Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Israel

Why is Israel in the recognition column when the article says "The ruling specifies that a record made by the Administration of Border Crossings, Population and Immigration is a statistical record which does not constitute official recognition of same-sex marriage by the state"? Maybe Israel should be removed from the recognition column unless someone has a source that Israel fully recognizes same-sex marriages.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur as well. However, after our conversation on my talk page, would you say I have provided enough evidence to support Malta taking Israel's place? This is @Prcc27 in particular. Chase1493 (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Chase1493: Yes, there's enough evidence for Malta to take Israel's place. Prcc27 (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In Israel unmarried couples got virtually the same rights as married couples. To claim their rights a couple has to prove they are in a marriage-like relationship. A foreign marriage certificate serves as proof.176.4.0.58 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Islands

Virgin Islands performs same-sex marriage but unless there's a reliable source that it also recognizes it then there should be a footnote! The judge only ordered performance, not recognition! [1] Prcc27 (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No original research, please. I have asked you to produce a source that states same-sex marriage is licensed but not recognized in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and you have been unable to do so. You are reading into a source and drawing your own conclusions that are not textually supported. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Governor has signed an executive order to implement. Prcc27, you are being even more intransigent on this than you were with Kansas. There is consensus ... unanimous other than with you and your specious grasping at straws... that VI has full marriage equality and should be dark blue. You keep repeating the same bogus arguments and need to let this go. Njsustain (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The source I provided only mentions performance so unless you have a source that says otherwise, it is WP:OR to assume that they recognize same-sex marriages. Once again, the Lt. Gov's signature is required for the executive order to go into effect! Prcc27 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And you are again shouting and repeating the same nonsense. Njsustain (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• The only one that shouted was you! Re-read WP:SHOUT and tell me where it says using an exclamation point is shouting.... Prcc27 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/17/american-samoa-only-us-territory-defying-same-sex-marriage-ruling/ is yet another confirmation that VI is complying with the SCOTUS decision. Unless you have any evidence they are not complying, you have no reason to stand in the way of the many, many editors who believe VI should be listed as full legality for SSM. If you wish to involve administration, you are welcome to do so. I'd very much like to see their evaluation of your recent activity as well(!) Njsustain (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Njsustain: But did the Lt. Gov sign it yet? I already provided a source that their signature is required! Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The term "grasping at straws" has been applied to your specious arguments by multiple people. I'm not going to make a snarky remark that your argument is "insane", but it doesn't seem rational. The governor of the territory signed an executive order welcoming and recognizing same sex marriage. Licenses have been issued to same sex couples. No one has been denied any rights. The Lt. Gov was out of town and his signature is procedural, not political... it's not even a formality; not a "decision" he has to make. It's his duty to simply recognize that the governor has signed the order... not "approve" the order. There isn't going to be a big press release that a clerical step took place. It is your onus (and yours alone it seems) to prove that the Lt. Gov has not and/or will not recognize the order with his signature. I'm willing to compromise on the edit you made on the map key for now, but unless you can prove VI is not recognizing or has in some way denied civil rights to any same-sex couple as a matter of policy, then with each passing day it becomes more ridiculous to leave VI light blue. Njsustain (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, when are you going to inform administration about my SHOUTING? From the "rule" (guideline) you keep bringing up, it is clear that what is frowned upon is repeated emphasis... and it is you, sir who ends! every! single! communication! with! an! exclamation! point! Whether this punctuation is specifically against the guidelines, it is clear that you are in constant violation of the spirit of the SHOUTING guideline. I've asked you to stop repeatedly but you continue doing so(!) Njsustain (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How many other judges ordered licensing and never mentioned recognition? Who among the sane would issue a license and then refuse to recognize it as legal? If you don't have a source for your POV, then it's just OR and has no place here. — kwami (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami: Do you not remember what happened with Kansas? Kansas is a perfect example of licensing same-sex marriages but not recognizing them! It may be your POV that it's "insane" to license but not recognize. However, just because it's "insane" doesn't mean it's impossible as we saw with Kansas! Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember what happened in KS very well... after Obergefell the Governor was digging his heels in, as were you... insisting that "concession" on his part was the gold standard we needed to wait for. Well, the Governor of VI has conceded. His signing the executive order recognizing marriages is more than clear evidence of his concession. The clerical process that happens thereafter is not the standard you were going by, and as no one else is questioning the legality in VI, it is time to move on. Njsustain (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Is there anyone other than Prcc27 who thinks VI does not qualify as fully legal at this point? Njsustain (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There's two type of concessions though: "Same-sex marriage is the law of the land and we will comply immediately" and "same-sex marriage is the law of the land and we will comply in the near future." Puerto Rico "conceded" the same day Obergefell was issued but none of us counted it as a marriage equality territory because the executive order didn't go into effect until 15 days later. Also, on the map talk page there is a user that agrees that Virgin Islands is issuing but not recognizing. Prcc27 (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A) That's hairsplitting if I've ever seen it. B) If anyone agrees with you, I'm sure they can speak for themselves. Njsustain (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Idk what you mean by "hairsplitting". They obviously did- just not on this talk page.... Pinging them would violate Wikipedia policy so I won't do that!Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We should leave the US tribal bullet point off

There are two reasons why I continue to remove the US tribal bullet point.

