. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no, that's not acceptable. You're still being dishonest about the status of marriage in Israel. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dgoldman0, you seem to be using your own private definition of "legal" that doesn't resemble the normal usage. Most countries where same-sex marriage is not legal(ly recognised) don't have a specific law against it, unless prohibited by a constitution. You said "There's nothing in Israeli law that defines marriage as a religious thing.".. really? The first line of Marriage in Israel states that "In Israel, marriage can be performed only under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong, and inter-faith marriages performed within the country are not legally recognized. However, marriages performed abroad or remotely from Israel must be registered by the government." If marriage can only be performed under the auspices of religious authorities, but none of them permit same-sex marriage, then I fail to see how this differs from "Same-sex marriage is recognized but not legally performed in Israel." Jdcooper (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary. It is you who are bending the concept of legality to exclude same sex marriage. Name one other part of the world where two people of the same sex can have their marriage officially recognized under the law, yet same sex marriage is not legal.
"If marriage can only be performed under the auspices of religious authorities, but none of them permit same-sex marriage, then I fail to see how this differs from "Same-sex marriage is recognized but not legally performed in Israel."
But it can also be performed under the auspices of a civil officiant over a teleconference, without ever having to leave Israel. So really you're just showing that we need to change the entry for Marriage in Israel.
According to your logic, it is not legal in New York to look at the great pyramid of Giza because I'd have to go online to look at it. This is an absurdity.
This is why "complicated" is the best choice of words to use here. Same sex marriage is absolutely legal and recognized in Israel.
But if you can show me one other single country where you claim that same sex marriage is not legal, but where two people of the same sex can be married, and have that marriage recorded and recognized under the law of the country, without ever having to leave the borders of the country, then perhaps we could talk. Dgoldman0 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's park the hair-splitting definitions and misleading analogies in search of compromise language, because "complicated" frankly tells the reader nothing, and should be avoided. "Israel recognizes same-sex marriages registered abroad, but same-sex couples are not able to marry under Israeli law as Israel does not allow civil marriage." Any objections? Jdcooper (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To not allow is an active prohibition. Having no capacity for something does not mean that it is not allowed. Moreover, using that understanding, couples are not able to marry under Israeli law as Israel does not "allow" civil marriage. Dgoldman0 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, scratch all that. This article title is "recognition of same-sex marriage in Israel" not "legality of same sex marriage in Israel." So the very first statement should answer the question about recognition. Same-sex marriages are recognized in Israel, point blank. If you want to not split hairs about what we mean by "legal" or "not legal" then we should just not even worry about saying whether it is legal or not legal in an article centered around recognition rather than legality.
"Same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of Israel. Prior to 2022..." Dgoldman0 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a desire to twist the wording around here and this needs to be dealt with. If same-sex couples are not able to marry under the law because of the lack of a civil marriage then nobody is for that same logic. Nobody "marries under the law" in Israel. And again "does not allow" has already been shown to be problematic because not having the facilities is in no way the same as not allowing something. It's like saying that the US does not allow trips to Mars. No there just aren't any.
At the end the day all of this wording suggests incorrectly that Israel is being prohibitive of same-sex marriage when that simply is not the case. Indeed Israel has worked hard to ensure that any couple regardless of sex can enjoy legal protections under the law as a recognized married couple. The reality is that a failure to engage in a massive overall to build a civil marriage system, from the ground up, when telemarriages allow for anyone of any sex to be married without undue costs, without ever having to leave their home even, simply does not constitute an impediment, either one of gross negligence or malicious intent, against same-sex marriage in Israel. Dgoldman0 (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "twisting the wording" to highlight the important difference between this case and countries which have full marriage equality. Likewise, no-one has at any point mentioned "gross negligence or malicious intent". We are supposed to be informing readers, that's all. Please calm down. Jdcooper (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since a gay person cannot be married in a catholic church anywhere in the world, then it is right to say that there is no such thing as marriage equality anywhere. You're stretching the notion of equality beyond any reasonable means and are destroying its utility.
