Jump to content

Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

it's lacking

It's lacking Recognition of same-sex unions in South America! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.4.202 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Recognition throughout Brazil

Here we go again...

Once a marriage is contracted in Brazil (directly or converting a stable union - civil union -), that marriage is recognized throughout the country since the Marriage Law is Federal, not from the states. My reference is the law of my country, the Civil Code from 2002. All of you can read it here: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2002/L10406.htm (in Portuguese of course). So, I'm returning that info to the template.Raniee09 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

These two statments are contradictory: the state of Bahia legalized SSM, but marriage is only a federal issue, so please rework your argument before changing things around. Hekerui (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The law is federal, but the states can interpretate that law through resolutions from the "Corregedorias". Since the STJ (the second most important court in the country) ruled that a lesbian couple could be married without a prior stable union, Bahia through a resolution started to allow direct marriages. But it's still a federal law, so no other state can refuse the recognition, even if that state don't have a resolution allowing that.

Brazil don't follow the United States model for marriage laws. For exemple: you need more than 30 days to get married. Raniee09 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

-That is an interesting; could the 30-day term be the explanation that we haven't seen news reports regarding actual same sex marriages in Bahia? L.tak (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
-As for the recognition question: I would appreciate a WP:secondary source. The reason I am asking is that there are legal systems where acception can be refused because it is "contrary to public order" (a standard clause in international private law treaties). Also in the case of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it took a decision of the Supreme court for Aruba/Netherlands Antilles to accept same sex marriages from the Netherlands, even the "statute of the Kingdom" was very clear: all legal documents of the Kingdom should be accepted prima facie in the whole Kingdom. Again, I am not saying you are wrong, but a (portuguese?) publication to this effect would be highly appreciated! L.tak (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

More states in Brazil legalizing same sex marriage?

I am starting this section as there have been some insertions (by user:Rafavargas and 177.194.1.244, 195.221.194.14) and reverts of 3 states of Brazil: Sao Paulo (SP)[1], PI[2] and (again) AL (the references are from the related LGBT articles, where they were added). I must say the references look specific and indicate no judge is necessary anymore. What do you all think? L.tak (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I found this. The blog is not reliable source, but it's still worthy to note. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex unions taking place not only in Bahia but in Piaui and Sao Paulo as well

As I promised I'm back to report same-sex unions taking place in Bahia once it was legalized, with the great surprised that Sao Paulo and Piaui have done the same.

Here are the links:

Bahia:

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

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

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

--189.104.29.5 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Clear for Bahia: marriages are actually happening, rather than just a legal statement that might be appealed, as it was earlier. For Piaui & SP, it doesn't look like it's started yet. However, since the precedent has been established for Bahia, I think we can fill in Piaui & SP on the map as well, just as we do for US states. I'm not up-to-date on Alagoas, if that ever really went through. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I added all four states to the map. However, I'm concerned about Quintana. So far we only have sources for two marriages; a court ruling that marriages may be performed in the future is not the same thing as marriages actually being performed. — kwami (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree regarding Sao Paulo, Bahia and Piaui, but still have not seen much regarding Alagoas... Do we have a source thare that is as clear as those 3 states? L.tak (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
As clear that it's legal, AFAICT. Not clear that it's actually happening. But then that's true of Piaui and SP as well. — kwami (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
English-language sources: [3], [4], [5]. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
And some details about Sao Paulo: not yet in effect (60 days...). I'll update our template; feel free to revert if I misinterpret something... L.tak (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mexico: Oaxaca

I am unsure about the situation in Oaxa (added today with mark that it is not effected). The source given indicates a high court decision, but nothing about a definite date when this will actually happen. Can we have some more information on the situation there (news reports? Wedding pictures? Legal documetns saying this is effected now etc?) L.tak (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, reading a bit more: there are several news reports about this (mostly copying from this one/from the same source). The question for me however remains: what will happen now? Is it automatically possible? Or will the unconstitutional law need to be changed/retracted. I still think we need a bit more info on the path and only add it (with the mark) once we have a definite irrevocalble introductiondate. L.tak (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Why would you think that the law needs to be "changed/retracted"? When a law is ruled unconstitutional, it is invalid. -Rrius (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Good to know; I am not an expert in Mexican law (and my country doesn't have a constitutional court), so I had no idea... L.tak (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in Mexican law. You said the law was ruled unconstitutional; if something less than that happened, then something else may be the case. But when what you call a constitutional court rules something unconstitutional, it is invalid. If the Mexican court isn't such a court, then the validity of the law is in question. I merely went by your self-correction and am not in the mood to start researching this since my head hurts too much for Google Translate's form of broken English. Incidentally, it is generally not appropriate to edit others' comments. The best practice is to say something like "I assume you mean "unconstitutional" in your response or leave a note on the person's talk page. -Rrius (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Google translate is broken, but this seems quite clear: "A partir de hoy, se sustituye con la resolución de la Corte, que implica matrimonios “entre dos personas”, por lo que no importa si son de distintos sexos o del mismo." I take it to mean that from today on the decision is valid and marriage is "between two persons" in Oxaca (with possible consequences for the whole state and for states parties to the Inter-American Accord on Human Rights). That blog however suggests that (for the rest of Mexico excluding Oaxaca or for Oxaca and the rest of Mexico?) the ruling in the first place only acts (the few couples who object against not being able to marry) on the case itself: "This ruling does not immediately eliminate marriage statutes limiting unions to a man and a woman—the Mexican Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to strike down state laws like that en mass as the United States Supreme Court does." and does not automatically change laws... In other words: I am confused as you are (sorry for the comment refactoring; thought it was the most practical thing to do, but should have left a note...).... L.tak (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, then it should not be included until there is evidence of something more definitive. -Rrius (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


Oaxaca does not yet allow gay marriage. There are three resolutions from the Supreme Court of Mexico about this (known yesterday), but is necessary two more equal resolutions to create jurisprudence and convert into a 'final decision'. Paucazorla (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The Washington Post just did an article which backs you up on this, and provides some details, at [6] --j⚛e deckertalk 02:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any update on this? the link above is dead, so I'm not sure if there was a timeline for the next steps in that article. -Rrius (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Indian reservations

I think Indian reservations should not be included in the template, because there are so many of them that if they start legalizing same-sex unions the template would become totally confusing. Also, most of the people will not be familiar with those names. I think we should only include states (or provinces, depending on the country) because there are also many many cities and counties that have legalized registries for same-sex couples, but we don't add them neither, and I think that's correct, because the number of cities or counties that could legalize registries for same-sex unions are hypothetically hundreds, and that would defeat the purpose of the template. So we should only include big jurisdictions, like states or provinces (as I said). That's why I think we should remove the Indian tribes. --DrkFrdric (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What we have added until now are those juristdictions that have legislative (or judicial) power in respect to marriages; leaving "rogue" individual registries out. From that perspective the reservations should be in. However, if we get too many, we may need to find a practical solution... Until now, I am ok with leaving them in. L.tak (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
For that matter, we could well get to a point where we have an unwieldy number of states with marriage or civil unions. One solution, for states or tribes, would be to simply say "30 states (list)" (with a link to a list at Same-sex marriage in the United States or a specially created one). -Rrius (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
For the tribes, indeed we could do "five tribes" with a link (if it gets to four or so), as it will then clutter a lot as we need to use full names. For the states I think there is no necessity as the state abbreviations provide a short link; and because the state abbreviations are well known by many of those interested in the US... However, if it gets over -let's say- half of them or so, we might need indeed something... L.tak (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. And 25 to 30 was about where I saw the need to deal with states. -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Merida

In the state of Merida, there are some indications of recognition of same-sex marriages. The relevant page gives three publications:[1][2][3] The info however indicates is from two bloglike-sources and from a publication (the first) that cites 1 person that claims it is the case. Now I am not saying that those unions are not recognized, but would like to have additional publications that we can consider reliable sources before we decide if we can add it (and I have tehrefore reverted). L.tak (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Venezuela: Situation and treatment of homosexuals; recourse available to those who have been harassed based on their sexual orientation (2004 - February 2006)
  2. ^ Venezuela's sexual revolution
  3. ^ Venezuela’s Sexual Revolution Within the Revolution


These websites indicates that in Merida there are civil unions, not same-sex marriages. This situation is already covered in the template (in "Civil unions and registered partnerships"). Paucazorla (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

New tribe in US, how do we include?