• First is that they are no longer a level of jurisdiction controlling access to equal marriage. When we had tribes issuing licenses in states that banned same-sex marriages, those tribes were worthy of inclusion since a same-sex couple could achieve a valid license in their state of residence. However, Obergefell has now rendered these islands of equality irrelevant. With every state now issuing licenses, couples in any tribe have access to recognized marriages through the state marriage system, which does not stop at the reservation border. A reservation banning marriage (like the Navajo Nation) does not invalidate Arizona marriage licenses within its borders.

• Second is that there are 567 federally recognized tribes, many of which simply defer to state law. Unless someone is willing to comb through those tribes and get a new count, the current count of 24 is giving an inaccurate picture. It would be easier (and tidier) to simply remove the bullet point given its limited reach in point #1, than try to provide an accurate number which could very well cross into OR territory.

Therefore, I see no reason to keep adding a bullet point to what is already a clustered US listing. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with your second point, though that could be resolved by just having the bullet point text saying "various tribal jurisdictions" and linking to the article rather than specifying a definitive number. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree the bullet should be left off, but for a different (or partially overlapping) reason. Before states had to issue licenses, this was a "back door" to getting one, so it was a relevant point. However it's now moot. That every state issues licenses has now subsumed the relevance of the tribal jurisdictions in the matter and listing tribes is just redundant. It's simply no longer relevant except on a local level when a person is deciding the particulars of where to get his or her license. Njsustain (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In general the whole US section needs cleaning up. The purpose of this chart isn't to get into the minutia of what's going on in each country. "United States Proper"? Really? NMI intends to comply, so the only real question left is American Samoa, which apparently isn't "really" part of the US in regard to this matter, so it doesn't need clarifying. Let's just make it "United States" and be done with it. I will wait for other opinions though before considering editing as such. Njsustain (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

While your second point is true, your first point is off, as the tribes are their own jurisdictions and are able to not recognize marriages for their own purposes. Saying the XYZ Nation will not perform or recognize marriages even though the state they are in will is not conceptually different from saying that the state will not recognize marriages even though the federal government will. As that argument was the reason for your deletion, that was why I reverted. But yes, the point should either read "at least 24"... or it can be done away with for simplicity, if that's what people want. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