We are indeed trying to inform readers, which is why anything which could be open to significant contestation, which could lead to absurdities if taken to their logical conclusion, etc. should be left out. As the article stands, it is informative and avoids the issues that would arise if you want to edit it back to how you had it. So the logical conclusion is to leave things as they are in the article. Dgoldman0 (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you tried to edit it back. Again, with an absence of civil marriage, no person can marry under the law. You have not resolved this issue, so that wording should simply be left out. All this additional wording provides is subjective interpretation. We should leave it out. The current version informs the reader of everything that is objectively the case in Israel. The reader, after reading the article, will still learn that there are no civil marriages and the process one must go to in order to get married. There is no confusion. Your desired additional inclusion adds confusion and contenstation and thus we must refrain from including it. Dgoldman0 (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, on the most recent edit by you, the article ended up reading as follows: "Same-sex marriages cannot be performed in Israel itself... in July 2022, the Central District Court ruled that marriages performed in Israel... including same-sex marriages..."
The article itself admits that they're performed in Israel, just via teleceremony. The internet makes the concept of "where" a very strange thing. I get that. However given the wording results in a contradiction it is best to leave it as we had it before that there is recognition. It is still quite clear of what one must go through in order to have a same-sex marriage recognized in Israel. Dgoldman0 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not accuse me (in your edit summaries) of "refusing to engage with contestation", as every time I edit the wording, I am trying to incorporate your latest objections. But when you insist on the over-simplified wording to allege that there is no difference between same-sex marriage in Israel and in other countries, that is simply not backed up by the sources provided above by Panda2024, and misleads the reader. Jdcooper (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wording we used is not overly simplistic but rather appropriate given the complexity of the situation. In your previous edit you left a glaring contradiction. The differences between cases in Israel and in other countries is already clear from the rest of the article and thus it does not make sense to add contradictions for the sake of supposedly informing.
"However, same-sex marriages cannot be performed in Israel itself... the Central District Court ruled that marriages performed in Israel under an online civil marriage service... including same-sex marriages, are legal in Israel..."
Emphasis added by myself. Here we see a glaring contradiction between the claim that marriages cannot be performed in Israel and the same entry talking about same-sex marriages "performed in Israel." Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Consequently, Israeli same-sex couples who wished to have their marriages recognized by the government first had to marry outside Israel"
Had to? Don't you mean "have to?" You see you have to change so much because the reality is that "in Israel" just means without having to leave Israel. They don't have to get married outside of Israel anymore. They don't have to leave Israel to get married, which means that they can get married in Israel.
Moreover, none of this answers the question of RECOGNITION which is the entire point of this article. What is the central question of this article? RECOGNITION!
But because you want to focus on something else we have to now spend days arguing over what "in Israel" means. Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Had to? Don't you mean "have to?"" - no, that describes the situation before 2022.
"They don't have to leave Israel to get married, which means that they can get married in Israel." -- the couples are in Israel, the marriages are performed online. I tried to change the wording to clarify this but again you moved the goalposts.
"we have to now spend days arguing over what "in Israel" means." -- I sincerely hope not. I would have thought it was perfectly clear to say that the marriages are recognised but not performed in Israel, but alas. Jdcooper (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep adding wording which creates conflict. There's no need for it. I even edited it in a way to avoid that conflict while fully informing. You have now changed it again to add more conflict.
Now you have edited it back so that it reads that marriages performed in Israel are recognized even though you say they're not.
Prior to 2022, marriages performed in Israel were only valid when registered with one of the 15 religious marriage courts recognized by the state, none of which permit same-sex marriage.
Prior to 2022" implies this no longer to be the case. This is pointless. Come on. Think about what you're writing here.
This is saying that since 2022, this is no longer the case, that marriages performed in Israel can be valid even if not performed by one of those 15 religious marriage courts.
You are clinging to the very language that creates a disagreement. Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgoldman0: I raised the same objection for other articles. If we're going to change it here, we need to change it everywhere. (BTW, TLDR for everything after your initial question.)