Given announcements, it is quite likely that the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians will approve marriage equality by the end of the month. Any ideas how to include that in the list? Note, this isn't the entire Odawa nation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

Brr, long name... I don't like abbreviations here (noone knows LTBBOI I guess), but we could say: "Odawa (in part)". Would that be a solution? L.tak (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. From what I gathered at Odawa people, there are eight other bands. I think even "in part" doesn't do enough to dispel the false impression. I'm not sure I like LTBBOI, but it is really one of only two alternatives I see. The other is to deploy the "X tribes" earlier than we expected. After all, the point of that is space, not number included. -Rrius (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
You have a point... No problem moving in the "X Tribes" system already when (if?) the Little Traverse Bay Bands finalize their process as an alternative indeed... L.tak (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm good with either solution, but I prefer the "X Tribes". OTOH, I think we'll get to the point where keeping track of the count is going to get difficult (more difficult than the states), when we get to more than 20 or 30 tribes, we may have to simply go to "Some Tribes". The link will of course be to Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions.Naraht (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Federally recognized tribes

It looks like sometime this week, we'll got from 2 to 3 federally recognized tribes allowing SSM. There are a total of 566 Federally recognized tribes. At some point we are simply going to have to point to Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions (which itself will have to be reorganized into allows/prohibits, I think). I'm not even sure that a Grand Slam win for the SSM side at the Supreme Court will force all of the tribes to allow Same Sex Marriage, but I don't know the law on the relationship between the tribes and the Federal Government.Naraht (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

above at Template_talk:Same-sex_unions#Indian_reservations, there was a recent discussion on this topic. How do you feel about that outcome? L.tak (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Missed that one, I agree, only change to outcome is that the link for the tribes should be to Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions, I don't think the list of states page includes this.Naraht (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Brazil issue (and eventually US?)

I just added back in Mato Grosso do Sul (with ref on the Brazil page). Right now out of the 27 state level units (26 states plus the District Federal), Same-sex marriages are legal in 9 states and the DF. This means we are only 4 states away from the list of those that *do* be longer than those that don't. At some point we should switch to "Brazil: All but RO, RR" or something similar, I guess.Naraht (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think at some point the answer will be to say "Brazil: DF and X of 26 states", with the "X of 26 states" linked to a section list we create at Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil. But I don't think we need to worry about more or less than half. I think we can hold out until there are just a handful of non-recognizing states left. The conclusion we came to for the US was 25 to 30 just on the basis of the list becoming too long. Perhaps 20ish will work for Brazil. Of course, the federal government may obviate the need by establishing SSM nationwide. -Rrius (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay

I'm fine with the change for Uruguay. The location of Urugay in this template hasn't changed, but the actual name of the article has. In that regard, this is just eliminating a redirect in the template which is standard.Naraht (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Order by State or by State abbreviation?

If Indiana and Iowa both had SSM, would we list them as [[Same Sex marriage in Indiana|IN]], [[Same Sex marriage in Iowa|IA]] or the other way around? I would think we would put Iowa First given that IA would come before IN. (There was a recent flip-flop in the Brazilian States like this, but Iowa and Indiana are easier for me to type. )Naraht (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. As I see it, we are listing states, not abbreviations, so the state that comes first alphabetically should come first in the list. This discussion may become academic if we see a change result from the section above. -Rrius (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add section to infobox

In the info box there is currently 'Marriage', 'performed in some jurisdictions' and 'recognized, not performed'. I propose adding a fourth along the lines of 'To be legalized', as I believe three country will, so far, be legalizing SSM this year. Uruguay and New Zealand, where it has been passed and waiting approval from the head of state and Colombia where the high court has ruled SSM will become legal automatically on 20 June 2013. This will show clearly the current position held by the various countries. CH7i5 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See my post at #New Zealand above, particularly the bit about Maine, Maryland and Washington State. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand

Someone added New Zealand, but NZ isn't there yet. For NZ, we need it pass the third reading and then the signature of the Governor General Right?Naraht (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct. They're saying it could happen as soon as next month. Once the third reading has passed the Royal Assent is assured - the Governor General doesn't have the actual power to veto bills - but I think promulgation of the act is the "bright line" we can use for deciding when to add to this template. - htonl (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems somewhere along the way it was decided that it is the bright line (see the "Inclusion criteria" on the template page). The example applies to England, but there is no reason to suspect New Zealand or Scotland or other similar jurisdictions would be treated any differently. -Rrius (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Definitely. I hadn't noticed that before. - htonl (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Why can't we just put 'New Zealand (Pending)' to indicate New Zealand's status? It looks odd without any reference to New Zealand at all. Also, I believe that a once a bill is passed by parliament it is effectively law, the Governor-General cannot veto it (I could be wrong though). It won't technically be law until four months after he signs it though.Cloventt (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
For clarity and simplicity, we wait until a bill becomes an act. Doing so is also in line with WP:CRYSTAL. -Rrius (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
CRYSTAL says we can add these things if the event is 'almost certain to take place'. Surely we can mention something about the NZ law change on the template, given that it is pretty much certain to take place? Cloventt (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
So we wait for the GG, but not the 4 months until SSM can occur, right?Naraht (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes - once signed by the Governor-General, it's got Royal Assent, and is therefore part of the law of NZ; and would require a separate Act to repeal it, even if it doesn't come into effect immediately upon receiving Royal Assent. Acts usually state in (or close to) the last section when they are effective from, so after it's received Royal Assent we would do something similar to how we handled Maine, Maryland and Washington State during November/December 2012: see here, particularly the bit "†Note: Law not yet in effect". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
As my suggestion below, I propose we add a 'To be legalized' or a 'soon to come legal/in effect' section, this would show it in the most accurate way in my opinion. CH7i5 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, given that this template is present on so many pages it would be sensible to let it reflect that legislature is changing in many jurisdictions.Cloventt (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I think a "pending" section would be useful, but would it include Nepal? — kwami (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I would not as Nepal to a 'Pending' (or 'pending, soon to be legal'?) section as the article for Same-sex marriage in Nepal says that "....the future of same-sex marriage is uncertain.". At the current point in time I would only add New Zealand, Uruguay and Colombia (who's high court has ruled, it will become legal this year).CH7i5 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
See below on Colombia, a "Civil Union" with rights equal to marriage will fulfill the court's requirement, so not guaranteed.Naraht (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok then, we won't include Colombia in a 'Pending' section. It would just be New Zealand and Uruguay, but this would portray the current situations in the most accurate way CH7i5 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I am in favour of a bright line here. We already have a two-step system (the normal situation and the "not yet in force"), and making a third step would give rise to many more discussions of states where the last part of the legislative process is deemed by some to have already reached (Nepal, France after first reading in both houses, or after vote on article 1 of the bill). That would only lead to more discussion. We could however change the "bright line" abit by adding countries like New Zealand after parliamentory approval with the "not yet in force" note if we have reliable sources that royal assent is never (never ever...) not granted the royal assent is thus merely a royal promulgation... I am not a fan of this (I always thought roayl assent in Belgium was an automatism, until the King years ago simply refused to sign an abortion act, so you never truly know if something is merely ceremonial), but could live with it as a compromise (which seems to be safely applicable to New Zealand at least)... L.tak (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
IMO, the situations in Uruguay and New Zealand are not identical because all that we have in regards to it becoming law in Uruguay is the President's word as opposed to the situation with the Royal Assent which isn't really the free choice. Now once both are signed by the appropriate person, they are identical to Maryland in December 2013 where it was the Law that it would start on a given day.Naraht (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Except that the Government could advise the GG to withhold assent, so we only have John Key's word. And Parliament could vote to reconsider the vote by which it passed the bill. The bright line makes sense; we have used it for US states where the governor was the driving force behind passage of the bill (Cuomo for marriage in NY, Quinn for civil unions in Ill.), we have followed the rule for other parliamentary democracies; we agreed on how we would handle Westminster countries in particular, we have held firm against understandable impatience in the past, so why suddenly change now? -Rrius (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So adding a 'pending' notice might not be sensible, but after the law is signed there is a four month to-the-day delay until the law comes into force. Are we going to add NZ once the GG signs or the law, or four months after then? If we are adding it after he signs it, then surely we should temporarily indicate that the government doesn't yet actually recognize the marriage because of the delay. Cloventt (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I have moved this discussion here from Talk:Status of same-sex marriage... L.tak (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Netherlands is just one jurisdiction within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In the sidebar, the Netherlands should be moved down to the section "Performed in some jurisdictions" and listed as "Netherlands: Netherlands." The way it is currently would be like listing England as its own country.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.235.239 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It is considered its own country, even though it is part of a larger sovereign state. If England legalizes it, England would be listed as a country as well. Teammm talk
email 03:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would England be listed as its own country? England is not a sovereign country, it is a constituency of the United Kingdom. The current marriage equality law being debated in the UK covers only England and Wales, so will these be listed as two separate countries? 72.92.235.239 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes they will be. They are separate countries. Just because they are part of a larger political state doesn't mean they aren't countries. England, Wales, and Scotland are three separate countries that make up Great Britain. Teammm talk
email 05:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this. US states are separate sovereigns, so if anything, they have a stronger claim to being listed individually on the top list as opposed to "performed in some jurisdictions". We don't use the word "country" anymore to describe individual states, but in a legal sense they are just as much countries, if not more, than England and Wales and the Netherlands. More to the point, it is not England through some English legislature adopting same-sex marriage for itself: it will be the UK Parliament, consisting of MPs from all four constituent countries, adopting it for the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. It is more equivalent to Illinois adopting same-sex marriage for Cook County than Sweden adopting same-sex marriage, and certainly more equivalent to Illinois adopting it than Sweden doing so. It would be bizarre to list England and Wales, together or separately, in the top list when clearly the case will be same-sex marriages "performed in some jurisdictions" of the UK.
As regards the Netherlands, the Kingdom seems to have a much more limited role than the US federal government does or the UK does with respect to devolved countries. The strongest argument for retaining the Netherlands at its current place on the list is that it would just look weird or take up too much space to say "Kingdom of the Netherlands: Neth." Legally, it is a "performed in some jurisdictions" case, but I can stomach ignoring it. For England and Wales, it just doesn't make sense to do so. -Rrius (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not specified in the template what the first entries are - we can assume that countries are meant, because countries are listed and the Netherlands are a (constituent) country, unlike, say, New Hampshire, so the list seems fine. Let's discuss the UK once legalization happens, I haven't seen dates for that. Hekerui (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Except that the word "state" is synonymous with "country" in the sense we are talking about. Americans even spoke of their states as their countries up until the Civil War, and some even after that. US states have sovereignty that comes directly from the people, unlike the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. And "England and Wales" is not a constituent country at all. This is all to say that there is no legitimate basis for treating England and Wales more like an independent country than a US state by listing them on the top. The distinction between the places listed on the top and those listed under "performed in some jurisdictions" is clear: where marriages are performed in only some subparts of an independent state, they are listed in the latter group, and where it is performed in all subparts, it goes on the top list.
Incidentally, taking the decision to treat the parts of the UK as separate could cause a shit storm given that Scotland is set to vote on an independence referendum next year. The safe, measured and intelligent thing to do is to reflect reality, which is that these are separate jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, in some of which same-sex marriages will be performed and in others will not.
And this really is something we should decide now as it will probably not be too long before it is enacted and there is nothing to be gained by waiting. The bill isn't suddenly going to start covering Scotland and Northern Ireland as marriage is a devolved matter for them (but not Wales); we know every relevant thing about the bill there is to know, so there is nothing to support delay. -Rrius (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
England and Wales may be called "countries" but they are not sovereign independent countries, which is what one typically means by saying "country" (Just like internationally a "state" also can refer to a sovereign independent country, even though a "state" in the United States is not its own country). I think the reason some may not be able to "stomach" putting the Netherlands in the "Performed in some jurisdictions" category is that it would remove a country from the top list. For supporters of same-sex marriage (such as myself), it would be depressing to "lose" a country, but it is technically what is most accurate. The non-Dutch may think of the Netherlands as being only the European Netherlands, but Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are constituent countries on equal footing with the Netherlands within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Another tricky problem will also arise when France legalizes same-sex marriage. The marriage bill will legalize marriage in all of France including her overseas departments which are fully part of France (like Hawaii is to the United States), hence it should be placed at the top. However, it will additionally legalize same-sex marriage in some, but not all, of her dependencies (Wallis and Futuna, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, and the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, but not St. Pierre and Michelon, St. Barthelemy, St. Martin, and others). These must be noted, I suppose in the separate category of "Performed in some jurisdictions" under the header "French Dependencies." 72.92.235.239 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Another option here would be to ditch the "performed in some jurisdiction" section or limit it to places like Brazil, where statewide judicial decisions are validating same-sex marriage even though marriage is an area of national competence. -Rrius (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure how that would look like... Just ditch the header? L.tak (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Netherlands should be listed as a complete country, perhaps with a note. Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are "equal constituent countries" only in theory. The Netherlands comprises 98,32% of population and 98,42% of land area.--В и к и T 08:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with many here that only formally Aruba (the Statute) et al are on the same level as Netherlands. However, in many cases the Kingdom of the Netherlands coincides with the country (the Minister of foreign affairs of the Netherlands is authomatically minister of foreign affairs of the Kingdom; ministers sign on behalf of the Kingdom etc; approval law for treaties are approved by the Kingdom), while Aruba et al are de facto dependent territories (like British Virgin Islands) for which the Netherlands is responsible in certain manners. I prefer to be very clear on that in treaties/law based settings, but take a practical approach in a template like these and do what is intuitively right (and defendable, though not formally correct) and that is keeping Netherlands as a country in the top bar. We do the same in the European Union (officially: the Kingdom is a member with all its nationals; but territorially onlyas far as the European Netherlands are concerned) where we simply say that the Netherlands is a member... L.tak (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So what would happen if Aruba legalized same-sex marriage (not likely to happen, but still)? Would you list it at the top as a fully sovereign country? Saying that European Netherlands is a complete country because it makes up 98% of the land area puts Wikipedia in an odd spot. Is Wikipedia in a position to classify what are legally full constituencies of a nation as mere "de facto dependencies" based purely on personal opinion? This also conflicts with Wikipedia's list of sovereign states, where the Netherlands (const. country) is not listed as a sovereign state, but a constituency under the Netherlands (kingdom) with Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. If Wikipedia is now in the business of creating its own sovereign states, this list must be updated to reflect the Netherlands (const. country)' newfound independence from Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten. 72.92.235.239 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that it isn't a black-or-white case where one can be fully "right" or "wrong". The Netherlands can easily sign a treaty (not ratify it), and then Aruba et al are also bound by the provision to "refrain from action that would defeit the purpose of the treaty" according to the Vienna convention; while Aruba can not do that with any effect to NL... thus the Netherlands acts "impersonating" the Kingdom, while Aruba does not... That is why I suggested a pragmatic approach, knowing that the link is one click away... If Aruba legalized... we'd have to think again; for me it might tip the balance to maybe using Netherlands, with an inline link to Kingdom of the Netherlands with either Aruba below it; or Netherlands and Aruba below it; or a note "except Sint maarten and Curacao". Furthermore, I didn't invent that treatment as "de facto dependencies"; also organizations like HCCH (here; click on the "2" at Netherlands) and ILO make a difference between the European NL and the non metropolitan territories the convention can be "extended" to (http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_176149.pdf p17]). L.tak (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, this would be simpler if we just got rid of the distinction. If a jurisdiction has the right to make marriage law for itself, it should go on the top list. If the problem is a fear of eventually having dozens of US and Brazilian Mexican states listed, then they can be dealt with differently, but trying to force the UK and the Netherlands through this "performed in some jurisdictions" rubric is obviously problematic. -Rrius (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC), edited 12:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this; but have indeed the feir for the US, Brazilian and Mexican situation getting too extensive. We can anyway get rid of the sentence "performed in some jurisdictions" as that is clear from context. For the UK, we coud put it in the "country" list: "England and Wales", and after Schotland legalizes put: "UK (except Northern Ireland)". The argument would then be that those are all very well known entities amaking up a very large portioan of land; and thus do not per se need a sovereign state to be recognizable. L.tak (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea - it could look something like this. - htonl (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Legal recognition of
same-sex relationships
Marriage
etc...
I like it, except that I think we should spell out United States. I've changed the proposed table to show how it could be done. I've also put the parentheticals in small tags I think it looks better, but we'll see what you all think. If we do abbreviate, we should use the more common "US". Perhaps refactoring to "2 Mexican states" and "10 US states". We could also list the states individually for now and implement an "X states" when it reaches 25ish as discussed in a prior section. -Rrius (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I like this version, quite nice. I'm tempted to suggest "10 of 29 states" instead of "10 states", but perhaps that's just a bit too much. Great either way. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
So we are dropping the tribal juristictions in this idea?Naraht (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Humph. DC also gets left out. Hmm. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"(10 states +)" then? I mean, it's a small template and we're trying to reflect a lot of information; some simplification is inevitably going to happen. - htonl (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
We should treat Washington DC in the USA the same way that the District Federal is treated in Mexico, right? Then Mexico would be (1 state +).Naraht (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Excellent catch! We could go with "(11 states)‡" and "(2 states)‡", and a footnote signifying that the figures include DC in the US and DF in Mexico. Given the limited space, absolute precision about the meaning of state probably isn't necessary (especially since, in the US at least, statutes and other parts of officialdom will include DC as a state for convenience). -Rrius (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd be good with the footnote and/or the +, something like that. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
What we need is a better-known synonym of "polity". — kwami (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd much prefer 10 States+ rather than counting DC as a state. If Mexico treats its federal district as a state on equal footing with all the other states, then by all means count it as such. But DC is not a state, and we also need to designate the existence of tribal jurisdictions which are also not states. 72.92.235.239 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope, not a state. While not exact, DF's relationship with the 31 states of Mexico seems closer to DC's relationship with the 50 states of the US. (See Federal District (Mexico)#Political structure) Naraht (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The term state is bound to give problems (tribal, dc, what if Catalonia; a state according to the Spanish consitution). I prefer to keep the individual states als long as we can handle it (as is the case now), but am ok with listing with "10 xxx" etc; especially in view of the increased stability it might give. Could the xxx be: "13 jurisdictions", or for shortening: "3 Jur.# with a note #Jurisdictions (states, provinces, tribal jurisdictions etc where same sex marriage is legal)? L.tak (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, DC is treated as a state for countless purposes, and a footnote is enough to flag it up. Lumping tribes in to a single "jurisdictions" category is problematic because the few people in the US and almost no one outside the US are even aware that there is such a thing as tribal marriage law; doing so is far more likely to cause confusion than the ‡ solution, especially as there will only ever be one DC with SSM, but the tribal numbers could continue to grow. And the proposed footnote really doesn't help much since it doesn't actually say "US numbers include tribal jurisdictions"—it only says that where we use that word, it means states, provinces, tribal jurisdictions, etc, only some of which might apply to any given use of the word "jurisdiction". Saying "11 states‡, 3 tribes" is better than lumping them all together. The problem with saying " + DC" is that it takes too many characters to say it, which is problematic given the limited space available. The best alternative I see is "DC+10 states", which cuts out two spaces. It doesn't look as clean as "11 states‡, 3 tribes", but it still fits (I've edited the table above to show what it would look like).
Another thing we haven't discussed is whether we should just list each jurisdiction. Brazil could only ever contribute 26 states, and since marriage is a federal issue, it is likely to be resolved on a nationwide basis before we reach that point. Should the US Supreme Court, now or down the line, hold bans on SSM unconstitutional, I think we could also just say "United States". In the meantime, adding the current 10 states and DC is not a big deal. Even if all of the states debating SSM bills this year enact them, we would still be looking at adding seven items to each column of the main list; I submit that isn't excessive. If we reach a point in a few years where 30 or 40 states have enacted SSM, we could revisit the issue. Since the likely complaint would be that the template is too long on the various pages it is transcluded on, the obvious solution would be to collapse the marriage section just as we collapse the other sections. Given that the status quo tends to show a preference, it might be advisable to just do that now anyway. -Rrius (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Add New Zealand to this list

