Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Same Sex Unions and Registered Partnerships - New South Wales

I am still trying to understand what is possible and where. According to Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#New_South_Wales The Relationships Register Bill 2010 was introduced to the NSW Legislative Assembly on 23 April 2010. The bill was approved by the NSW Legislative Assembly on a 62-9 vote on 11 May 2010, and then by the NSW Legislative Council (upper house) on a 32-5 vote on 12 May. It is currently awaiting royal assent. The precise date when it will enter into force is yet unknown.

Therefore I don't think that NSW should not appear in the "Performed in some jurisdictions" section of this template yet? Paul Jeffrey Thompson 08:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talk • contribs)

See [1] Ron 1987 10:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The NSW scheme is listed in the template because it has already been legislatively approved (including royal assent), even if it has not entered into force. This is in line with the general convention for this template (although an asterisk should be placed next to NSW until the scheme enters into force). The date of entry into force has not been established yet - surprisingly, it is not included in the legislative act itself (the Relationship Register Act 2010). The NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages is currently working on implementing the relationship register, and it is expected to be implemented by July. From this point onwards, couples will be able to register their relationships. Ronline ✉ 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered cohabitation or Common-law marriage

I think "Common-law marriage" as the section's title could be better than "Unregistered cohabitation". Ron 1987 15:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Or "De facto unions"? Ron 1987 15:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "common-law marriage" is a pretty problematic term that is anachronistic when used outside of a non-English-speaking context. "Common-law marriage" is a legal term used primarily in Canada, the UK and the United States to designate couples who are not de jure married, but who are "factually" living like a married couple (according to an established set of criteria) and are to be treated by the common law as married. This term is a lot more specific than "unregistered cohabitation": many unregistered cohabitation schemes are explicitly designed to not equal to marriage, while "common-law marriage" is intended to be parallel to registered marriage. If the title is changed to "common-law marriage", this could give the misleading impression that same-sex couples in those states virtually have access to marriage equality. "De facto unions" is a better term because it avoids the word "marriage", but it is also pretty rarely used, being mostly an Australian and South American concept.

"Unregistered cohabitation" is in my opinion the clearest and most informative term (even if it's not perfect). It signifies that, unlike "registered partnerships", such unions are unregistered (which is the main distinction drawn by the template). It also stresses that the emphasis is on "cohabitation" as a basis for conferring these rights. Ronline ✉ 09:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, "Unregistered cohabitation" conveys to the reader that some level of recognition for same sex partners exists within the local jurisdiction and is in some way akin or similar to the rights afforded to opposite sex partners in the same situation.

Some countries or states could of course have legislation in place for both "Unregistered cohabitation" as well as Same-sex marriage/Civil Partnerships Pjthompso PjThompso 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Argentina law

Reading the Same-sex marriage in Argentina page adequately shows the "it is not" already. Cited sources show that.Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not become law yet, but Cristina Fernandez will sign the bill. Is clear that same-sex marriage will become legal. It is enough. Ron 1987 10:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not enough. "Is the law" vs, "is not the law" is generally a clear bright line, and in this case it's clear which side Argentina is on at the moment. Fernandez is human, could die in an instant. Let us wait until it is the law to add it to the list, rather than unnecessarily playing crystal ball. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Vice-president Julio Cobos who is head of state at the moment by the absence of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, traveling in China, said that he will not veto the bill, despite appeals of some people. [2] Ron 1987 13:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and Cobos says that he is not vetoing it because of the transitional nature of his position. Should CFdK die suddenly, then I presume his position is no longer so transitional, and he did oppose this law. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas, it's already LAW. The three powers are independent. Laws are approved by the legislative branch, not the executive. You can watch the session on YouTube. The Senate's president concluded "se convierte en ley, comuníquese al poder ejecutivo" (it turns to law, inform the executive branch). Since that exact moment, the motion is law. The rest, its just a communication, a recognition that the president has been informed of the outcome, just that. Even if vetoed, its still law. Vetoing can affect only if the law enters into practice or not, but legally its recognized. The template is for "legal recognition of SSM", thus Argentina has recognized it whatever the president does with it. pmt7ar ^(talk) 17:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the sources on the requisite page, it becomes law as and when mentioned. If you have the alternative sourcing on Argentine law then it can go on that page first. Obviously the requisite page has to deal with the info before a template can. (some say days, some say weeks. so its quite a way away)Lihaas (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have put an astericks on both Argentina and Ireland since those laws have not become effective yet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

By "Legal recognition of same-sex couples", Argentina already enters the "Same-sex marriage" category. Its recognized by law since July 15th. The come into force will be apparently in wednesday. Also, there's already the first couple with date to marriage under this law, for August 13th (protocol require you to request it 28 days before celebration) [3]. Also if you put acterisk, wouldn't be necessary a legend? pmt7ar ^(talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know about Ireland but the requisite page on Argentina clearly cites when it will become legal and accessible. Passing a bill in the legislator does NOT make anything law. If you have a source to indicate to the contrary then by all means show it.

This is page not going away anywhere, you can update in due course within the next month or soLihaas (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Irish bill was signed by President. See http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0719/breaking29.html Ron 1987 12:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay that seems to be good then (prob need to update that page as that page didnt reflect this). Arg. will be in Aug, its confirmed.Lihaas (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Argentina is already. It's been law since July 15th and come into force since approved by executive branch (it appeared today in official bulletin). There is not any delay before taking effect, it's completely effective right now. The 28 days to wait, misinterpreted by some media, is just a procedure. The president say marriages will begin in 29 days to the general public, since that is the general delay to the process. Its protocol, y,you can't decide to marry and wed instant you must request a turn with at least 28 days in advance. That is a procedural decision in the offices, so there where offices where turns where given even before of July 22th -full coming into force of the law-. If a straight couple decides to marry today, they will have to wait 28 days at least, you won't say that straight marriages will take effect in August, right?pmt7ar ^(talk) 18:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, now it is law...was that too much? ;) Fair game for the template and no need for some caveats either.Lihaas (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Argentine media the law is effective 8 days after appearing in the Official Bulletin (v.g. August 2nd). The protocol for the weddings to take place is of 28 days, just for Buenos Aires City. In some other districts, the marriages could take place since the first week of August. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The AFP says August 13, and this looks legit as well. The argentina medium seems to only discuss when the changes in registries are made, no? Hekerui (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The AFP detail for the first wedding to take place seems right. I only said that it "could" have been on the first week. Re/ the changes on the registries, I'm afraid I don't understand what registries do you refer to. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.82.148.133, 25 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the "Notes" section it reads "*The law not take effect yet." when it should read "The law has not taken effect yet."

71.82.148.133 (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting. A certain user doesn't speak English well. I removed the note because the Irish bill is law, just requiring changes in the budget for ceremonies to begin. Hekerui (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

New Mexico

Though this issue appears to have been brought up many times before, does this case give any clarification as to New Mexico's same-sex marriage recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halbtone (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

California

From the reliable sources I've read so far the issue is not settled, a higher court may intervene and nothing is legal before August 18, so let's be cautious with misinformation for now. Hekerui (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur CTJF83 chat 07:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wyoming

I removed Wyoming - same-sex marriages are currently in litigation there. Hekerui (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good move, Hekerui

Also: anyone interested in this can see here, as background. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Granting of same-sex marriages is in litigation. However, that's different from what the state was added for, which is recognition of SSM entered into elsewhere. The references that the user had entered indicated that such recognition exists in the law (don't know if there are any practical tested examples or if it is merely theoretical), and even the article that Sugar-Baby-Love linked to indicated that there were people seeking to ban such recognition. As such, it sounds like WY should be reinstated where it was. Anyone have any further information? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today I corrected the Wyoming article, which I also did a year or so ago (see talk page of the article), but somebody or somebodies keep jumping the gun on this point. (They just did the same thing with New Mexico this morning too, which has already been reverted.)

Go look at my update on Wyoming; the law says out of state marriages will be recognized, yes, but it doesn't specify same-sex marriages. And in fact every state has a provision like that in their statutes, but with DOMA, it is a moot point unless and until the state actively decides to recognize same-sex couples. If you can find an example of Wyoming doing that to prove me wrong, please put it in the Wyoming article and change the template accordingly.

But what's happening is, people on WP who aren't lawyers are jumping to an unjustified assumption here. Until someone can provide verification that anything has changed in Wyoming, leave the template alone. Textorus (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is legal confusion because of the several laws in state law and DOMA at the same time. The HRC concluded no recognition is there and there is no evidence that a married same-sex couple had their marriage recognized in Wyoming so far. We should not jump the gun on this. Hekerui (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but Hekerui since you like to go on facts and don't want people jumping the gun, perhaps you should have looked at who changed the New Mexico page because that wasn't me who changed that page. Sorry, but I believe the Associated Press is a valid source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflack (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try to understand, this is not about what you believe. And the Associated Press is not God; newspaper reporters make mistakes all the time that get into print (see Dewey Defeats Truman and List of erroneous newspaper headlines). If something is true, especially a legal matter regarding official state policy, then we ought to be able to verify it by official sources other than newspaper articles, which is what you are not doing with the Wyoming article. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Textorus (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

EDIT Request: Tasmania

Tasmania recently passed a law to recognise overseas same-sex marriages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Tasmania last paragraph.