The claim then was that "illegal" means not according to the law, not against the law. Thus, SSM is still illegal in parts of the US (Navajo, for example). No-one is punished if they get married, the state simply doesn't recognize it. And indeed, this corresponds to the definition of "illegal" in Merriam-Webster: "not according to or authorized by law." That's exactly the situation in Navajo. It evidently doesn't mean "penalized or criminalized by law", which his how I've always understood the word.

The situation in Vietnam is unusual. I suppose we'd say it's been "decriminalized" in Vietnam, but not "legalized".

However, Dict.com defines it as "forbidden by law or statute." If that is accurate, then SSM is not "illegal" is many of the states where it's not "legal" ("permitted by law; lawful").

It's also very possible that the meaning of the word "illegal" differs between anglophone countries. — kwami (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black's Law Dictionary (US) has the following entry for "illegal":
Not authorized by law; illicit; unlawful; contrary to law. Sometimes this term means merely that which lacks authority of or support from law; but more frequently it imports a violation. Etymologicaily, the word seems to convey the negative meaning only. But in ordinary use it has a severer, stronger signification; the idea of censure or condemnation for breaking law is usually presented. But the law implied in illegal is not necessarily an express statute. Things are called "illegal" for a violation of common-law principles. And the term does not imply that the act spoken of is immoral or wicked; it implies only a breach of the law.
That's specific to the US, of course, but I think that's reason enough for us to avoid the term "illegal" in SSM articles unless SSM is contrary to law. And by that I don't mean that the constitution defines marriage to exclude SSM, but rather than you can be penalized under the law, as used to be the case in Vietnam. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Dgoldman0 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not all countries have the Usonian convention that anything that is not explicitly forbidden by law is legal, and we're unlikely to be able to evaluate the situation for each country (and it would generally be OR to do so anyway). — kwami (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be changed everywhere, but could you give me some examples? And "illegal," as kwami pointed out, does mean contrary to the law rather than simply not "in accordance with the law." But even if we go with your definition, same-sex marriages are in accordance with the law so long as they are officiated and recorded. If they were not in accordance with the law, then recording them would not yield legal privileges that marriages provide. Dgoldman0 (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not so. The term (at least in the US) is ambiguous: it may mean either "not authorized by law" (Blacks and MW) or "contrary to law" (Black's and dict.com [probably Random House]). — kwami (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Either way, same-sex marriage is authorized by law, otherwise recording would not yield the benefits it does. Dgoldman0 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's OR on your part. AFAICT, SSM is not authorized by law in Israel, not in the usual sense of the word. Last I checked, recording a SSM did not make you married under Israeli law.
You might be able to record that you're licensed to practice medicine in some other country, and that might confer benefits like making it easier to get licensed in Israel (maybe your education qualifies), but that doesn't mean that you are licensed in Israel. — kwami (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we go by your medical license analogy, this would be the equivalent of registering your medical practice, and practicing, without penalty and full legal protection, yet somehow you're not authorized to practice medicine. That would be an absurdity.
The same is true with SSM. One can register their SSM in Israel and receive the benefits of the marriage, including recognition, under the law. Totally authorized. Dgoldman0 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the law has changed from when I last checked. From what you say, if you marry online, that means that you are married in Israel. Is that the case? Is there no legal difference between a SS couple getting married online and an OS couple getting married under a religious authority? Do we have a RS that states that explicitly? — kwami (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what you say, if you marry online, that means that you are married in Israel. Is that the case?
Correct! You can have your ceremony with the officiant doing their paperwork online, never having to leave Israel or anything. You register that paperwork and your marriage is recognized.
Is there no legal difference between a SS couple getting married online and an OS couple getting married under a religious authority? Do we have a RS that states that explicitly?
The wikipedia entry already has sources going over the ruling on the issue.
"In July 2022, the Central District Court ruled that Israeli couples marrying via an online civil marriage service established by the U.S. state of Utah, including same-sex marriages, are legal in Israel, thereby removing the requirement for same-sex couples to leave the country to get married. The ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023. A June 2019 opinion poll conducted by Hiddush showed that 78% of Israelis supported recognizing same-sex unions." Dgoldman0 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but that just means that you don't have to go abroad. it doesn't mean that it counts as a marriage under israeli law. that's always been the problem with this article: we find sources that external marriages are 'recognized', but then find that they're not recognized as marriage. so we need an explicit RS that they now are treated the same as any other marriage in israel. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but that just means that you don't have to go abroad. it doesn't mean that it counts as a marriage under israeli law.
Then why do it? The reason people do it is because it counts under Israeli law. Example. https://www.timesofisrael.com/same-sex-couples-recognized-under-law-for-bereaved-families/