Can someone please update this template and add NZ to the list of countries where same-sex marriage is legal? NZ parliament has passed same-sex marriage law by 77 votes out of total 121 votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.33.76 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We are waiting for the Governor-General to grant Royal Assent. That is when it actually becomes a law. - htonl (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Just so; see also #New Zealand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
GG approved, it has been added.Naraht (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Brazil - Added Rio de Janeiro

The state of Rio de Janeiro (RJ) got added and based on http://www.towleroad.com/2013/04/rio-de-janeiro-becomes-latest-brazilian-state-to-allow-gay-marriage.html , which in turn links to http://mixbrasil.uol.com.br/pride/pride/estado-do-rio-de-janeiro-autoriza-casamento-gay.html (my company considers the second URL to be porn, so I can't look at it) and http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/rio-de-janeiro-state-legalizes-gay-marriage190413. And the list of ones that have already done it matches the one on wikipedia. We are up to 10 states +DF.Naraht (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil#Rio de Janeiro. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

France

Parliament just approved the marriage bill. The opposition party already announced its intention to challenge it to the Constitutional Council. Council will have a month to review it. If the challenge is rejected, the bill will go to the president. See article 61 of the French constitution and BBC article. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please mark France with the 'not yet in effect' mark that New Zealand has, in the top part of the box — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.159.89 (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

France is a case where it has not been signed into Law (Either the constitutional court or the President could reject it), so it shouldn't be in the list. New Zealand has been signed into law, it just hasn't taken effect yet.Naraht (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
How many days they have to submit the marriage bill to Constitutional Council?--В и к и T 16:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't know. But I have found ‘Vive la France!’ as campaigners celebrate equal marriage victory as follow up to French Parliament passes same-sex marriage and adoption in final vote. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
They have submitted it today.(http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=hr&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.ump-senat.fr/IMG/pdf/saisine_conseil_constitutionnel_mariage_pour_tous.pdf&usg=ALkJrhh_20U1QeUgG_7ZcmgLIN8pVJnOww google translate).--В и к и T 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Rhode Island....

Should we pre-emptively add the "Don't add Rhode Island until it is signed by the governor" comment inside the template, or wait until the first user adds Rhode Island?Naraht (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd wait. Judging by this story, it needs the Senate's amendments to be voted through by the House, and then the Gov's sig (which is unlikely to be withheld), so it's probably a matter of only a few days. Then, it can go up with a † like we did last November (see my comments at #New Zealand above). Next: Delaware! --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought the same thing about Uruguay. :(Naraht (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian State - What does it mean to be in the list...

What does it mean for a Brazilian State to be in the list? (I know these aren't mutually exclusive)

  1. All Government officials in the state that register(?)/perform(?)/(?) a marriage in the state *must* be equally willing to marry a same sex couple as an opposite sex couple
  2. Some Government officials in the the state that register(?)/perform(?)/(?) a marriage in the state *can* marry a same sex couple? (And does the *can* vary from official to official or by municipality?)
  3. The State government treats a same sex couple married elsewhere in Brazil the same way that they treat an opposite sex couple
  4. The State government will upgrade a civil union to a marriage if the couple asks
  5. The State government automatically upgrades a civil union to a marriage
  6. Something else?

Naraht (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The answer is (6). The template page carries the following notice: "For states in Brazil, we include same-sex marriages only if there is a formal judicial decision holding that same-sex marriages should be accepted in the same way as opposite-sex marriages." Specifically, this means that the court has ordered the officials who register marriages to do so with respect to same-sex couples as they do for opposite-sex couples. -Rrius (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
How is your (6) different than (1)?Naraht (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Your (1) was too unclear to validate. -Rrius (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to people get things right. As in Mexico, (3) is reality nationwide (DOMA-like legislation would easily get vetoed here, Dilma and the Worker's Party may be disingenuous on being truly left-wing and play the hardies over the most polemic social issues but not to such mad extent; I hope PSDB doesn't try to please religious people and their prejudices again in the 2014 elections [that will be my first!], and if they do, they don't win). Unlike in any other country, (2) is reality nationwide. It may vary from official to official AND from municipality to municipality. As for (4), state governments don't marry people, but the first gay couple to be granted cohabitation rights had their marriage canceled by an Evangelical judge in Goiás had it validated again in Rio de Janeiro city, a place where they didn't live, a year or two ago.

    (5)... is truly complex. Since it was decided in 2011 that we have the same rights to civil union-like cohabitation policy (união estável, stable union, means a couple with x time of cohabitation is entitled to a majority of the rights married couples have, including adopting children together, that is why Brazil is colored sky blue in LGBT rights maps even if we have no "civil union" or anything like that) as different-sex couples, and it is available for them in the whole country, I don't think they will revoke this because it established "civil-uniony cohabitation equality", so it seems to not be the case. By what I understood in the new reading the Corregedorias Gerais de Justiça of some states have granted, it just meant that a couple going to a notary's office asking for the issuing of a cohabitation certificate would instead be granted with marriage as any other.

    Why fluminenses (i.e. natives/citizens of the state of RJ) still didn't got it statewide if people understand that the ultimate goal is full marriage equality? A wild theory appears! It would be risky for just the Judicial power to give a full period in such important debate when its amount of power is being contested in Brasília right now i.e. it won't, according to our Legislative power, overlook Chamber decision or previous legislation to the extent it supposedly often does anymore; especially in Rio de Janeiro, the Brazil's richer half state where conservative Christian politicians are most powerful and would prompt irritation of a very determined block (they are for the most part the big responsible for the freezing of our sexual orientation and gender identity anti-discrimination legislation addition to Constitutional Law, that needed major power of action and scope reduction to please them to a minimal extent) in an already tense environment there in the DF; I have just a guess that this is the reason why local Corregedorias de Justiça are running to pass it as legal in some states before what many fear happens, as we already saw in Uganda what Pentecostals are capable when they are determined of something. Lguipontes (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, to boil down what I believe you are saying (and I wish the article did it better) is that any judge in Brazil regardless of state may issue a same sex marriage certificate, but in the states listed in the template, a judge *has* to issue one. Is that correct? In that case, what happened in RJ?Naraht (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Any judge may issue a certificate. A city in the grey state of Minas Gerais became marine blue because their judge decided that same-sex marriages are supposed to be legally in the same standard of different-sex marriage, thus they now have marriage equality. In those marine blue places, people may marry in any local notary's office without the need of judge approval just as every any other kind of couple entitled to do so in Brazil in general, and places that don't offer in such rights may suffer legal action as discrimination.
In Rio de Janeiro, it will become much easier as people will only need 15 days for their enter be approved or not by a judge without the necessity of going to a court. After some time (probably somewhere in June and certainly not after July), the districts of same-sex-marriage-approving judges will have marriage equality while those with non-allowing judges won't. But then again, I think it will be possible for people living in different parts of the state go to a notary's office that isn't the jurisdiction responsible for them, have it there and it be legalized nationwide. Unlike in other states, notaries can't allow SSMs; only willing judges will do so, but for the population, it will require basically the same thing. And as MKleid said, "[m]arriage licenses in Brazil are issued in the name of the state. If a same sex couple can get a marriage license in the state of Rio de Janeiro without conditional approval by a judge in even one district, then it is a same sex marriage state, because the license isn't issued by the district." Lguipontes (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagging Brazil