Can someone please edit the template to include Australia: TAS under Recognized, not performed for Same-Sex Marriage

60.241.58.161 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

They are not recognized as marriage in Tasmania, but as the local form of domestic partnership, so it's better to not include them. The UK, Germany etc. have similar mechanisms, doesn't mean they recognize same-sex marriage as marriage. Hekerui (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Uganda: Same-sex unions prohibited

Hi,

According to LGBT rights in Uganda, same-sex marriages are prohibited there.

I suggest modifying the template to include a section, "Same-sex marriages prohibited", and move Uganda into it.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's dispensable. Section "Jurisdictions with current or recent debates on SSUs" includes countries with constitutional same-sex marriage ban. Another section is not necessary. Ron 1987 12:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming

I propose to change the heading same-sex marriage to marriage. Two reasons:

1. Consistency with the same level heading below (which is registered partnerships, not same-sex registered partnerships.
2. The name same-sex marriage suggests that by law a same-sex marriage and a opposite-sex marriage exists, whereas in most jurisdictions allowing gay-marriage a gender-neutral marriage definition is adopted, rather than defining 2 different things...

L.tak (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's unnecessarily tincking with something that works. Same-sex marriage is the neutral term used and indeed the article title for the main article on the tipic, and it includes the word marriage, so there is no ambiguity. Hekerui (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

off topic: I have no problem with same-sex marriage when saying "same-sex marriage is legal", but prefer "same-sex marriage exists" to be changed to "gender-neutral marriage exists" (which term takes both "types of marriage" as that's what's actually in the law definitions). Indeed in this box there is something to say to use the common term. My first point however still stands: if you look at the headings there is a main heading: 'Legal recognition of same-sex couples', then a heading ("1.1") same-sex marriage; and below that ("1.2") Civil unions and registered partnerships. My proposal is to remove the words same-sex there simply for consistency (and I would have been bold to do so if I had realized this page was only semi-protected and I could edit it...) L.tak (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change. Hekerui (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

you might be right... could you reply to my reply of 13 December, so we can see if we can establish one? L.tak (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed edit. "Same-sex marriage" is, in this context, redundant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed change as well, per Nat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposed edit Orionsbelter (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This would seem to have reached consensus (although not unanimity), so I have implemented the change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposed edit. pmt7ar ^(talk) 20:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Title

I think that Legal recognition of same-sex unions is more appropriate title than Legal recognition of same-sex couples. Ron 1987 12:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's potentially confusing, because the template links to all kinds of other arrangements not well summed up under "unions", like unregistered cohabitation and registered partnership, domestic partership - and "unions" as in "civil unions" have a specific meaning. Hekerui (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's secondary question. Cohabitation or registered partnership it is a type of a union. This is important. Specific meaning? There is no a specific meaning in this case. Ron 1987 13:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't just change the page again without any consensus achieved and allow others to weigh in, we're not in a rush here. Hekerui (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If there will be no response to my last post, I will restore my edit tomorrow. Ron 1987 14:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not achieved via ultimatum on Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia:Consensus. Hekerui (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hekerui. Consensus cannot be rushed.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand, the template refers to several different types of arrangements, and the legal recognition of those arrangements - marriage, civil unions, civil partnerships, and cohabitations. Since those all have specific meanings, my opinion is that the more general "couples" is probably the way to go. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Legal recognition of same-sex unions would be problematic, in that some of these "unions" only are a legal status; shortening it to civil same-sex unions, legislated same-sex unions or somesuch would be more appropriate than that.... but then we also get into the problem that "union" is also a specific terminology for some but not all of these types of unions (i.e., civil unions). As such, my slight preference is to retain the status quo... although this may have to be revisited should any place pass a law for monogender polyamorous confabulations (my WP:CRYSTALBALL sez no!) --18:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the present wording is a bit weird: the issue a hand it not the legal recognition of couples (whatever that may be), but their "civil rights" (in the narrow sense of the word: e.g. living together, using their name, right to heritage etc). However, the change to "unions" is also quite a stretch (the cohabitation is a "de facto union" at the very best; and union seems to be in some contexts quite stricty defined as a formal registered commitment). I would prefer a statement like: legal status of same-sex relationships , as IMO that would come closest to what's described here. L.tak (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that with that title, I'd expect to see things like that you can be thrown in prison for such a relationship in Uganda, which is not what this is about. (It also sounds like all same-sex relationships in Massachusetts are marriage.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully miss the Massachusetts part; but as for the "Uganda-point", I have a similar feeling regarding the present: "Legal recognition of same-sex couples" (if the couple is not recognized, then what good or horrible thing happens, and who recognizes the couple?). Maybe it is especially the recognition part that is a problem to me and am I strongly prefering "status" there. What I would like to have in the title reflected is that this template indicates which "civil/legal status/rights options" people in a same-sex relationship have and maybe we should be looking in that direction more? L.tak (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

In view of the staleness of the present section and the discussion above there seems to be no consensus for any of the suggestions; + several editors show their uneasynes with the present wording. combining 2 proposals and looking at the comments: how would you all think about legal recognition of same-sex relationships? In that way it's not about the relationship of the couple (where it is unclear what is recognized in "couple") but still the word "legal recognition" is in, so the procecution of gays etc is clearly out... As for the unregistered cohabitation entries. They are in here as a kind of "de facto relationship" and therefore have a legal status in some jurisdictions, so I guess there it would fit as well. L.tak (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Hekerui (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Ron 1987 13:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

done! L.tak (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent debates?

Hi everyone,

What is the cutoff time for inclusion in the "Recent debates" section?

For example, was the SSM ban in Louisiana recent enough (as Ron 1987 contends in the summary for this edit) or does the fact that it was seven years ago disqualify it (as Knowledgekid87 contends in the summary for this edit)?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent, as of today, I would say is some major news from 2010 or 2011. Other thoughts? Hekerui (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Something that happened 7 years ago to me is not recent, I overlooked all of the articles in the recent debates and kept the ones dating back to 2009 but now that it is 2011 even that is pushinhg it a little. I would agree on news/major news from 2010-2011 as a recent debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I suggest removing the following things from the list of recent debates in the U.S.: Alabama, American Samoa, Arizona, Guam, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, and United States tribal jurisdictions. Those are the ones in the U.S. about which I think there was no recent news regarding SSUs. Hekerui (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, you have no objection here, if there is to be a recent debate section it should be about recent debates, this should go for the countries too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed those mentioned except for West Virginia, read something about a new push for a marriage amendment there yesterday (a mere press release though, not sure whether this has any traction or not). Hekerui (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I also plan on removing Delaware as although a bill was planned for 2010 to ban SSM, it was defeated in March 2009. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Delaware should stay. See [4], [5] Ron 1987 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay my mistake, add it to the article then, I also found browsing through google a bill that was proposed in 2010 for civil unions. [6] so I guess that does count as a recent debate I am not sure though how far it went. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That raises an additional question: Is it enough that someone introduced a bill? Introducing a bill, especially in the US, is quite easy. It seems to me there should be some indication that there is a substantive debate happening in the jurisdiction, or at least that the bill has had more than perfunctory treatment (i.e., it wasn't merely referred to committee and never heard from again). -Rrius (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Jurisdictions with current or recent debates on SSUs' section.

This section includes only countries where same-sex unions are not recognized, but issue is debated. Do not add countries which recognizes same-sex unions. Ron 1987 09:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That is actually not what the title implies. The title implies a recent discussion happened, nothing more. Hekerui (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

japan

added japan to recognized but not performed with a conditional, because japan recognizes same-sex marriages with a foreign same-sex partner if that partner comes from a nation where same-sex marriage is recognized.Thisbites (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, is that enough different than most of the other countries that recognize out-of-country marriages but don't perform them? It doesn't sound that different (but pardon me if I'm missing the obvious!)... --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 07:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, most recognize-but-not-perform countries only recognize the Netherlands, it looks like! But yes, it is different from most recognize-but-not-perform jurisdiction; an Israeli couple can go get married elsewhere and come back and be married, a Japanese couple cannot. It would seem to make a key difference for most of the people who would want their marriages recognized in Japan. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, got it, thanks! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Israel

As far as I know, the argument goes that none of Israel's religions allow same-sex marriage, and marriage in Israel is basically a religious matter. So what of this: [7]? --haha169 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan, again

I'm not sure if Japan should be included. From all of the sources, it seems that all the Japanese government is doing is issuing documentation to same-sex couples to allow them to marry in foreign jurisdictions (e.g. documents that certify that they are single). There are no sources stating that these foreign marriages are then recognised under Japanese law as valid marriages. Ronline ✉ 10:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

[8], [9]. I will remowe Japan. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

In second reading Liechtenstein passed legislation for civil unions.