Yes it has taken time to get every single privilege as the system has taken time to fully update. The reality is that the law is clear: if you have an officiated marriage and you have it registered in Israel, you're married, regardless of sex. Dgoldman0 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that you get some benefits. You get some benefits in Italy too, even though Italy doesn't have SSM. You haven't provided a RS that SSM fully counts as marriage in Israel. Until we have that, we can't say that Israel recognizes SSM. If we do get that, we'll also need to change the color of Israel on the map back to dark purple. (It used to be that color, but we changed it to a lighter shade when we found that recognition of foreign SSM did not recognize them as marriage, much like Italy.) — kwami (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your sources imply that Israel doesn't recognize foreign SSM. If it did, it wouldn't be necessary to get every right recognized individually -- you'd simply be married. So these sources suggest that you're not legally married, but Israel will recognize the relationship for certain situations, to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Of course, that might not be the case. You might be legally married, but it's taken time for that realization to filter down to all institutions. But we can't read such details into news reports, which will not generally be accurate when interpreted literally. We need a RS that SSM is recognized as marriage. The fact that after years of searching we've been unable to find such a RS suggests that there may not be one because that's not the situation in Israel. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your sources imply that Israel doesn't recognize foreign SSM. If it did, it wouldn't be necessary to get every right recognized individually -- you'd simply be married.
You don't. The article says that couples were worried, so they called up, and they reassured them that yes, there's no discrimination under the law.
“Some of them contacted me on this matter, with significant concern that they would be discriminated against. I think that there is great importance in repeating the obvious — that there is no difference between blood and blood or between one family and another as far as the rights provided by law are concerned.”
So the article stands as a confirmation. Dgoldman0 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the position taken by the defense ministry. Good for them. But that doesn't mean it's the same for the country as a whole.
We've been through this before. To make a claim on WP, we need a RS that backs up that claim. We can't use a source that says something else and interpret it to say what we want it to. That's a violation of WP:OR. With legal issues, that's especially important to follow, because the law is so complicated and often counter-intuitive. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“The Defense Ministry interprets the laws of families of fallen soldiers as such that they also apply to same-sex couples.” Why would they have to do that if those couples were married under Israeli law? — kwami (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find a secondary source that Israel recognized foreign and online SSM as marriage -- not 'like marriage', or 'rights of marriage', but fully as marriage -- and we'll change our coverage on all of our articles and maps to reflect that. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "fully as marriage?" Can you prove that same sex marriage is equally enforced in every region in every institution, in any country where it is supposedly legal?
In addition, since we're on this topic anyway, equal treatment, legality, and recognition, are all different issues, and we should not be conflating them in this article. This article is about recognition. They are recognized. That would hold true even if there is unequal treatment so really it's neither here nor there. Dgoldman0 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the law, not enforcement. You can always have some official who refuses to follow the law. The question is what the law is, and whether it's officially enforced (e.g. not enjoined). Can you provide a RS for that? — kwami (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and we agree that SSM is recognized under Israeli law. If you want to contend that such recognition does not yield the exact same legal benefits that can be, and already is, included in the article. When it comes to the question of the article, recognition, we must accept that same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of Israel. That's clear from the source material already provided. Dgoldman0 (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say we have to change it everywhere. In what other country do we have a situation that is remotely similar? I have asked for this before. If we can compare it to another example, @Kwamikagami then perhaps we can get to the bottom of this disagreement. Dgoldman0 (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's similar in every country that has civil unions. — kwami (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But in Israel it's recognized as a marriage, whether it confers the same benefits or not. I have given you source after source that says that same sex marriages are recognized. Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not that they're recognized as marriage. If they were, they'd have the same rights. 'Marriage' without the same rights is a civil union. — kwami (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not called "civil unions." They are called "married." They are registered and recognized as "marriage." Source after source has said that. Your contenstation is that they do not confer the exact same benefits as heterosexual marriages, which is something fine to note, but that does not mean that they are not recognized as marriages. Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what they're called. It matters what they are. You haven't provided any RS, AFAICT, for your claims. You're interpreting sources to support what you want to believe, which is the essense of OR. — kwami (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the countries with civil unions don't call them 'civil unions'. We just need consistent terminology on WP. — kwami (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they call them and record them as marriages? Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Often yes.
You're engaged in an edit war, and have previously been warned about that. Revert your recent violation and seek consensus or I'll request to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that there has been no attempt to reach a middle ground on your part. Ambiguous and contested language should not be included.
I have edited to provide additional sources. I would also accept a revision to the agreed upon point where it is simply stated as "complex."