It is one thing to come to this consensus above to include Brazil; it is another thing entirely to pretend the matter is settled. Objecting to the double dagger on the grounds that we don't usually mark things out as special is just silly. The reason we generally don't is because until now we have waited until the relevant process was complete. This is a special case, and it should be marked as such. Heaven forbid we be helpful to readers. If we are so allergic to markers, why note the future effective dates? -Rrius (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not pretending the matter is settled, but every system has its pecularities and we are generally very restrictive in adding them (see for example the discussion to add "Rio de Janeiro (conditional) to the template; or the Netherlands that don't allow foreigners to marry etcetc), because otherwise it becomes an unreadable christmas tree of markers. I am not against making these signs if they are absolutely necessary, but then we should have a sold basis. Here I don't see it. The decisions by the corregador general for the individual states probably could also be challenged; yet we added them without any remarks at a certain point in time. We also have no idea under which conditions, who could challenge for what moment of time... If we knew a fixed window (say: 2 weeks or so), I can imagine it could exceptionally be re-added.... L.tak (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

People's Veto.

I would prefer if we restored it to 23, all of those states do have a People's Veto, the question as to how many of them currently are in a situation where it is possible to use doesn't seem relevant to the note.Naraht (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

France should also be listed under "Civil unions and Registered Partnerships"

There is no good reason to delete France from the "Civil Unions and Registered Partnerships" list, as PACS are still legal and not at all "replaced" by same-sex marriages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.82.202 (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is our standard practise with this template to only list a country at the highest level of recognition that it grants, not at every level. - htonl (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

French law

According to the French law an application for a marriage must be filed at City Hall 10 days before the ceremony itself. First wedding is expected to take place on 29 May. It means that the new marriage law took effect already. See [7], [8]. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Brazil - all country

Today decision: CNJ determines gay marriage nationwide 177.32.170.225 (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

According to AFP, the council's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court. See [9]. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The Portuguese says that as well. Another english language source. [10] However, the CNJ does have the authority to enforce this, so I think this should count as Nationwide (besides, if we count this as Nation-wide, we don't have to worry about Rio de Janerio any more. 1/2 :)
I would guess that within 24 hours or so we'd start getting more clarity through other sources about how this might play out. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
From my understanding, civil registers will be "forced" to convert "stable union" into a marriage, if requested. The sources does not say explicitly that they will be forced to "directly" marry gay couples. See [11][12][13][14]--В и к и T 18:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
From http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/14/3397093/brazilian-must-register-gay-unions.html

The council that oversees the country's judiciary said in a statement that notary publics cannot refuse to marry gay couples or convert a same-sex civil union into a marriage if that's what the pair wants.

. I'm not sure what else we need.Naraht (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
While the ruling can be appealed, it has immediate effect. In the past, when rulings took effect they were listed and only if the appeal suspended the ruling, was the country/region/state, removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.32.151 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
First, prove it. Second, even if that is true, we need to discuss how to deal with it. Third, you need to address the other points editors have brought up here. -Rrius (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
1.-"CNJ obriga cartórios de todo o país a celebrar casamento entre gays" (National Justice Commission forces offices all over the country to celebrate marriage between gays) See [15] // 2.- I think Brazil needs to be added to the list and if and only if the ruling is reversed, removed from the template. // 3.- Re: other issues= conversion of stable unions into marriage, this does not take away the fact that same sex couples can legally web in Brazil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.32.151 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
That isn't responsive. The only thing your post actually answers is that the change should definitely not happen yet. According to the article you linked to, the decision only takes effect when published in the Diário de Justiça, which will happen "this week", not today. That gives us time to answer the questions we have. Even if we didn't have it, being briefly behind is better than jumping the gun. We need to get it right, not make you feel better by updating Brazil the first second possible despite our having reservations. -Rrius (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As an additional datapoint. [16][dead link‍]

"This is the equivalent of authorising homosexual marriage in Brazil," said Raquel Pereira de Castro Araujo, head of the human rights committee of the Brazilian bar association.

Naraht (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Except we already know the ruling has not yet taken effect because the article about it published the 14th said it will take effect on being published "this week". Why is that such a hard concept? We know it isn't done yet, and we don't have great information about the appeals process. -Rrius (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Rrius, you might not have information about how our legal system works. We do. Today's CNJ decision means marriage equality already exists in Brazil, as much as it exists in New Zealand, for example. The fact that it is pending publication is a mere formality - it is not in force yet. It can be appealed to the Supreme Court not because it is part of a lawsuit, where there's a legal deadline for appeals to be filed - it's not. It can be appealed to the Supreme Court because anything any federal or state organ does can be appealed to the Supreme Court at any time by some select entities - the President, the Solicitor-General, and so on. If due to the possibility of judicial review Brazil cannot be listed in much the same way as New Zealand is, and without the dagger once the CNJ resolution is published, then no law or action or anything that happens here will ever be "in effect" according to your proposed standard. So either include Brazil or remove all other "not yet in force" jurisdictions. 189.120.163.173 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't say it better. They simply don't know how our judicial system works. Raniee09 (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
IP, I refer you back to the very first thing I said to you: prove it. We do not make decisions based on your personal representations about how your judicial system works. Also, for an American court that had statewide jurisdiction, but wasn't the highest court, we wouldn't list the state based on the court's decision until we knew whether it was being appealed. It wouldn't matter whether the decision was in force in the meantime. Why should we suddenly stop waiting until we have an absolutely final decision? Until now, we haven't put jurisdictions up until it was clear we wouldn't have to take them back down because the decision was overturned by a higher court or a peoples' veto of a statute. What is it that is so special about this circumstance here that we should suddenly change the way we approach these things? We should not make the change until either the highest court has spoken or it is clear no one is going to appeal the ruling. -Rrius (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
That is not true, and it is not how we handled Maine.MKleid (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a very hard case, although I'm leaning towards inclusion of Brazil. An analogy is the Hollingsworth v. Perry case in California - the District Court struck down Proposition 8 (i.e. found a right to same-sex marriage) on 4 August 2010, and it was quickly appealed to the Circuit Court (the same day). The difference between that case and the current Brazilian one is that a stay (block) on the District Court decision was immediately issued by the Court until the appeal had been decided. See [17]. This has not been the case in Brazil, to my knowledge.
To be honest, I fail to see why it's necessary for the case to have been appealed to the highest court before we can list it. Let's take a hypothetical scenario where a lower court legalises gay marriage in a particular jurisdiction and the ruling is active (i.e. actual marriage licenses are issued), and then an appeal is launched a few months later, and the appeal reverses the lower court ruling. In the intermediary months, same-sex marriage was still legal. Here, of course, it's a bit more difficult to tell whether the law is actually being enforced already - we don't actually have any evidence either way. In those states with previous state-based rulings, the law is presumably being enforced. But how about in Rio de Janeiro? Or Amazonas? Are notaries there registering same-sex marriages already? More precisely, are they doing so in a consistent, systematic way? And if they aren't, can this be appealed judicially? (My view is that the answer is "yes" to all these questions, hence why I support inclusion). Ronline ✉ 08:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Finally, the fact that publication of the decision only takes place later this week seems to me to not be material/relevant. THe fact that the decision was been released means that it can't change anymore. The case is analogous to when a US State Governor signs a law but the law is not entered into force yet. Here, similarly, the decision has been issued, with the precise wording, but it has not yet satisfied the formal requirements for coming into effect. Ronline ✉ 08:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
With respect to the appeal issue, I agree. If a court decision has actually been stayed pending appeal, then we should not list it. But we should not ignore it just because an appeal is possible. By analogy, in any of the US states which have passed marriage equality laws, someone could file a lawsuit claiming that the law is somehow unconstitutional. That does not mean that the laws should be ignored until it is clear that no-one will file such a suit. - htonl (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is a load of nonsense. The analogy is to judicial decisions by lower courts, not to acts of legislatures. We do not list countries when a higher court can reverse the decision. The rationale for inclusion has always been that the final relevant authority has spoken. In a legislature, that means all houses have passed the bill and it has been signed by the head of state or subjected to a peoples' veto, if such a thing is necessary in that jurisdiction. For a judicial decision, it means the court of last resort for the jurisdiction has spoken. It was said above that somehow the lack of stay pending appeal is hugely important, but why? The argument people have trotted out that people on the ground are getting married hasn't been enough in past decisions here, so why is it now? We don't put up a jurisdiction when a higher authority with the same source of power (higher courts and electorates) can make us take it back down. There is a lack of permanence to ruling that makes this foolish. -Rrius (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You say "we do not list countries when a higher court can reverse the decision". When has that actually been an established principle? There have been pretty much no cases around the world analogous to this Brazilian one. In the US, there has been a tendency for marriage cases to be immediately stayed pending an appeal. In many other cases, the only court to decide was the superior court. So there's no real convention/previous practice to base our decisions on. However, I see no practical reason why we need to wait until a case has gone to the highest court before listing it in the template. Yes, there is a potential lack of permanence to the ruling, in the same way as a statutory law is impermanent - it can be reversed by a subsequent legislature, for example, or overturned by a court case a few years down the track. But the mere lack of permanence shouldn't be enough to prevent listing. The policy behind listing countries in the template is to indicate where same-sex marriage is part of the law, at the particular moment of viewing. Courts of all levels, including lower courts, have the power to pronounce what the law is, and this decision is binding until overturned by a higher court (or if a stay is granted, in which case the enforcement of the decision is suspended). I just don't see a policy reason why we need to disregard the binding decisions of lower courts just because the highest possible court has not ruled yet and has the theoretical possibility to overturn the decision. Ronline ✉ 05:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Finally, I disagree with the re-adding of Brazil to the civl unions category. The court case explicitly says that all notaries must register a same-sex marriage (as a marriage). This is separate to the conversion of a "stable union" into a marriage. So while civil unions are still available under the law, so is direct same-sex marriage, without the need for an intermediary step of having a civil union. Ronline ✉ 05:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is the official press release of the court (CNJ) on its decision. [Here http://www.cnj.jus.br/images/imprensa/resolu%C3%A7%C3%A3o_n_175.pdf] is the official decision in Portuguese - known as Resolution 175 of the CNJ. A few points:
* The decision enters into force on Thursday, 16 May, according to that site. So, it's in force already.
* It states explicitly that notaries ("cartorios") cannot refuse to celebrate a civil marriage between same-sex couples OR to convert a same-sex stable union into a marriage.
* Notaries who refuse to comply with the ruling can be taken to court, to their "supervising judge".
So, I think this makes it quite clear that same-sex marriage is legal in Brazil. Ronline ✉ 05:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The stay issue is irrelevant. What has always mattered is a final decision. This ruling is not a final decision. If we are throwing out that brightline, then this is going to get a lot more fun. -Rrius (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
All US states should be removed too, then, because none of their laws have been ruled on by the US Supreme Court. What of the EU? Are national courts the final say? — kwami (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, the bright line is not as bright as we'd hope it is, but this ruling has "passed the last step before taking direct effect in a full jurisdiction". I think with that criterion we have been working all the time (I suppose anyone could also have challenged the corregador geral's on their decisions in the individual states). It would be contrary to the aim of this template to exclude countries where marriages are legally jurisdiction-wide possible at a certain moment. If it is overturned/challenged and stayet etcetc… we'll have to use the "California-solution". L.tak (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That's just stupid. Courts are a separate source of authority; legislatures have the final decision in the legislative process unless the state has people's veto, in which case we don't put up the state until the people have decided. If one court says a thing and there is a higher court with the right to speak on it, that is clearly a different matter than a court having an abstract ability to speak rule it unconstitutional in the event someone challenge it. -Rrius (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
When the NOM guys put Proposition 8 on the California Ballot on June 2, did you remove "California" from the template, hoping that the VoteNoOn8 would win on November 4 to put it again? It's also important to remember that CNJ's decision was not put on hold by now. It is an analogous situation to "In re: Marriage cases" Raniee09 (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It's only "a different matter" if there is some reason to suggest that an appeal will actually be taken to the higher court. Until that process is begun, the possibility that a decision of the CNJ can be reversed by the Supreme Court is just as abstract as the possibility that a law passed by a state legislature can be struck down by a state supreme court. (As an aside, it would be more conducive to civil discussion if you didn't describe other editors' good-faith arguments as "a load of nonsense" or "just stupid".) - htonl (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The ruling was challenged. [18], [19]. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But it was not suspended (yet). IF it is suspended, then I will agree with your position, but NOT NOW. Don't you know about Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball policy? Raniee09 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Raniee, Ron "just" makes the observation that the ruling was challenged; no reason to start using capitals or citing Crystal ball policies for that mere fact… L.tak (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna apologize: I mistook Ron for Rrius. My bad! It was lack of sleep. I am deeply sorry, Ron.Raniee09 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan??