• Schweizer Fernsehen:Liechtenstein:Ja zur Homo-Ehe 92.252.112.31 (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

criteria

I think we need a criterion on when we add countries to a sections. For example, we have more options:

• When the law has been proposed
• When the law has passed the democratic requirements
• Law has been announced by official publication
• Law is officially approved (royal assent etc)
• Law entered into force.

I don't mind too much what to choose, but would prefer something consistent. The most consistent thing to me seems the date of entering into force. Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the convention so far has been to add a jurisdiction to a section once the law is officially approved. If it hasn't entered into force yet, an asterisk should be added, with a footnote stating the date of entry into force (this would apply to Liechtenstein, Isle of Man and Illinois in the present). Ronline ✉ 06:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I could live with such an asterix-system, although we run the risk being too fast: e.g. after a law is approved by parliament in Iceland, we would add it naturally, however, the Icesave dispute has shown us that the President can refuse to sign and thus trigger a referendum on the case. In other words for us the most neutral and stable moment to implement is on the day of implementation... Let's wait to see how others think about it; if there is no clear consensus for change to "date of implementation", let's keep it as it was (but with the suggested asterix). Rgds! L.tak (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer using the date of a law entering into force. But I could live with the asterisc solution if a country is only added after the law has passed all hurdles (signing by the president, possibility of referendum as in Liechtenstein,...) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if that works. For Liechtenstein, Isle of Man and Illinois do we know if it is final (royal assent in Man applicable?)? I will add the asterisks provisionally now... L.tak (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In Illinois it is signed, so it's the law and no asterisk is needed, people can get more info in the specific article - no reason to clunker the page further. Isle of Man is already in force. Lichtenstein is not yet final. I will remove the asterisk, let's leave that to specific articles and change the template only when we have clarity. We would need lots of asterisks for every possible situation (just check out the situation in California). Hekerui (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Liechtenstein and MAn (changed to that effect already before). But Illinois I am confused: I thought it's the law, but it is not in effect?! It's exactly that situation that Roentgenium and I prefered a spec for, with Ronline supporting. Why not implementing it then? L.tak (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking why in Illinois they have to wait till June 1, instead of now to get a civil union? I know for Iowa the law is anything passed by the legislature from January 1 - June 30 takes affect July 1, and anything passed from July 1 - December 31 takes affect the following January 1...probably similar in Illinois. CTJF83 22:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's quite clear to me that there is a difference between a law becoming final, and before it takes effect. My point is that if it is in the period between those periods, it should be marked with a *. L.tak (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, because people can't be bothered checking the actual article? Because you don't understand that billa can become laws without going into effect at once? What about Hawaii and Delaware, are you going to mark them with asterisks, too? We have articles for that. Stop cluttering the template. Hekerui (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And please don't start with consensus stuff - some people comment on a little watched talk page and suddenly a change that's totally obsolete becomes untouchable? This was a non-problem that you tried to solve, let's better spend time improving articles so you don't have to wonder about these laws. Hekerui (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

i) I do understand that (see my point above). ii) It is not totally untouchable; absolutely not; pages can change. I tried to change something here and see who was in favour. Three people had so far contributed, so I thought is was time for a change and consensus was established. I'll wait and see whether we can come to a consensus here. Would you think it is a good idea to place a request for comment? iii) If cluttering is the problem, we could also put only the countries where things have entered into force (my original proposal, backed by Roentgenium, but not by Ronline). That would not clutter, but have the (for me) most important event displayed: when it is actually possible to marry/recordrelationship etc. Would you be in favour of that? L.tak (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my somewhat overheated response, it's just that I wonder how one would want to add something this unclear/vague to this already overflowing template. The way it's organized now all the links in the sections Marriage, Civil unions and registered partnerships, and Unregistered cohabitation link to articles about current laws or legal principles, not things-to-be or former laws. I'm for leaving this alone. The whole section on "Jurisdictions with current or recent debates on SSUs" relies on whim and if it was removed the template would be much better. Whether something is in force or not is a minor question imo because bills that become laws are bound to be in force, whatever delay there might be - I'd say the best way to handle this would be to keep things consistent with the maps on SSU-pages, including File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. Hekerui (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can find eachother in our attempts to have a clean template without vague/unclear text. this thread started with me indicating why I think "it's the law" can be rather ambiguous (see first post) + that I think the most clear and meaningful situation would be to choose is entry into force (as far as I know, that is what happens in most situations. E.g. sint Maarten became a country on 10 October 2010 and then we changed it, but the law was passed already 2 weeks early; and published (royal assent) about 1 week early; so choosing "in effect date" is at least reasonable The * was a compromise suggested by Ronline and I am accepting that just as that: a compromise which I think is reasonalble and which I am willing to defend. I don't think it will lead to much clutter as well (1 sentence). As for the recent debates section: that has much more effect in reducing the template but is outside this particluar discussion, I can imagine a point can be made about removing it... L.tak (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a good compromise. Giving such detail can't be the scope of a mere template, especially one designed to link people to proper articles, but if we were to included such detail we would have to do it for many more places and constantly tinker around. That puts undue strain on the servers because the template it included in so many pages and belies the purpose of the template as a guidepost. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As said, I think it's the most important thing, so not a detail. As for the servers: it's not that heavyly transcluded; I that is the case an admin will come by and fully protect it. It is also not a very heavy amount of changes (basically 1 instead of 2 edits per change in legislation). How would you think about having entry in effect date? L.tak (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Map of Europe.

I think Kosovo should be included in this map? Can anyone do this? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg

79.163.182.107 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss on the file talk page. Hekerui (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nepal

Nepal does not legally recognize same-sex marriages. This was proposed earlier, but a new constitution with this included has yet to be adopted and there is a good chance according to the Indo-Asian News Service that this won't happen. The recent same-sex wedding ceremonies have not been legally binding - at least there is no source that says so and plenty that imply otherwise. Hekerui (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

NY

Gov. Cuomo has officially signed this into law, so NY should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.14.41 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If the law has not yet taken effect, "NY" should still be added to the template but with a note of when the law will take effect. Given SSM is, or is about to be, allowed in NY, it would be incorrect to omit it from the template. Johnhousefriday (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not clutter this up with footnotes. We already include articles where the underlying law has not taken effect yet, see civil unions in Delaware and Hawaii, so I believe we should include NY as well, as SSM is already law there. If we were to leave out NY even though it is already the law, the consistency with the template Template:Same-sex unions in the United States and the graphic File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg would not be given, and those are also widely included (on the same pages as this template mostly) and have consensus to include laws that are merely waiting to take effect. Hekerui (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hekerui for now. consistency is most important, so if we don't do it in some places, we also shouldn't place if for New York. However, as stated above there seems to be quite some people interested adding a footnote that it has not taken effect yet for all cases. I have seen only objections from Hekerui so far. I feel too much involved to determine whether to call it a consensus however.. L.tak (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree too!--В и к и в и н д T a L k 17:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think that the obvious exuberance of overzealous celebrants should be set as the standard for "consistency" in these articles. Yes, we're all glad that New York has enacted a same-sex marriage law, but it does not go into effect till the end of next month. To imply that same-sex marriages are already allowed in New York is both premature and misleading. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"we're all glad that New York has enacted SSM law" --- why do you make this assumption? Do you think only pro-SSM people actively read and edit these articles? --Smart (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island?

Governor Chafee has not yet signed the Civil Union law as far as I know, so has the law really entered into force without being signed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also Rhode Island should be removed from the unregistered cohabitation section, since surely whatever that law included is now included in civil unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.152.89 (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Chile

Chile passed a Civil Unions law today called the AVC Acuerdo de Vida en Comun - (Agreement to a life in common or commonlife agreement)[10], it needs to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longthicknosnip (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it says the law has been presented as a proposal - also see [11]. AV3000 (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

We can include the UK in the recent debate section because this October the UK government announced plans to introduce SSM by the time of the next general election, and the Scottish parliament discusses this issue at the moment. Hekerui (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

UK is included in civil union section, so same-sex unions are recognized. Including UK in debate section suggests that same-sex unions are not recognized. It's confusing. It is not legible. The same country should not be included in more than one section. This template is big enough already. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's confusing indeed. To the letter of the paragraph, it are "same sex union-debates", and a rule on "one country-mention per template" is not directly and intuitively clear here. combined with the inherent disputability of "current or recent debates", why not get rid of the whole section? L.tak (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2012

Here is the formal ruling: http://diario.tj.es.gov.br/2012/20120103.pdf search for 001/2012, page 7. The ruling does not mention marriage, just a guarantee to same-sex couples to register their union and grants them the same rights of any heterosexual couple.