What is the compromise that you accept? The last consensus was reached here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Israel&oldid=1216523018
So you are not suggesting that we return to the most recent consensus point but rather to the point of contestation.
Anyway, hopefully you accept the most recent update. It is cited properly, and stated very clearly. Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you preemptively accuse others of your own behaviour, that's a sign of acting in bad faith. Your twisting of the facts to suite your agenda has no place on an encyclopedia. You're in violation of 3RR, and I'm not interesting in disputing semantics to score points. — kwami (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any argument on categorization is a semantic argument. I am trying to compromise by excluding language that can be contested.
We can return to the consensus point reached with @Panda2024 or we can try to find a new consensus, but to return to an older consensus point is simply not reasonable.
Moreover, what exactly is incorrect or confusing with saying that officiated and registered same-sex marriages are recognized as valid by the state of Israel? Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was referring to use of the term "illegal" to mean "not recognized". — kwami (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this update resolve your concerns, @Kwamikagami?
Same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of Israel, with same sex couples enjoying many, but not necessarily yet all, of the same benefits as heterosexual married couples, including financial and other business matters and family planning. [1] [2][3]
In this case, we should probably have a new section further down, perhaps right before public opinion and after legal history, with a table listing various rights/privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples, so we can see a full breakdown. Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "foreign same-sex marriages." That's crucial. — kwami (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All officiated same-sex marriages are. The lack of a civil marriage system is not a matter of LGBTQ+ rights but rather governmental structure. Your phrasing implies incorrectly that one must leave Israel in order to obtain a valid recognized marriage, which is untrue. Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. All SSM in Israel, AFAICT, is foreign. — kwami (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help it if you read into those words something that isn't there. They mean what they mean. — kwami (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine. How about this source? It's in the bloody title: https://www.timesofisrael.com/challenging-rabbinate-tel-aviv-allows-same-sex-couples-to-register-as-married/
"Allows same-sex couples to register as married." Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as in other countries, like those in the Netherlands, that allow SSM couples to register but don't confer the rights of marriages. — kwami (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But rights are conferred. At the very least financial and other business, family planning, medical/health, inheritance.. This article is supposed to be about recognition of marriage not what benefits are or are not enjoyed.
Indeed, that's the whole point of "marriage" vs "same-sex union." The issue was that even if "same-sex unions" conferred all the same benefits, there was no recognition as marriage. They're two separate things.
- Same-sex marriages are recognized in Israel, full stop.
- Same-sex marriages confer at least many of the same benefits. Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're pushing your POV through OR. I've reverted to the status quo ante and tagged the article as needing to be updated. I suggest, per the rules of dispute resolution on WP, that you come to consensus here first (it doesn't need to be with me), and then edit the article to reflect that consensus. Otherwise you risk sanctions for edit-warring.
This is a well-reported topic. There are sources out there for a well-balanced article. — kwami (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was reached with "complicated." It could have been left at that.
The idea that something can be "not legal," yet registered under the official record keeping of the government and recognized as valid is an absurdity. [4] Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd or not, you need RS's for your claims. Read WP:TRUTH. — kwami (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I edited it. How's that? The source needed was already one block down anyway. "Officiated and registered same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of Israel, as valid." Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely biased and I suspect intentionally misleading, since you appear to know exactly what you're saying. Why don't you start with the facts, rather than trying to spin them to fit your agenda? — kwami (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In started with the facts: Officiated and registered same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of Israel, as valid. https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/1657463149-israeli-court-recognizes-online-civil-marriages-as-valid Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's called "spin". You can bullshit with facts by obsuring them. I don't believe you're acting in good faith, as you refuse to concede basic facts.
I'm done here. Revert yourself or I'll request to have you banned. (I'm going to sleep now, so you'll have some time to think about it, unless one of the other people you've edit-warred with blocks you first.) — kwami (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that spin?! The source itself says they're valid.
And indeed, if we said only foreign officiated are valid, that would imply that should one of the millets start officiating same-sex marriages, they still would not be valid. In other words, we must include it as I suggest or there is an inadvertent misleading. Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Tel Aviv isn't Israel. Local law isn't national law. — kwami (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent military source just speaks of 'couples', not married couples. — kwami (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above was from the 2nd edition of Black's. The latest (9th) just says "Forbidden by law; unlawful," where "unlawful" is defined as "Not authorized by law; illegal." Which is rather unhelpful.