What the hell do the "Metropolitan" labels for Denmark and the Netherlands mean?? Liberal92 (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See his comment at Talk:Same-sex marriage#"Nationwide". SPQRobin (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, it feels like a really thinly-veiled attempt to underplay SSM's legality in those two countries. Kind of Bush League, actually.Liberal92 (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's a nefarious plot. Nothing at all to do with wanting our articles to reflect reality. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with the "metropolitan edit", but do see a good faith attempt to be consistent/correct… There is no reason to start questioning motives for the change here… L.tak (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There's the potential to mislead; someone could very easily take "Denmark" to mean to include Greenland. Talk about "nationwide", their constitution, etc. is irrelevant here. kwami's edit was doubtless an improvement. — Lfdder (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's far fetched. I seems more likely to me that most people don't think of Greenland at all when they hear "Denmark". Hekerui (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
What's your point? You say "most"--there's the possibility still; it still is ambiguous. — Lfdder (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Netherlands and Denmark

While I think there are somewhat similar situations on these, I'd like to lay down the particulars.

Same Sex Marriage *is* legal in all parts of the Netherlands, including the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba. It is not legal in the remainder of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. So I think describing same sex marriage as being legal in the Netherlands is fine.

A footnote? Template:Same-sex unions/sandbox — Lfdder (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It would seem to me that with the UK Devolution
  • Denmark(Metropolitan: Yes, Faroes No, Greenland No) is similar to
  • UK(England: Yes, Wales Yes, Scotland Yes, Northern Ireland No)
and that both of these are closer to
  • US(Iowa:yes, ..., Alabama: No, ....)
than than are to
  • Norway
(Note- Personally in regards to NPOV, I'm pro-SSM)Naraht (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this is a better solution. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That's ok with me too. — Lfdder (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
How about, because this is likely to get more complicated in future, with different countries with different forms of internal structure legalising equal marriage, we do away with the nationwide/sub-national jurisdiction dichotomy, and do something similar to the example on the right? Climatophile (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Legal recognition of
same-sex relationships
Marriage
Yes, like Ron said! :) Climatophile (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
(But my suggestion includes Mexico and US too. Climatophile (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
IMO, Netherlands doesn't need touching. Every part of what is "Netherlands" has SSM. Adding a caveat to this would seem to similar to putting a caveat on the United Kingdom because of other places that QEII is Queen of. Netherlands and Uruguay (for example) should be treated the same way. In this proposed case, I'd like to have the US States indented, but that might cause it to be too long vertically. (And we are still putting off how ugly *any* suggestion is going to be when the US has it legal in 38 states of 50, but that's for another time)Naraht (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd disagree about the Netherlands. One cannot really compare it to the UK and other Commonwealth realms, as in the latter case they are all independent countries. The Netherlands situation is that the Kingdom is the independent country, and not all of the constituent countries have SSM, only The Netherlands. Climatophile (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that the US states should stay in "Performed in some jurisdictions" section. There is a difference between regional law and the law passed at nation-wide level, even when that law does not apply to all parts of the country. Kingdom of is unnecessary. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you explain why it is necessary for the template to reflect all these different national compositions, rather than just list jurisdictions? The only difference I can see is that the US is federal, and not all states recognise marriages from other states. The rationale behind my merging suggestion is that it stops us having to make reasons why some countries should be in one or the other, which could get complicated with even more countries, like Australia, Switzerland etc, which would all have different internal structures, and could vary vis a vis nationwide recognition and federal/national recognition. Climatophile (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the Netherlands raises any problems. Yes, tecnically, SSM is legal in the "Netherlands", not in the other countries of the Kingdom, but I think for the majority of readers, it would be very confusing to list it as a sub-set of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (indented).
I would see Denmark and the UK as raising very similar issues. In both cases, a national legislature has passed same-sex marriage laws, but these laws have not applied universally throughout the country, excluding certain regions. This was the same situation in France, for example, when it passed PACS in 1999 but excluded application to New Caledonia, French Polynesia, etc.
I think the best way to resolve this would be through footnotes rather than indented listings. In other words, we should list "United Kingdom1" in the Marriage section, with a note saying "1 Excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland". Same with Denmark - "Excludes Greenland and the Faroe Islands". When those jurisdictions pass their own marriage laws, I'm not even sure if it's worth creating a separate line in the template - it may be easier just to remove that jurisdiction from the footnote, so it reads only "Excludes Northern Ireland" or even "Applies only to England and Wales and Scotland". Ronline ✉ 16:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
(To Climatophile:)The template in this version would (mistakenly) suggest that marriages are recognized at federal level (by federal law) in the US. When (if) DOMA is repealed, your proposition would be absolutely fine.
(To Ronline:) That makes sense. Ron 1987 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
To Ron, Yes, I can see that would be an issue, and so Ronline's suggestion makes more sense, for each of those countries which have passed a national law which does not apply throughout the country. Climatophile (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Arg, too confusing with both Ron and Ronline, one of you go change your account immediately. :) Anyway, it seems like what we have come to with this discussion is that *for now* we should change the current version of the template to add a footnote for Denmark with the footnote saying "Excludes Greenland and the Faroe Islands" (with appropriate wl).Naraht (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So, SSM is open in the Netherlands, but it's not open in the Netherlands, so it's okay to just say it's open in the Netherlands, because no-one would take that to mean that it's open in the Netherlands. No possibility of confusion there.