Further research is required to find out if "same rights of any heterosexual couple" means also the right to use the word "marriage"

99.231.6.139 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I changed the template for now. Why do we jump to change every template in existence when this looks so vague? Hekerui (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The link you posted here regarding the ruling was for the State of Espiritu Santo, not for the State of Alagaos. Vivafilipinas (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So we haven't seen the correct ruling, do I get that right? Hekerui (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ibdfam.org.br/?noticias&noticia=4707 What about this for a serious souce on this Subject? This is from the BRAZILIAN INSTITUTE OF FAMILY RIGHTSnews website. Here you can perfectly read that this ruling is for MARRIAGE not UNIONS and the ruling number in Alagoas Justice Court. AND By the way the state of Espirito Santo haven't ruled this yet. The ruling someone posted above is from ONE marriage in Espirto Santo, but a Judge authorized one. I hope this finishes the dispute.Denisxavier (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fully convinced. I would like to see a full text of the court's ruling. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How do we know this Brazilian Institute of Family Rights is an official government organization? Their press release only cites activists but not the ruling. And how do we know this ruling would be final? Rulings get appealed all the time. I'm not convinced. Hekerui (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

From the four sources I read in the article, they all seemed to indicate that a judged ruled that they needn't go before a judge to have their civil unions converted to a marriage. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Intimidation by giving a warning? Very mature. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I am required to give the warning before I can report a violation of 3RR. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You already broke that rule. And? It's intimidation, nothing more. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't broken that rule, and I apologize I wasn't trying to intimidate anyone. But there is a severe lack of communication over a lot of stuff, and a lack of replies when I try to start a new topic like about the in-line verification templates. That discussion is on the talk page of the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really? [12] 3 reverts within 1 hour. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the fourth which you get blocked for. This is pretty irrelevant right now since the template is protected for 3 days. Full protection. Can we get back to the topic at hand, please? Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

New discussion

I've started a discussion on the verification needed in-line templates over at Talk:Same-sex marriage in Alagoas. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2012 - Technical

What appears to be part of the template documentation is showing up in articles. Can someone please tweak the noinclude, or whatever it is, to fix this? It's very annoying. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is already fully protected, and I left a note on the admin's talkpage who protected it about this issue. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It was my fault, I apologise for that. Twinkle (or, much more probably, I) messed up somehow. I should have corrected it now... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Quintana Roo

As seen on Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico, we have no confirmation that SSMs can be legally performed in this Mexican state aside from when some couples pick some public officials in big cities who agree with a lawyer that a legal loophole allows it. Until we know better whether every state citizen can marry in the state, we ought to leave this template alone, lest we mislead readers on the countless pages this is embedded in. I beg some patience please. Hekerui (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this, but at the moment I'm not willing to edit war over it. I think there is sufficient evidence that it is legal, and it should be included in the template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that we seem to have come to an understanding on the article, I think it should be re-added to this template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to find it a bit to preliminary as long as we have no confirmation what will be happening in the next months. I suggest we wait it out until really something stable has established (are those marriages accepted in civil law in practice? or rendered void as soon as they're challenged?), or until some governor announces that this should be happening statewide. I agree with Hekerui that we need some patience... L.tak (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's still performed in some parts of the state, just not the entire state. It's still appropriate for that section. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been performed by some officials, not by some parts of the state, that is overstating it. The sources state neither finality nor even numerous solemization. Hekerui (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to conclude that we have no consensus yet and I see no new evidence. I therfore reverted Me's bold move to put in it per :BRBRBRD. Please do not add again until we have consensus; you can easily convince me with the suitalbe sources, but I refuse to be in a hurry; wikipedia is about facts and consensus; not about the daily news.... L.tak (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I added this state back in to the template, with the disputed tag. Policies: WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. Just because may not be recognized state-wide, it is in some municipalities. Municipalities = juristiction per the defintion. Now let's resolve this issue please, perhaps find some compromise? Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Additional policy: WP:CRYSTALBALL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ron 1987: I hadn't seen that article. Thank you for pointing it out. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Court of Brazilian State of Alagoas legalizes gay Marriage

On January 5, 2011 a judge in the Brazilian state of Alagoas ruled that same-sex marriages will be performed in the state instead of the Civil Unions, making this the first state in Brazil to grant the married status to gay couples. Marriages performed in this state will then be recognized throughout the whole country. Former Alagoas state judge Maria Berenice Dias, who currently directs the National Commission on Sexual Diversity of the Order_of_Attorneys_of_Brazil, sent the text with the decision of the Court of Alagoas to the other states in an attempt to extend the measure across the country. She said the state of Paraná must adhere to the decision of Alagoas soon.

In Brazil, a same-sex couple may convert their civil union into marriage with the approval of a state judge, if approved that marriage is recognized in all the national territory. Denisxavier (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you start Same-sex marriage in Alagoas, as a new article, and make sure to cite reliable sources. If you can get a source or two in English, it'd be a huge help. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help creating the new article. Since the ruling is new, I haven't found any English articles, but the two I cited in Portuguese are reliable ones. I'll keep looking for English ones and watching the page. Also, I'd like to ask for help on changing the colour of the Alagoas state on the World map. Denisxavier (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This sounds interesting! Can I ask some questions to evaluate the situation (google translate does not help enough)? Do I understand correctly that:

• the recent (pas year) action is that same sex civil unions can be converted to civil marriage?
• That now a judge has said that notaries public should accept that conversion in the state of Alagoas?
• The judge is part of an important committee and therefore it has to (legally) be followed?
• What is the relevance of the notaries public? are they the ones that convert the unions to marriages?

Maybe you cannot answer everything, but some things really remain a bit unclear, but thanks in advance for specifying a bit... L.tak (talk)

That is certainly the impression I got when I read the articles via Google Translate. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the question whether SSM is legal in the state, similarly to how it would be had legislation allowing it passed, sufficiently answered in the sources. I suggest waiting for English language sources and not relying on Google Translate only to decise what is or is not legal. Unless some user here is a Brazilian lawyer, waiting is better than giving false information or give the impression that we promote an issue. Hekerui (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can try to clarify what the articles say. In Brazil, same sex civil unions are legal since last year. After this decision was made by the Supreme Federal Court, various Judges in many Brazilian states have started converting these registered unions into full marriages, based in many reasons (one of them is that the Brazilian Constitution does not differ a married straight couple of a civil united one). What happened here in Alagoas (and what is explained in these articles in Portuguese, which you haven't understood because of weak translation in Google Translate) is that after many converted civil unions into marriages in the Alagoas State court of Justice, this specific Judge ruled that from now on it won't be necessary for gay couples to register their civil unions and then go to a Judge to convert it into a full marriage, since a broad Jurisprudence has been estabilished. Instead, the notaries are now allowed to perform the marriage instead of a civil union, ending with the need to seek for a Judge. These articles are very clear on that. I am still seeking for an article on the English media. But since it may take days since someone decides to write about this in English, I suggest we accept the Portuguese articles which are from reliable sources. I guarantee there isn't any false or improper information on my explanation. Answering L.Tak's Question about the Judge cited in one of the articles, she is a former Judge who is now part of a Special Diversity Commission at the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (Brazilian Bar) . What the article says is that immediately after the Alagoas State Court have taken this decision, she have sent the text to the other Brazilian state courts willing to make an advance in the rest of these states. And she said that another state (Paraná) is also next to making the same decision. I apologize for the fact I am struggling to write in English, hence this isn't my first language. Denisxavier (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you find a full text of the court's ruling? It would be very useful. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, that's indeed helping a lot. Do we also have info on the status of this judge? Is it the highest ruling body in the state on this matter? or will is there a court of appeal. In other words: are we reasonably sure this decision will be upheld or do we run the risk to get into a discussion about differing judicial opinions? I am not in favour of waiting for an English language source (good for me; but not a requirement), but waiting for a source focussing on the full legal implications (in portuguese?) might be useful (or is there already such a source available?). L.tak (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

These are questions I would also liked answered. A "guarantee there isn't any false or improper information on my explanation" does not preclude a misunderstanding. I would be very surprised if this was the end of the issue, normally a full supreme court makes final decisions, no? Hekerui (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Law of Brazil section State-level judiciary, the Court of Justice (Tribunal de Justiça in Portuguese) is the highest court at the state level. However, the ruling could be reversed be the federal court. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is quite a complex issue. There have been a few cases around the world where individual officials have solemnised marriages (e.g. France, Greece, Quintana Roo in Mexico). I don't think these jurisdictions should be included in the template, since there is no generalised recognition of same-sex marriage or possibility of generally entering into a legal same-sex marriage. However, what we have in Alagoas seems a bit different. I am prima facie in favour of including Alagoas based on the reasoning of User:Denisxavier. However, before we include Alagoas, we need a bit more information about how Brazilian marriage law works. In particular, I have two questions:

*When an opposite-sex couple wants to enter into a marriage in Brazil, how do they do it? Are legal marriages registered at a Civil Registry Office, which conducts a civil ceremony and provides the marriage certificate? What is the role of the judge in these marriages? Also, what is a "Notary"? Are they a state official working in a Civil Registry Office, or a private person who can register marriages? The issue I am interested in here is: is the process for entering into a same-sex marriage identical to entering into an opposite-sex marriage in Alagoas? Or are there administrative / procedural differences?