Inclusion of Table of Benefits

[edit]

I think I broke the thread accidentally by trying to copy in markdown that apparently doesn't render properly. Maybe a new primary thread...

I propose we have a proper table of benefits. The table can list various benefits enjoyed by married couples and whether they're not enjoyed, partially enjoyed, or fully enjoyed, by same-sex married couples. Dgoldman0 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Contradiction in Original Version

[edit]

The following is the old version of the introduction to this article.

> Same-sex marriage is not legal in Israel, but the government has recognized same-sex marriages performed abroad since 2006.[5] Prior to 2022, marriages performed in Israel were only valid when registered with one of the 15 religious marriage courts recognized by the state, none of which permit same-sex marriage. Consequently, Israeli same-sex couples who wished to have their marriages recognized by the government first had to marry outside Israel, in a jurisdiction where such marriages are legal, and then register upon returning home.[4]

> In July 2022, the Central District Court ruled that marriages performed in Israel under an online civil marriage service established by the U.S. state of Utah, including same-sex marriages, are legal in Israel, thereby removing the requirement for same-sex couples to leave the country to get married.[6][7] The ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023.[8] A June 2019 opinion poll conducted by Hiddush showed that 78% of Israelis supported recognizing same-sex unions.[9]

  1. ^ "נישואים חד מיניים – גולדשטיין יגאל – עורך דין ונוטריון". Retrieved 2024-04-04.
  2. ^ "In complete reversal, Israel says it no longer opposes same-sex adoption". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 6 December 2017. Retrieved 10 April 2021.
  3. ^ "Israel Lifts Surrogacy Restrictions in Landmark Decision for LGBTQ People - Israel News - Haaretz.com". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2024-04-04.
  4. ^ a b "Israeli court recognizes online civil marriages as valid". i24News. 2022-07-10.
  5. ^ Fischel, Marion (7 June 2022). "timeline-of-lgbtq-rights-in-israel". Israel21c.
  6. ^ Leibowitz, Aaron (16 July 2022). "Lod court's Utah marriage ruling is a landmark for civil marriage - opinion". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 1 August 2022.
  7. ^ Rozovsky, Liza (6 August 2023). "Israel Recognizes Marriage of Same-sex Immigrant Couple Who Married Online in Russia". Haaretz.
  8. ^ Sharon, Jeremy (2023-03-07). "Israel must recognize online marriages conducted via Utah, Supreme Court rules". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2023-10-25.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference poll1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The first paragraph clearly states that same-sex marriage is not legal in Israel. This implies that no same-sex marriage is legal in Israel. Yet paragraph two states clearly that the courts upheld that same-sex marriages "performed in Israel...are legal in Israel." The lack of a civil officiator service in Israel does not change that legality. Paragraph one and paragraph two squarely contradict each other.