As for it being recognized everywhere in the Netherlands, it's recognized everywhere in Mexico and Israel too, but we don't include them. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

People are drawing a lot of distinctions, some of them meaningless. The governments with the ability to make law for Connecticut, the Netherlands, Norway, and Mexico City have done so. The one with responsibility for England and Wales seems about to, and the one for Scotland is supposed to do so soon as well. Why not simply list them all separately in the main list (perhaps using italics and a note to set off sub-national entities and perhaps a separate note for the Netherlands because of the naming confusion). This solution addresses Ron 1987's problem of the proposal above creating the impression of US-wide validity. By simply listing the states individually (Connecticut after Canada, etc.), the list would not be susceptible to that interpretation.

Ronline's suggestion seems a poor one. First, while the UK Parliament is responsible for passing a law for England and Wales, the Scottish law will come from Scotland. That means that Scotland is no different from Connecticut in terms of the distinction you are trying to draw between the US and other places. Specifically, Ronline said, "There is a difference between regional law and the law passed at nation-wide level." If that is true, it has to apply equally to Scotland, and Greenland for that matter. The second problem with treating Scotland that way is it would actually create the impression that a UK-wide law is responsible for the state of the law in Scotland. We shouldn't be in the business of false impressions. -Rrius (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

small?

As a technical question: why aren't the 3 new notes and the cross-sign not shown in small, despite use of <small></small> or {{small|>> markup? L.tak (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Use <small></small> instead of {{small|>>.--В и к и T 09:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Colombia

As alluded to in the previous section, Colombia's Constitutional Court ruled last year that Congress must enact a same-sex marriage law or it will automatically become the law of the land on 20 June. So should we list it? It seems to me this is the equivalent of a statute that has a future effective date, and we have listed those. -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Court obliged the Congres to pass legislation giving same-sex couples similar rights to marriage. See [20], [21] Ron 1987 (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
So if Columbia passes a law a "Civil Union" law that gives Gays with a Civil Union equal to that of a heterosexual marriage, then they will have satisfied the Court's Ruling without having SSM in Colombia, right?Naraht (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Then I am opposed to listing it, there just seem like too many ways that it might not happen.Naraht (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, whatever I read didn't have its facts straight then. We shall see what happens. -Rrius (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

June 20, 2013

Well, we have reached 20 June and *nobody* seems to know what will happen. Fairly typical is the Washington Blade (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/06/18/colombia-marriage-deadline-approaches/) "Even though same-sex couples in Colombia will be able to legally register their relationships on Friday, it remains unclear whether some notaries and even judges will allow them to do so." I'm not even sure there is enough information to put together a clear <!-- type comment in the template the way we did for Uruguay and France. And the legislate is fairly anti-SSM and doesn't seem to be willing to pass even the equivalent of Civil Unions that would satisfy the Court.Naraht (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

DOMA

I think how we reflect the repeal of DOMA needs some discussion. The US is not like Mexico, where the court has ruled that all states must recognize SSM. If you get married in CA and move to AR, AR will not recognize your marriage. The fact that the federal govt recs it is no different than Denmark, where a state will not rec your marriage if you got married elsewhere, but the fed govt will. Something similar will presumably occur in the UK, if you get married in Wales and move to Gibraltar. Would we add the UK to the list of "recognized, not performed"? — kwami (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to use analogies, as all states seem to have their own specific way of working this out. I agree that -even though federal benefits are handed out wherever you live- we should not consider same sex marriage in the US being state-wide or the like, and neither should we say it's recognized in the other states (merely because it is for federal purposes). The situation seems much akin to Brazil before they fully legalized: the federal level would accept: but the individual states wouldn't…. I am actually quite happy with the situation we have now on the template: its not perfect; but any other arrangement is bound to give even more inconsistencies… However, adding "US (federal level only)" to the "recognized" section is a defendable possibility…. L.tak (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually Brazil was/is more liberal than Mexico rather than less as the United States. Like in Mexico, everywhere SSM was accepted (any kind of government or public service discrimination of any sort is Constitutionally prohibited, legislators knew U.S.-like bans would fall sooner or later anyway) and it could be created by legal battle, municipal law (though I think the Mexico City's case is closer to DF-Brasília's than to Santa Rita do Sapucaí's, though), and statewide judicial decision to equalize it; state chambers all avoided the topic, if I'm not wrong Mexico City's case was the single one created by legislators.
Unlike in Mexico though, foreign SSM was also recognized everywhere (don't know if foreign governments consider our união estável equivalent to their civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. and vice-versa, but I think it should also apply at least if one of the persons is a Brazilian citizen), and the legal battles were far more common as all over the nation we got união estável (the Brazilian name for cohabitation), that is equivalent in rights and duties to união civil (the Brazilian name for marriage o.O) and our Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that "man and woman" meant "whateva whateva" because they wanted more awesomeness for our lives; though it was a problem, as we couldn't have too far different systems for concepts that were essentially similar, and worse, people in some states having more rights than others (~unconstitutional~) based on a judicial decision supposed to be obeyed all over Brazil, so "it is either 8 or 80"/"either you give or go down" – same-sex couples are either regarded as essentially the same in relation to different-sex ones for all purposes, or they aren't supposed to be considered for anything. After 2 years of people getting the idea that same-sex couples were equal, after a strong backlash against a corrupt Evangelical preacher that says a lot of sh!t in the internet making a campaign against gays inside a secular government, and after the debated fully heated in Uruguay, New Zealand and France and all three, plus some other U.S. states, approved it, the Council of Justice (headed by the President of the Supreme Court) decided to let the controversial but rational and logical to win, and the profit in popular praise was highest possible.
Then I think I can deduce that if we had judicial precedent of 5 like Mexico, or if they had our união estável or the Portuguese união de facto concept and an also liberal Supreme Court, much probably we could BOTH get marriage equality nationwide well before May 16.
In the U.S. people have no Contitutional ban on every possible kind of discrimination by the government, their states are much more independent on creating their own set of rights and duties, they have no nationwide recognition of non-married couples, they struck down DOMA only now... Entirely unrelated context. Lguipontes (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We agree that the situation is complex. I think of this as similar to California before today when it was listed as conditional, it is very complex legally. However, the federal government will recognize a married couple who lives in AL if they got married in NY for things stuff as immigration status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the United States should be under the section recognized not preformed for the federal level(a person married in NY but who moves to AL would still have their marriage recognized by the federal government)
Here's Lyle from SCOTUS Blog
"With the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act’s benefits ban in Section 3, for legally married gays and lesbians, the Court immediately — even if inadvertently — gave rise to a situation in which couples living in states that will not allow them to marry because they are homosexuals will still be able to qualify for federal benefits, many of which are handed out or managed by state governments"
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinions-recap-giant-step-for-gay-marriage/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
How is that different from any other country? I US was odd before: Essentially, you had only partial recognition in, say, New York, because only some levels of govt recognized the marriage. Now you have full recognition. Really, I think we should have had striped blue under DOMA (partial recognition), and solid blue now (full recognition). — kwami (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What should be done just like what has been done with Denmark, a footnote. This would state that marriages preformed in these states are reconized under federal law(and are still considered marriages on the federal level even if the couple moved into a state that bans SSM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing about the United States Recognition entry, it was very clear that it was under federal law only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The United States should definitely be included now under the "Recognized, not performed" section. It can be clarified with a parenthetical or a footnote like other countries are. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is not "consensus". There is no consensus here. The US was abnormal in that the fed govt did not recognize marriages performed within the country; now it's like any other country. We hardly need to say the US is like every other country unless we're going to say that every country is like every other country. SSM is not "recognized" in Alaska, Arkansas, or Alabama, so adding the US to that list would be incorrect. It's not even clear yet if the fed would continue to rec a SSM couple if they moved to a state where it's not recognized. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
More to the point, your wording suggests that a couple in Arkansas could get married, and they'd be recognized by the fed govt. That's backwards. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rreagan. "United States (Federal)" should be in "Recognized, not performed", although technically they're performed in the Federal District of DC. The majority opinion states that any same-sex marriage lawfully entered into would be recognised for federal purposes, so if someone moved from Maryland to Virginia, it would still be recognised by the government. On a practical matter, DOMA Section 2 will probably soon come up on the chopping block under FF&C and the Nevada marriage ban under EPC due to the Windsor ruling (see: Kennedy's dissent in Hollingsworth too), but that's for next term or the one after. Sceptre (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There should be no federal entry. We have DC on the list and apart from that the rest of the U.S. is states. You cannot be only federally married, even DC adopted SSM as a quasi state. Hekerui (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone that the original argument was over recognition of same sex marriage by the federal government, it is 100% true that the federal government will still recognize your marriage if you move from New York to Utah for example, but it is also true that the legal situation is complex and many federal agencies still use state laws. What I think should be done is under the recognized section should be United States( Federal Level only) with a footnote saying that the law in this regard is complex Predictor92 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