*Are Civil Registry Offices/Notaries obliged to register same-sex marriages in Alagoas, or are they merely allowed to do so? If they are not obliged to do so, then I think it's more problematic to include Alagoas in the template, because it means that the law is not being applied consistently.

The fact that the highest federal court has not yet ruled on the matter is in my opinion irrelevant. When the Supreme Court of California legalised same-sex marriage in California, we still included it in the template, even if the Supreme Court of the US did not yet give its opinion. Wikipedia is flexible enough that it can accommodate to changing realities; if a superior court strikes down the lower court, then all we need to do is simply change the template again. This has been done a few times already. Cheers, Ronline ✉ 09:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Complicated stuff; but I agree with Ronline, we it all seems to be pretty systematic. It might be overruled, but this is the highest court in the state and the sources seem to suggest that this will be a virtual "order" to the people doing it. Thus very similar to Sint Maarten/Curacao (alhough that was indeed the highest court)... L.tak (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2012 - remove blank line

Can we please remove the two line breaks between the "|}" and the last "noinclude" just above the Notes section? They're causing blank lines to show up in articles. Thanks. Jason McHuff (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Last time I protect a template. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Note on effective date of the Washington bill

Christine Gregoire will sign the SSM bill on Monday, the 13th, but that date doesn't mean anything. The bill won't take effect until 90 days after the session of the legislature ends. If, as expected, enough signature signatures are collected to force a referendum, the law won't take effect unless a majority vote to approve it in November. -Rrius (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

When this happened in New York, I remember that NY was listed immediately after Cuomo's signature. I think the same thing happened with Maine in '09 on this template. Houstonbuildings (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Which was a bad precedent and should be ignored. It is not legal for any same-sex couple to marry in Washington at least until June when the law takes effect, so listing it is misleading. Hekerui (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur, and have added a note to the file to make it clear to enthusiastic editors that this question has already arisen. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

But if you look at Timeline of same-sex marriage, the bolded statements are when the bills are signed into law, not when they become effective. The precedent that has been occurring for the last three years is to put emphasis on the passage of the law, not the coming into effect of the law. One cannot simply unilaterally declare it to be a poor precedent. Houstonbuildings (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not unilateral (other editors have been backing it up with their edits), and if we say that same-sex marriage is available in Washington, we are speaking erroneously. If this template had a section of places where SSM will be available in various likely things don't happen, that would be different. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Have we lost our institutional memory or did something change? We generally add the jurisdiction to the list with an effective date. In this case, we would add a note about the possible referendum. (See this diff.) If (when, really) enough signatures are collected, we would strip the effective date and only note the November referendum. Incidentally, we wouldn't remove domestic partnerships until the law took effect. -Rrius (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe it would be an erroneous statement to say that there is same sex marriage in Washington. There seems to be some ambiguity to if the chart represents the de-facto or de-jure situation. De-jure, Washington has had same-sex marriage from the moment Gregoire's pen touched the bill. Our standard seems to be very liberal de-jure, as evident by the fact that the state of Maryland is listed as recognizing same-sex marriage. This rationale is based on an Attorney General's opinion, something that has not held up to time or fact in New Mexico. Houstonbuildings (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I think the discussion should be more about the Maryland question than this. The descriptor in the template is "performed", and clearly they are not yet in Washington. I'm reluctant to put it in even with the footnotes, simply because an accurate footnotes is a astring of ifs and ands and maybe-buts. This isn't a situation where there's 99% confidence that they actually will be performed on date X; delay is likely and the chance of it never happening at all is very (sadly) real. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"De-jure, Washington has had same-sex marriage from the moment Gregoire's pen touched the bill." That's not exactly true. The 90-day period and the referendum procedure are both matters of law, so there is no question of de jure v. de facto (neither of which, by the way is hyphenated). The truth is that Washington has had an act that would provide for same-sex marriage at a future date unless countermanded by referendum. That is by no means the same as having same-sex marriage. As for the AG's Opinion, it is more than merely theoretical. The state government is required to follow it unless and until a contrary court judgment comes down or statute comes into force. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again

I left this note at Same-sex marriage in the United States, but I think it will be of use here too:

Maryland's House just passed an SSM bill, and its Senate and Governor look set to join in the fun, but Maryland has a people's veto similar to Washington's. In Maryland's case, the deadline for signatures (and the earliest possible date for the law to take effect) is June 1. If one-third of the 55,737 signatures (based on the turnout figure at Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010) are in by June 1, the deadline will be extended to June 30. If the signatures are collected, the law won't "become a law or take effect until thirty days after its approval" in the referendum. Thus, assuming a petition is successful, the earliest the law would come into effect would be December 6, 2012. -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as passed by the House, the law won't take effect until January 1, 2013, in any event. -Rrius (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Template is huge

Needs to be made collapsible. An example of such a template is:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Be bold and make those changes. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well, so go ahead. I suggest to keep the marriage section uncollapsed though... L.tak (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok I see it now. Why would you say to keep the marriage section uncollapsed L.tak? I think it would look more uniformed to have all or none. crazzycorbe (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the most full implementation of same sex marriages and thus valuable to be seen immediately. For me that is more important than consistency in view... L.tak (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and I would, after looking at it again, have to agree. crazzycorbe (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I don't know enough about the coding of templates to go ahead with that. I've tried to use the Evolutionary biology template and the template:Jesus as a basis, but I can't get them to format properly. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have gone in and made the changes to the collapsed style using template:Jesus. Let me know if it works. I did my best and I hope I did it right. :) crazzycorbe (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Excellent work. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar template additions- Addition of states

In all cases, until now, where marriage rights for gays and lesbians has been made law, Wikipedia has placed the state (or district) among those that currently perform the ceremonies in the sidebar. In cases such as those in DC, New Hampshire,Iowa, and California, the state's name was added and preceded by an asterisk noting the future time when the law will be fully implemented. The current law in both Maryland and Washington State affords same-sex couples the right to wed; Washington State's law to begin in less than 4 months. The Secretary of State in Washington has a page available for same-sex couples looking to marry. In both states, the law is clear yet on Wikipedia certain editors have prevented, by removing and blocking, those states from being listed because of possible future referendum. Wikipedia, to remain neutral, must post about laws as they currently exist and not how those laws might look in the future. The debate over the likelihood of these laws being put to a vote is irrelevant. Both Washington State and Maryland should be listed under the list of states where marriage is performed with the asterisk as is precedent at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSDgraduate2003 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Except the neutrality you cal for is a false neutrality; just about every article that talks about either of these new states will say that the marriages will start unless there is a referendum, and most of those will state the referendum as something that will likely happen. The referenda are not an exception to the law, they are part of the process of a law becoming law in these states, including the inherent delaying factor. That makes it different than the states you list; the state it is more like is Maine. I'm not certain we made the right call there. Not certain not, either, but it does mean we were listing under "performed" a place that had not and does not perform SSM. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

To be more succinct, the voters are like a second governor. The laws do not "become law" until after the referendums if the petitions are filed. -Rrius (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The law is the law. What is "likely" to happen is not Wikipedia's concern. Polls do not change reality and in both cases, Washington State and Maryland, the law, as it currently stands says that same-sex couple will be given marriage licenses in June of 2012, and in January of 2013, respectively. By your reasoning, you should delete New Hampshire from the list as its "likely" their legislature will repeal their law. Also, polls show a majority of Iowans in support of changing their constitution so you should delete Iowa as their "second governor", the people, will vote to take away the right according to polls; it's just a matter of time before it happens. Neutral means just that, neutral.Speculation about future events is not neutral, you're passing judgement. Your reasoning stretches logic to come to a conclusion based on hypothesis. Until signatures are confirmed by both states, there is no referendum and neither law is on hold. NatGertler- Washington DC was also listed during a court challenge that looked as if the law would be put on hold. Rrius- Laws become law after a governor signs a bill passed by a congress. The people do not vote on every law and laws do not 'become law' only after a referendum. In Washington State and in Maryland no such referendum as been certified and no hold has been placed on either the law. The law, as it currently stands in both states necessitates their inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSDgraduate2003 (talk • contribs)