"Same-sex marriage is not legal in Israel... the Central District Court ruled that marriages performed in Israel... including same-sex marriages... are legal in Israel..." Dgoldman0 (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the wording is bad. But they're not performed in Israel, are they? They're performed in Utah, under Utahn authorities, and recognized in Israel. As the ref states, "Israeli citizens are not free to marry whom they choose and how they choose [and] hundreds of thousands of Israelis are not eligible to marry at all," and, "couples can attend their ceremony abroad digitally." Also, "Israel recognizes marriage of same-sex immigrant couple who married online in Russia." That is, these are foreign marriages, conducted abroad, not domestic ones. — kwami (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom and capability are not the same thing. I am free to purchase a space ship from a a dealership. And "in" becomes a very tricky thing with the internet.
It is especially stupid since this article is supposed to be about recognition rather than access to services. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have reverted back to "Foreign same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of Israel. Same-sex couples enjoy many of the benefits that married heterosexual couples do, including inheritance, adoption and surrogacy."
I concur with this version. I'm just going to go back to the version of it where it includes "as valid" and has the sources for both that statement and the benefits statements. Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait. You say foreign. That's not good, @Kwamikagami. This version would imply that should any of the millets officiate a marriage, it would still not be seen as valid. This implication is false as I'm sure you agree. Thus this version is more appropriate. Do you not agree?
Officiated and registered same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of Israel, as valid.[1] Same-sex couples enjoy many of the benefits that married heterosexual couples do, including inheritance, adoption and surrogacy.[2] [3][4] Dgoldman0 (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the millets did change their policy, we could of course change the wording to reflect that. But as it stands, only foreign marriages are accepted. That's the status quo. I know this conversation has gone backwards and forwards, but that really does seem the most accurate way to describe the current situation. It's one of the benefits of having an editable encyclopedia :) Jdcooper (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your wording suggests that they would not be accepted. But that's not the case. In the US, are same-sex marriages performed by the Catholic church legal? Yes. Are they accepted? Yes. Are they offered?
FURTHERMORE...
You know what? Fuck it. You win. Let your lies and contradictions stand. I just copied over from another one, but it still doesn't actually work. Nothing that you want works, because it's a bloody lie. Dgoldman0 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcooper:, it looks like we may now be able to create a straightforward account of the situation.
Dgoldman's latest intro is almost right, IMO:
Marriage in Israel is regulated by the religious courts of recognized confessional communities. However, civil marriages, including same-sex marriages, performed under foreign jurisdictions are recognized by Israeli law.
The only problem I have with that is the ambiguous word "recognized". Recognized as what? If they're recognized as marriage, so that such couples are married under Israeli law, then Israel should be dark purple on the map and listed as having foreign recognition in the info box. If however they're recognized as something less than marriage, the equivalent to civil unions, as they are in Aruba and Italy, then we need to reflect that. Either way, we need to be clear on whether SS couples have access to marriage under Israeli law. (I don't know what the situation is, because it's been changing, and I can't tell if that change is for specific institutions such as the military, or if it applies to the entire country.)
(And Dgoldman, no, it doesn't suggest they wouldn't be accepted. It's only a statement of what is. That's our primary task, describing what actually is. Anything at all might be, but it's not our job to speculate on that unless we have RS's that do the speculation. Then we could report on which milets might some day officiate over SSM.) — kwami (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source in the lead paragraph,
"you can marry in a civil ceremony outside Israel and then register your marriage in Israel ... in the Population Registry ... Registration of marriage in Israel provides the couple with all the benefits of a married couple.
Based on that, I think we should say that Israel has full SSM through this loophole.
Also, the article states that common-law couples have most of the rights of marriage. So that sounds like the equivalent of a civil union in a country like Italy. I would say that foreign recognition takes precedence for the map and info box, because it affords full marriage (assuming this article got its facts right). — kwami (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Israeli court recognizes online civil marriages as valid". i24News. 2022-07-10.
  2. ^ "נישואים חד מיניים – גולדשטיין יגאל – עורך דין ונוטריון". Retrieved 2024-04-04.
  3. ^ "In complete reversal, Israel says it no longer opposes same-sex adoption". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 6 December 2017. Retrieved 10 April 2021.
  4. ^ "Israel Lifts Surrogacy Restrictions in Landmark Decision for LGBTQ People - Israel News - Haaretz.com". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2024-04-04.

Is it just Utah?

[edit]

Utah's online access was a response to Covid. It's entirely possible that some day they may decide to end that program, just as several other US states have. (Those other states had only offered online weddings to residents.) If this happens, will that mean an end to SSM in Israel without leaving the country, or are other jurisdictions now an option? — kwami (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Israel&oldid=1258762162"