But that's simply not true: You can't get married in Arkansas and have it recognized by the fed. With DOMA, the US was really weird in having state law rejected by the fed, so we really should have had a note before now explaining that the marriages in the states were *not* fully recognized. Now that a marriage in NY is fully legal, we don't need to say anything: It's already implied. We were negligent in not having a note earlier; now we no longer need one. — kwami (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
You also need a source that if you move to Utah the fed will continue to recognize your marriage. I've heard that since marriage laws follow place of residence, they may not. I'm not sure anyone knows yet. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

USA classification

USA should most definably be under the recognized but not performed. US federal government has stopped deporting immigrants in gay marriages. It doesn't matter what state law says. Federal law trumpets state law. A state law won't grant gay couples from other states state benefits, but it will grant them federal benefits. This needs to be addressed.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/new-york-immigration-judge-halts-deportation-of-married-gay-man/

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20130626gay-marriage-supreme-court-decision.htmlGay conservative (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

First off, "performed" is an awful word for the state involvement in marriage. Second,same-sex marriage is most definitely granted in the US; 30% of Americans live in SSM-available states. So I have trouble seeing how it fits into any category described as "not performed".--Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but, what?! Why didn't you voice this opinion when SSM in Brazil (including foreign) was recognized in its full term all over the nation and in all states it wasn't routine, it was something that one could get with legal action or municipal law? Like, even the day we legalized it just like liberal European countries, there were still people wary of adding it here saying we should wait more because they were doubtful of how the NCJ's ruling would be obeyed and if it was permanent. The United States get an unequal federal recognition of marriage that gives you less than 10% of the rights we could get with our cohabitation, still doesn't call it marriage, and you say it is supposed to be enlisted with the other marriage equality nations? I think you/we should think in another solution, this certainly won't be consensus if people really get what is going on. Lguipontes (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
"Why didn't you voice this opinion when SSM in Brazil (including foreign) was recognized in its full term all over the nation and in all states it wasn't routine, it was something that one could get with legal action or municipal law?" Because it is not my job to wade into every Wikipedia discussion at others convenience, to spend my days figuring out what is true versus what is being said on realms that I may not know so well. "The United States get an unequal federal recognition of marriage that gives you less than 10% of the rights we could get with our cohabitation, still doesn't call it marriage" No, actually, same-sex marriage is now marriage at the U.S. federal level, as well as in the states that grant it. "you say it is supposed to be enlisted with the other marriage equality nations?" I don't find myself having said any such thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, what Gay Conservative advocates is the midway itself between the consensus till this moment and what you seemed to advocate in my understanding. The consensus right now is that the United States had a "not really equal" SSM in the states allowing it because for federal purposes they were non-existent (but we were slow at recognizing this fact) and nothing in other states. Now the U.S. states with SSM got real equality, and the government accepts those marriages for few purposes relating to its own activity. But still it is not accepting those marriages as equal to all others in the way it is done in Mexico and Israel, it is just that the federal government passed from "atheist" to "theistic, very slightly agnostic" (your understanding) or "agnostic, very slightly theistic" (my understanding) over those unions. Gay Conservative says it is pretty much like what people have in Mexico (I think you guys will have it until 2017 surely, but not now) and you say it is like Brazil (what is wrong, for the reasons I explained in my reply to L.tak in the start of the section), but that even if we didn't interpret Brazil as egalitarian back then, we should accept the USA now. In the American states banning SSM AND SSU/SSCH, not even legal action can be attested to work to permit same-sex marriage (so the USA surely isn't in the deeper shades of blue), and for state recognition purposes couples married elsewhere still face "atheist" [state] government eyes (so it isn't in the celestial shade of blue). What means that the United States is now in a category of its own. We may work on it in both the image and the template adding another shade (an idea I think Ron, Kwami and others might disagree), or just wait DOMA to fall completely in the next few years (but then I think we aren't supposed to do so). Lguipontes (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere on this template where it's saying that same-sex marriages or other unions are fully equal to mixed-sex marriages in the same location, so I'm not sure how discussing whether they are is appropriate for the discussion at this template. I think that all that I advocated in my statement was not saying that they are "not performed" when clearly they are being entered into, probably over 100,000 people in them by now, and more are being entered into this weekend. (And the federal matters when it comes to marriage are not "few", they're possibly more significant than the state matters, involving as they do the bulk of the US personal tax burden, Social Security benefits, immigration rights, and benefits for veterans and other federal employees.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
In the U.S. you need to live in a given district for them to marry you just like (AFAIK) with Brazil's comarcas, right? If people living in Arkansas can travel to Minnesota (or futurely Illinois) to get married, then I think that celestial blue would work just as well. But I don't understand what you are saying then, if it isn't related to where and how the situation of the United States should be described in the template. Was it just a correction on Gay Conservative's misinterpretation? Then, if so, I apologize. Lguipontes (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, in the US, plenty of folks get married outside the state they live in. Some individual states make exceptions about who can get married, but I've actually been at a wedding for a same-sex couple who came in from a jurisdiction where same-sex marriage was not granted nor recognized. The folks living in Arkansas can get married in... well, I don't know Minnesota law, but definitely California.That doesn't mean that their marriage will get recognized by the state of Arkansas, but when they are on a trip to, say, Massachusetts, they're married.
  • I was talking about the placement of the US on this template, indicating that it did not qualify for any section labeled "recognized, not performed". That is independent of any question of whether same-sex marriage is treated in the jurisdiction as fully equal to mixed-sex marriage; I do not see that question of equality being anywhere in the categories of this template. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Here, a couple from Nova Iguaçu must marry in Nova Iguaçu, and a couple from Rio de Janeiro must marry in Rio de Janeiro. AFAIK a mixed-comarca couple may marry in either, but they can't marry in Niterói, São Paulo or Brasília unless they prove they have been permanent residents of one of those (but then they are not regarded as being related to Nova Iguaçu and/or Rio de Janeiro, in the example case, for this meantime). If people in the United States have the right to same-sex marriage just for being American citizens and the American government now equalized its treatment, then I fully agree with you that it is not "recognized but not performed". Actually, now it seems even reasonable for the entire country [EDIT: I mean all states, commonwealths and territories without full marriage equality but where American marriage law apply] be in grey and blue stripes (what shade of blue is what we would have to discuss). Thanks for clarifying.
I confused myself. If you go to the page of the template itself, they say it must be called marriage and that they should be accepted as easily as mixed-sex couples. You are right, even though Portugal will fix the difference in relation to adoption rights, they were accepted for over 3 years despite the legal difference. Lguipontes (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not seeing the language you describe on this template page; perhaps it is in whatever template you're discussing that has blue and gray stripes. In the US, not only can one get married out of the state of one's residency, we actually has one state that specializes in marrying folks from out-of-state; Nevada has a business in people wanting quick marriage, without waiting times that some other states impose, with wedding chapels open 24 hours in their tourist center Las Vegas. (They used to also specialize in relatively-easy divorce, but other states have loosened up on that.) Half the point of DOMA was to override the Constitutional requirement that states recognize each other's marriages, so that folks can't go get married in Massachusetts and insist that Arkansas recognize the marriage... and that is the portion of DOMA that was left in place after the recent Supreme Court case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Weird, I remember to read a guideline over what would we consider to the list in the "template page". I mean that California, tribe, tribe, Washington, tribe, portion of the Midwest, tribes, D.C., Maryland, Delaware and portions of New England are supposed to be just as they are right now, while we could add striped cornflower/cyan on states with civil partnerships and striped grey/cyan on the rest of the country in the "world homosexuality laws" map. I thought that the federal scope of the recognition of those states' marriages was prohibited, and now limited, but according to you now it is just short of full.

I faintly remember hearing about "Nevada's 10 min marriages" in TV and getting confused EXACTLY because marriage laws were so different across states...

So they were stealing the lulz of people in progressive states to something created to satisfy those in the conservative states in 1996 despite the fact that it threated the status of marriages in those progressive states since 2007, and they took decision to review it only now? What sort of vampiresque... You waited too long for a fix of something of such little target scope, it could've happened in 2008. Lguipontes (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Same-sex_unions/Archive_14&oldid=1137725860"