No, you're wrong that neither law is on hold - BOTH laws are on hold, and they are on hold specifically to allow the chance for a referendum drive to gather signatures. They are on hold because them being on hold is the law in those states, and as you note the law is the law. If you think that by this logic, New Hampshire should not be on the list, then you have misunderstood the logic. New Hampshire actually grants same-sex marriage licenses, as does Iowa. Neither of the states in question do, and they have to pass at least one more legally-required hurdle in order to do so. You say "Laws become law after a governor signs a bill passed by a congress", but in these cases, that's not true. It would've been true in one of the states (perhaps both, I have not studied the terms of both) had the legislature passed it as an emergency law, but they did not. In these states a non-emergency law becomes a law after being passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and making it through a holding period without a proper petition being completed. That's the requirement, and it has not yet been met. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevant bits from the Washington Constitution: "the people reserve to themselves the power to [...] reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature", "No act, law, or bill subject to referendum shall take effect until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which it was enacted." --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither law is on hold. I fully understand that couples may not receive a license immediately but that's not the issue. In both Washington state and Maryland the same circumstances apply so let's focus on Washington. In simple legal terms, marriage for same sex couples is legal. Licenses will be issued June 7th, 2012. The new law will only be placed on hold if signature gatherers have collected sufficient number of signatures (120,577) and only after those signatures have been validated by the Secretary of State- Please see: http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2012/02/new-number-r-74-same-challenge-of-gay-marriage-law/. and http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2012/02/faq-on-pending-gaymarriage-referendum/ . The legislature had the opportunity to suspend the bill and send the issue directly to the voters for a final decision, but, they declined to do so. The law is clear. Same-sex couples will receive marriage licenses beginning June 7th and your reason for not listing Washington State is based on speculation, an assumption that the events needed to suspend the law will happen. To remain neutral Wikipedia must present laws as they currently are, not as an editor predicts the law will look in the future. I have cited 2 government sources. Unless you can cite a government source saying the law is on hold; I would ask that you list Washington State among those states where marriage for same-sex couples is legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSDgraduate2003 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also relevant from the Wash. Constitution: "Any measure initiated by the people or referred to the people as herein provided shall take effect and become the law if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon." (Emphasis added). You can't just pretend that the people's veto system doesn't exist. The laws are specifically delayed from coming into force, or indeed becoming law, until a future date to allow signatures to be collected against it. That is part of the system in these states just as much as having the bill pass each house of the legislature and be signed by the governor. -Rrius (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your point is only valid once a referendum has been validated by the secretary of State. You may choose to remove Washington once a referendum has been validated. You cannot, however, pretend that those who oppose the new law (a new and valid law) have succeeded in their efforts and that the constitutional process for placing a law on hold has played out; it has not. Washington law allowed their congress to pass the this marriage bill and have it immediately placed on hold pending a referendum for a "second governor's veto"; they declined to do so. All laws passed in Washington State take force 90 days after passage. Just like any other law, this law will take force in 90 days. The force of a law is not the same as the standing of a law. The law, this law, is valid and is the position of the state and absolutely no hold has been placed on it. Please see the links provided or go look on the state of Washington's web site yourself. Your argument cedes a political issue and a speculates that a certain political side is going to win over another. No editor has a right to substitute his or her own political views for legal fact so unless an editor can provide a legal source for their assertion that these laws are on hold, both states must be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSDgraduate2003 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"All laws passed in Washington State take force 90 days after passage." No, that's not true. In order for something to become a law after 90 days, it has to pass the legislature, be signed, and then reach day 90 without a referendum being qualified. This law is not valid, it has not yet passed that last jump. The jump is there on the Washington website in the constitution, as quoted above. It's mentioned in articles covering this law. This is very different from an initiative to repeal the law after the 90 days, where even if the initiative qualified for the ballot, the law would be in force until the vote. That a lack-of-action is part of the law moving forward does not make it outside the process, any more than a pocket veto is outside the process. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, my point is valid now. What you fail to understand is that the process in Washington is simply different than it is in, say, Illinois. No one is pretending anything. You admit to the 90-day delay before a law can take effect in Washington, but you fail to understand the point of the delay. The whole reason is to allow the people time to gather signatures for a petition against any bill passed during the session. You also simply ignore what I have quoted to you. In most states, and in Congress, a bill becomes law when it is pass by both houses and signed by the governor (or president), but it can take effect at some later (or even earlier) date. The language I quoted to you from the Washington constitution makes clear that a law doesn't even become law until after a positive referendum result if a petition is successful.

You strongly implied that I am substituting my political beliefs for legal fact. That is insulting and wrong. I support same-sex marriage, I think people's vetoes (and most referendum and initiate processes) are asinine, but I think we need to reflect the state of the law as it is. In these states, a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor is simply not in the state as a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in a state that doesn't have this foolish popular referendum process. The laws are self-evidently on hold, as all laws passed in Washington and Maryland are, to give voters a chance to file a petition. You seem to want to pretend that the waiting periods are irrelevant, but they are a key part of the process. We at Wikipedia must look at the situation in the round, not simply look at a piece of the situation and ignore the rest.

If you go back and look at what I've said on this page in the past, you'll see that I am not necessarily against what you want to do, but I think your arguments to this point are not exactly the best. If you want to have Maryland and Washington treated as other states have been in the past, you need to find a better way of convincing people than accusing them of trying to substitute their political views for reality. -Rrius (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with UCSDgraduate2003 and Nat Gertler here. As it currently stands, the law in Washington state will go into effect later this year. Until and unless signatures are collected and confirmed, it will go into effect. We can't predict that happening - we can only state the facts as they stand. So the template should reflect the current status - add in WA and MD, with their future dates. If the petitions come about and a referendum is scheduled, then the template can be changed to reflect the new sets of facts. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreeOlliyeah (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First let me note that SatyrTN is not agreeing with me, as he says; UCSD and I are on opposite sides of this discussion. But let me draw perhaps a clearer comparison: if the US Congress, in the midst of a session, passes a bill and sends it to the President, we do not say that this is a law yet. This is true even though the bill will become a law if no one does anything, because if the President does not specifically veto a bill within 10 days (not counting Sundays) and Congress remains in session, the bill then becomes law. The people of Washington State are in much the same situation - if they do nothing, then the bill becomes law. But we cannot presume that they will do nothing any more than we can presume the President will do nothing. Presuming they will do nothing would be particularly egregious in this case, as all the reliable sources are saying they're likely to take the necessary steps (they are working toward it, and given the relatively low bar set for such things, are apt to succeed in bringing it to the ballot). The current legal status is waiting-to-see-if-there's-a-referendum. This isn't an exception to the process in Washington (and I presume the same can be said about MD, although I've not chased down the details), this is the process. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose that we should break away from previous precedent and adopt a simple standard: can a same-sex couple go, today, to the town hall/courthouse/registry office/whatever and get a marriage license (or get married; not all countries require a license)? This is a simple question that can be answered without getting involved in questions of the legislative process and when a law becomes a law, and it seems to me to be the most logical criterion. Indeed, a heading in the template says "Performed in some jurisdictions": SSM is not yet performed in MD or WA. We should, though, also have a "legislation pending" section or something like that. - htonl (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Brazil

2012 in LGBT rights. This article states that all of Brazil recognizes Alagoas' marriages, putting the country in the same position as Mexico with Mexico City's marriages. I'm not familiar with this case at all, but can someone review it to see if this statement is fact, and if it is, correct the article? --haha169 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I corrected and was reverted, and have corrected it again. Refs are in the main article, under Brazil. — kwami (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Claim is not supported by reliable sources. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Where? Here or the article, because this is reliable enough. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

CNN article is about civil unions, not marriage. state of Alagoas legalized same-sex marriage in January 2012, the article is from May 2011. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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. See here for a link to the report. Hekerui (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ILGA – the organisation that thinks Liechtenstein and Belarus are equally gay-unfriendly. Not a credible source. Ryvyly (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are three sources from an ESL IP editor from below:

• http://aquiacontece.com.br/noticia/2011/12/20/provimento-autoriza-casamento-homoafetivo-em-alagoas
• http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/1034007-cartorios-de-alagoas-sao-obrigados-a-registrar-casamento-gay.shtml
• http://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/alagoas-facilita-casamento-de-homossexuais/

Google Translate gets the point across that a court case requires notaries throughout Alagoas to solemnize SSMs just as they would hetero sexual marriages. Can anyone provide a better reason to continue excluding the state than that some advocacy group produced a report, the accuracy of which we can't be sure of, that didn't happen to mention a relatively recent, and quiet development? -Rrius (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So you want to rely on Google translate? If I use Google Translate the Agência Brasil article then the content is absolutely not clear because it talks about a lot of things: how some individual judges allow marriages and about how, following the Supreme Court decision to allow civil unions, some registrars resisted them and were ordered them to comply, and how same-sex marriages are unequal because they have to be checked by a judge. I would prefer better insight than Google translate before changing a template included in dozens of articles. In Germany, registered partnerships are called gay marriages in everyday language and newspaper reports, should we trust Google translate to guide us there when the actual law is different? I can find no clarifying English language report, which one would expect around a hot topic like this, and I can't locate the actual ruling by the court, which would give better answers. Also, are we sure a state court has the final say, as in the U.S., or what? Lots of unanswered questions that can't be attacked with Google translate. Hekerui (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using non-English sources. These sources were brought to us by a Portugese-speaker, and I checked them over using Google Translate. For you to suggest there is somehow something unsuitable about sources such as those is wrongheaded, and would be prompt a lot of head scratching at country-specific articles for countries where English isn't spoken, or are even bilingual (like Canada). The issues you raise about terminology just show that you haven't actually bothered to read the articles I linked to. They, especially the Folha one, make it perfectly clear, despite Google Translate's imperfections, that there is a form of civil partnership short of marriage in Brazil and that individual Brazilian judges have ruled in individual cases that notaries should issue marriage licenses to gay couples instead. They go on to make clear that what makes Alagoas different is that the Superior Court there has ordered all notaries throughout the state to issues licenses to gay couples on exactly the same terms as they would to straight couples. There is no room for ambiguity there. As for your point about whether states have the final say, there are two points. First, marriages are actually being performed there, so even if there were some appeal going on, the state would still belong on the list. Also, I can't turn up any trace of an appeal despite all the time that has passed since this first came up. -Rrius (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Superior Court is a federal court, so the state power question is irrelevant. -Rrius (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian state of Alagoas (topic re-added in July 2012)

It's lacking on the template same-sex marriage in the Brazilian state of Alagoas. I’m sorry guys but ILGA is not as reliable as some may think. They database is not very accurate. The State of Alagoas legalized same-sex marriage in January 2012 putting the country in the same position as Mexico with Mexico City's marriages. In fact it was the only state that had guts to do it. ILGA definitely has some research work to do and so they one who shut down the topic about same-sex marriage in the Brazilian state of Alagoas. Some links: http://aquiacontece.com.br/noticia/2011/12/20/provimento-autoriza-casamento-homoafetivo-em-alagoas http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/1034007-cartorios-de-alagoas-sao-obrigados-a-registrar-casamento-gay.shtml http://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/alagoas-facilita-casamento-de-homossexuais/ PS: The last ones are very reliable media of Brazil. --201.50.30.157 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Who cares what ILGA says? You are implying that we exclusively rely on them, but I can't remember off the top of my head whether we've ever done so. If you have an addition supported by reliable sources, add it. If not, don't bother us with complaints about the ILGA not being up to date in its understanding of SSM in Brazil. -Rrius (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so one person did so in a section about this state above. Which begs the question: Why did you start a new section instead of simply responding in that one? -Rrius (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian status (new section started in October 2012)

Same-sex marriages are always recognized, and performed, though not by standard, in Brazil, and they are supposed to be performed by standard in Alagoas. Alagoas, or Brazil as a whole, should be on the top in some way. Lguipontes (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Marriages are performed only in some places and only if jugde agreed. Informations about Alagoas are contradicting. Alagoas is not listed in the latest ILGA report published in May 2012. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it is legal to perform, it is always recognized everywhere, Portuguese language sources state very clearly that it is standard now (perhaps our situation, a little bit more liberal than what people have in Mexico and with competing civil unions and marriages, confused English language media) in Alagoas, but still this template shows that we have only civil unions, as if no way a person could get a same-sex marriage performed, or even recognized, in Brazil. Lguipontes (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no federal or state laws for actual marriage in Brazil. If getting a marriage relies on getting the right judge or being in the right place, something which has happened for only a tiny minority even of LGBT people, then we can't with a good conscience put this up as "Same-sex marriage legal in Brazil". Ron is absolutely right in not jumping the gun here. Remember, we don't advocate on Wikipedia, people can find all the info on special cases in the article about Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, but to claim Brazil has SSM legal in the same manner as any one of these other places is not factual. Hekerui (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not advocating putting non-factual information. I'm just saying that without either all of Brazil, or Alagoas, the template seems to say that in Brazil you'll get only a civil union and your foreign SSM won't be recognized. Lguipontes (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you don't pick and choose judges you only get a civil union. We can't change how the issue is treated for the whole country because of a handful of isolated cases. The Supreme Court has not spoken to the validity of these marriages made by judges, has it? Hekerui (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It ruled that SSM can be performed in Brazil and that civil unions can be converted in marriages. Furthermore, AFAIK in Alagoas people can't get a civil union, they'll necessarily get a marriage. Lguipontes (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is much easier to get a civil union. Mass 'stable unions' happen frequently, such as this one that happened in São Paulo a week ago. In the end it reads 'federal deputy [Jean Wyllys of the Socialism and Freedom Party] used the occasion to criticize the states where it is not possible to convert a stable union into civil marriage. "Leaving homosexuals only a stable union is a sort of ghetto. We want the same rights with the same names. It has an effect of social recognition. Conversion into marriage promotes social recognition and ends with some prejudice," he argued.'

Thus you'll have something like Mexico, though I think it is a mess, I haven't heard of clear laws indicating those states that deny and those that allow (in the last group, including São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Alagoas, Rio Grande do Sul, and if I'm not wrong the Federal District and Minas Gerais). Lguipontes (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as there is no nation-wide law allowing same-sex marriage nor Supreme Federal Court's ruling opening marriage for all(not just for some) same-sex couples, Brazil should not be included in marriage section. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 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

The state of Alagoas was the first to authorize. The template 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:

• terra.com.br
• folha
• aquiacontece
• cartacapital

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.70.91 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Just help us out again please; as my portuguese is bad (as is the portuguese of google translate). Can you answer these questions?

-Are there already recent reports regarding the 10 October document?

-Is the 10 october document a final document or a draft legislation?

-When will the document enter into force?

-what is a normal procedure to get married in Brazil?

-under which circumstances is normally a judge used?

-do we have the supreme court decision already somewhere?

-what does it say exactly regarding notaries? How is this different from the opposite-sex-marriage?

I think if we can straighten this out, we can see if we can add or not! L.tak (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, some ideas from my side.

• It's all about civil marriage, as the religious marriage has not legal standing (just google marriage; it's highly consistent).
• You can get that marriage by a religious marriage if during hte ceremony "the civil register is signed in the presence of the notary" or at a "Civil Registry Office"
• there is a federal high court decision (4.277DF) stating that the civil code interpreted in relation to the constitution should not impede same sex marriage (this is from the Bahia document; but hard to get the exact translation; last "considerando" on the first page)
• in Bahia, same also sex marriage licenses should be given; and the wedding should be recorded (article 44) and "lavrado" (does this mean: performed??? or do others perform???)

So, Some clarification here... but I cannot judge the legal standing of this document... The article 44 for example is under "RECOMENDAÇÕES GERAIS" (general recommendations)... L.tak (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will help you out. I’m gonna answer your questions following the sequence you set. --189.104.70.91 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

1- Yes. There are recent reports regarding the event. Here are some: globo.com ibahia sidneyrezende.com folha.uol.com.br jus.br

PS: This last one is the very own court’s website report

And here is the final document PDF link

2- The document which can be found on the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado da Bahia (Court of the State of Bahia) website (http://www5.tjba.jus.br/index.php ) is a final document.

3-The provision 12/2012 of the Internal Affairs Division of Justice (CGJ) and the Magistrate of the Interior Districts (CCI) was published in the Journal of Electronic Justice (DJE) this Wednesday (10/10) and takes effect on 26 November 2012, time required for notification and system adequacy and the Court civil registry offices throughout the state.

The provision requires that the notary's offices of the State of Bahia Notes are allowed to perform the procedures of public deeds inventory and asset sharing, consensual divorce, with or without division of property, and restoration of conjugal society, as well as for homosexual couples the registries would qualify civil marriage also between same-sex. The decision of the Corregedorias -TJBA guarantees the right to equality for all.

4- The standard procedure for civil wedding held in registries, is attending the registry with the following documents:

- Identity card; - CPF (Registration of Persons) - Updated proof of residence; - For unmarried spouses, birth certificate; - For widowed spouses, marriage certificate and death certificate of the deceased spouse; - For divorced spouses, marriage certificate endorsed with the letter of divorce and the divorce judgment; - Identity, social security number and proof of residence of two witnesses;

The documentation required for qualification for marriage must be in perfect condition.

5- There will be no need for judges or judicial rulings to guarantee the rights to the homosexual couples anymore.

6- I did not understand the question.

7- The notaries will have a deadline for them to adapt to the new rules. Then the same procedure used for heterosexual couples should be used for homosexual couples. As of November 26, couples interested in formalizing the union must go to one of the registries of Bahia or requesting authorization of marriage on the website of the Court (TJ-BA). The standards for civil marriage are the same for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. The offices of the entire Bahia are now allowed to do the process and issue the certificate of civil marriage.

Additional information: The permission/provision was signed by federal judge Ivete Caldas, corregedora General of Justice and the Judge Person Antonio Cardoso, magistrate of the counties in the state. According to them the notaries/registries of the entire Bahia are now allowed to do the process and issue the certificate of civil marriage.

According to the magistrate Ivete Caldas, the basis of the decision was the decision of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), several decisions of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul (The most advanced State Court in Brazil, I have to say), besides the need to update the familiar design community. The federal judge also explains that permission only establishes what many judges have been applying the rule.

I hope it help you. If you need some more information just ask.--189.104.70.91 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Two more questions:

6: what I meant was: I would like to see a pdf of the decision of the federal court. Is that available online?

My last question was: article 44 for example is under "RECOMENDAÇÕES GERAIS" (general recommendations). That does not sound like a requirment ("just" a recommendation). Can you clarify why it is like that?

Having said that; I think things look pretty convincing for Bahia! L.tak (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello I’m back. Here are the answers:--189.104.70.91 (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

6 – Yes, it is available online. Here are the links: – ADPF 132 and – ADI 4277 2

I do not really know the best way to answer your last question. I study Law and sometimes we have problems with the terminology used. In Portuguese the word recomendação (recommendation) means "diretriz" (guidance), "indicação" (indication), "sugestão"(hint). The term/expression general recommendations should mean as a suggestion, but in practice, even for being articles from laws, the meaning of the term/expression is mandatory and binding, that's my understanding, as a law student. That is, these recommendations are a kind of suggestion that must be followed. I know it sounds weird.

“Lavrar” means: "executar" (run), "fazer" (do), and "dar andamento" (give progress).

Article 44 says basically: The Civil Registry Offices of Natural Persons of Bahia should receive applications for license for marriage of same-sex couples, proceeding pursuant to article 1526 of Law No. 10.406/2002. The wedding will be drawn up and recorded in the proper book, subject to the requirements contained in the Federal Law No. 6.015/73. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.70.91 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC) --189.104.70.91 (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. It doesn't get any easier. For me, as far as Bahia is concerned; it looks convincing except for the "recomendacoes Gerais". I will see if I can get a second bralizilian-law opinion... L.tak (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't you all think that if SSM was really legal in these places in the same manner as in, say, Argentina or Portugal, that English-language media would report that, at all? Hekerui (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as odd; but English sources often gives a strong bias (e.g. if you look at google news "elections" and "Curacao", you'd primarily think there has been a coup d'etat; which is not the case). Furthermore, there has been some info in English, which we have dismissed as "maybe not grasping the subject" (and no, I don't want to take the absense in the -decnet- of a worldwide action group as the main evidence). I am coming at the point where I feel taht (for Bahia), the evidence seems to be very strong; which would mean we have more than done our job of verifying what's happening. Anyway, I have asked the people at wikiproject Brazil to give some extra info, because an expert opinion would be helpful. L.tak (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The demonstration that it's legal, as opposed to our OR interpretation of the law, will be when such marriages are actually performed. I think that's what we should be looking for. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree there; in general terms (not the silly "it is the law", but it's the law as it is in force and practiced); so let's wait until it is actually performed after in a month' time it is actually performed (and recorded in portuguese or english media)... L.tak (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi I'm back. I Agree that we should wait until the law is in enforced and practiced. I have some cosiderations: 1 - As for the news - The English language newspapers not need to report an event for this event to be considered true. The English language is not the one who has the credibility in the world. Moreover, Brazil has 26 states plus the federal district, or 27 administrative units, so it might not be possible for the international media to worry or get access to what happens in each one of them. I want to remind you that Brazil is a country that is now gaining notoriety and little is globalized. 2 As for the marriage - I live in the state of Bahia, I study law and work in a registry office of family court and can attest that it was determined that the marriage between same-sex couples, irrespective of international news saying it or not. However I agree that we should expect the occurrence of a first marriage for a few simple reasons: a) the determination takes effect only in November; b) there must be a period of adaptation for the public notaries; c) This decision comes from the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado da Bahia, which is located in the capital, then a wedding being held in the capital is easy, the city is big, people's mind is more open ... I want to believe in determination when in fact a marriage takes place in the "countryside". This way all I can do is to establish a commitment with you to stay alert and notify immediately when a marriage takes place. Thanks. --189.104.95.175 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

One marriage is not enough for inclusion in this template, we need to know whether SSM is legal across the board in a jurisdiction. Otherwise we merely confuse the readers. I ask that we require a little more than that, since we are not the news. Hekerui (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. one is none; we are not news... L.tak (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The number doesn't matter, nor does the language of the source. Once marriages are performed, rather than unions converted by a judge, then we have evidence that marriage is open. We can't play WP:Crystal ball as to whether it will continue to be open, so if it turns out that is not the case, we'll just need to revert the template. We also don't need examples from across the jurisdiction: if a marriage is performed in the capital based on the new ruling, IMO that's enough. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is how to distinguish between a few judges/notaries "going rogue"; or a clear change. The second problem is the mix-up sometimes between civil unions and marriages. The third problem is our limited capacity to absorb portuguese. Having said that, my analysis is that treatment in media of the new directive going in effect in Bahia and recording actual marriages (mind you: that will be more than 1 of we are right in our interpretation), we are more than far enough. So the discussion 1/multiple is one that needs not be held: IF this is going through (we'll have the numbers...); and the news-part is already countered by having it backed up factually by primary sources etc... L.tak (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday the Bahia's Court of Justice resolution went to effect! As you can see here: http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142, and here: http://bahianoticias.com.br/principal/noticia/126899-casais-homoafetivos-ja-podem-solicitar-o-casamento-civil-na-bahia.html, and here: http://www.vermelho.org.br/se/noticia.php?id_secao=58&id_noticia=199862, and here: http://www.brasil247.com/pt/247/bahia247/86361/Bahia-j%C3%A1-pode-oficializar-casamento-homoafetivo.htm and here: http://www.mundopositivo.com.br/noticias/20134661-Fbahia_ja_pode_oficializar_casamento_homoafetivo.html . Also, there is a link to the Court's facebook page saying that: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=517108264983306&set=a.490978317596301.122987.214708575223278&type=1&theater. They are all in Portuguese, but I think that's enough. I'm adding Bahia to the Brazilian States where same-sex marriage is legal. Raniee09 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree the refs look convincing. I did revert however a user adding that this is now nationwide as I did not see sources for that (yet?) L.tak (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that marriages happen? If a whole state legalized SSM there would be reports, no? Hekerui (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I was conviced by this one: (quite clear about the situation); and several others named above. Will ask around if we can find something more. Input from others with evaluation of present or with extra sources is appreaciated!L.tak (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! Even with a lot of references, I was reversed! Guys: I live here! Those news are all over Brazilian media/newspapers. I even showed the OFFICIAL court’s facebook page! What else can I do? Show an ENGLISH report? Is this kind a version of “pics or didn’t happen” (“in English or didn’t happen”)? When same-sex marriage was legalized this November in Maine, Washington and Maryland, nobody doubted that and THERE ARE NO MARRIAGES celebrated yet! Why is this different ? Because we don’t speak English? Because it is not on magical ILGA’s radar? Raniee09 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In Alagoas it's a different story. same-sex couples still need a judge approval, but the notaries can't refuse to initiate the process, (they can do that in the rest of the country - except in Bahia and Alagoas). For now ;) Raniee09 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as clear because of the unclear language in the source, I started a discussion on Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil. Hekerui (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is two or three iterations of your objection in a row where you have given no one a chance to answer your concerns because they are too vague. So my patience on this is gone. What needs to be clear is exactly what your objection is. Which of the dozen or so sources are you saying has "lawyer speak" that makes you unable to see what everyone else has, and what exactly about it is unclear? -Rrius (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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) 00:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, one of those several sources says, "Bahia was the third Brazilian state to legalize civil marriage between same-sex , behind São Paulo and Alagoas." -Rrius (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's so clear then add to the article, with reliable sources, whether same-sex marriages have already begun or not, when the licenses will be given/began to be given out, and who will be able to marry willing couples. Hekerui (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's clear than same-sex marriage is fully legal in Bahia. In Alagoas is needed a judge at the final of the process, unlike than heterosexual couples. In Sao Paulo, like the rest of the country, several couples are married, but is case per case situation, if the judge authorizes. Paucazorla (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)