What I am trying to point out is the effective reach of each level of jurisdiction. Since the federal government only recognized validly conducted marriages, before Obergefell there were still areas where a couple had no access to a license due to state law. Now with every state issuing, every couple (at least in the 50 states + DC) has access to marriage. The tribal recognition has to do with some benefits, but tribal recognition no longer has an effect on the availability of valid licenses. That is why I want the bullet point gone. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 13:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Nat, the difference is that prior to Obergefell, getting a license through a tribe gave you rights outside of the tribe, so it was significant. But now, if a tribe doesn't recognize your marriage, that is of no consequence whatsoever except within the tribe... it is of no more consequence than the Catholic church not recognizing your marriage. This template and associated articles are about civil marriage, not tribal recognition. Njsustain (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No, actually, it is different from the church not recognizing your marriage. Tribes are governments, with their own physical jurisdictions, their own set of government-granted rights and services. (As a clear example in context: if your local church granted a marriage that was not done in accordance with some larger government, it would not be recognized by other governments; marriages granted by tribes are recognized.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That's specious. The tribal "governments" have very limited differences in services compared to the state. While they were able to get away with granting marriage licenses in some cases where the state would not, to pretend it is an entirely separate government is invalid and misleading. Njsustain (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this is rather unfair to the tribal governments, which are functioning, self-contained governments. My point isn't that their recognition or non-recognition isn't worthy of attention in an article, my point is that they simply aren't distinct enough from omni-recognizing state law to warrant a bullet point. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My point wasn't to disparage tribal governments. The point is that, in regards to this template, their influence is of no consequence and longer. Perhaps a better analogy would be that a tribal government is more like a municipal government that is slightly more separated (I don't think "autonomous" is accurate) from the state than a township, city, or county might be. But in reality they have little leeway in what they can do that is not already within the general bounds of U.S. laws, and they exist only at the pleasure of the prevailing government(s). That tribes were able to issue civil marriage licenses that were valid was significant when the government of the state they were located in would not. Now that all states do, it is moot/irrelevant/subsumed... whatever you want to call it. Njsustain (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the tribes are worth noting because even though you can get a license through the state government within tribal borders- you cannot receive tribal recognition if a tribe bans same-sex marriage. A same-sex couple in a tribe that recognizes same-sex marriages has more rights than a same-sex couple that lives in a tribe that doesn't! Prcc27 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you give an example of rights that a same-sex couple legally married under the laws of the state in which the tribe is located doesn't have that they would have if their tribe also recognized their marriage? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Rreagan007: Housing and property rights are denied to same-sex couples on tribal lands where ssm is banned even if they live in a state where it's legal (see link I provided below)! Prcc27 (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Up until now I've been pretty neutral on whether or not to continue to include the indian tribes in the template, but I'm starting to lean towards including them. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Which suggests that we should stop focusing on tribes that recognize SSM and focus on tracking those that deny recognition, as they are the exception from the general situation in the US. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This template is about civil rights, not tribal rights. It's outside of the scope of this file. Njsustain (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The template doesn't list exceptions and I'd prefer we'd just stick with saying "various jurisdictions ". Also, tribes are in the scope of this template and they've been listed on this template for years! Tribal governments are still governments... Prcc27 (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• School boards are governments. Counties are governments. Municipalities are governments. But they don't merit listing on an international list of countries. And as continues to escape you, things are no longer the same as they have been "For years!" since Obergefell. That some are still willing to give out licenses is no longer relevant... before, it was, but now, no. Njsustain (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"""
  • Local governments aren't sovereign and they have to comply with state law; tribes are sovereign and don't have to comply with state law. You're comparing apples to oranges. And yes, since Obergefell the licensing isn't as relevant. But recognition and lack thereof is still completely relevant! Prcc27 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• • A) Stop shouting at me. B) Yet you still have not a single example, verified or unverified, of anyone who has been denied any rights because their tribe does not license SSM. It is not just less relevant, it is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Njsustain (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think that rights of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans are irrelevant. However, as the tribes control such things as homesite rights, adoption rights, participation in tribe health benefits, and so forth, and in some cases tie these things to marriage, it seems rather relevant to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Putting untrue and offensive words in my mouth doesn't change the fact that you have no verifiable evidence of anyone being denied rights. As you may not have realized, a same sex couple living on native land of a tribe that does not issue SSM licenses can still get a civil marriage certificate in their state, so it would be pretty impossible for the tribe to deny any rights based on marital status. Once you have any proof of your untested hypothesis I will be the first person who would want to know about the injustice.Njsustain (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's WP:OR to assume that a tribe can't deny recognition. First of all, a tribe doesn't have to recognize any state marriages because they are sovereign. Second of all, Obergefell doesn't affect tribal ssm bans and since ssm bans are still on the books they are obviously still enforceable. The burden of proof lies with you to prove the status quo has changed. And for the last time, WP:SHOUT only counts bolding and all caps (like what you hypocritically use) as shouting. Exclamation points are necessary forms of punctuation used to properly emphasis a sentence. I suggest you watch your shouting before it gets you in trouble... Prcc27 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• I found a source and it says "without the recognition of their tribes, couples lack access to the same benefits —housing, child custody, and property rights — that non-native same-sex partners just spent decades fighting for." [2] Prcc27 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"let's say that my partner and I decide to get married in California, or let's say we go to Albuquerque ... the state recognizes it, and so I can come back here home ... and the Navajo government will not recognize the rights and the benefits I deserve. They will not recognize the rights and the benefits my partner deserves."--Nat Gertler (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There are several sovereign states within the boundaries of the United States that do not rec SSM, and which are not required to under the SCOTUS ruling. To make a blanket statement saying SSM is legal in the United States is therefor false. If we do not give a note about the tribes, then we cannot honestly say SSM is legal in the US. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Others hypothesizing that rights could be denied is still not evidence that anyone is being denied any rights. Njsustain (talk)

This is not a chart of where people are being denied rights, but of the legal status of SSM. SSM is not legal in the US, only in parts of it. Those parts may now cover 99.9% of the population, but they're not everything, just as in the Netherlands. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet same-sex marriage is legal in reservations under state law; tribal non-recognition does not negate the state recognition and thus the tribes are irrelevant to this template.

A similar situation happens in Canada with the First Nations. Do they merit a bullet point as well? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 06:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I suppose that's a good point. Is there a comparable Wikipedia article that covers same-sex marriage in Canadian first nations jurisdictions? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

While I continue to be of the opinion that the recognition from Native tribes is no longer of relevance to this issue, there is a clear consensus (which I also do not agree with) that the details of what entities specifically license and recognize SSM should indeed be spelled out in the table. Given this, I have no serious objection to "various native tribes" being included as well. Njsustain (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In which case, there is a town in New York State that does not perform as well that we should consider. Also Brazil has a system of native reserves that may fall in with the U.S. tribes and First Nations. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 07:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are you talking about a rogue town in NY that is disobeying the law? Prcc27 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Canadian First Nations aren't treated as sovereigns by the Federal and Province governments, family law is a federal matter in Canada and de jure, every decision by a tribal chief or council needs state approval, can't tell about Brazil but I don't think that the native reservations or nations are de facto recognized as law-making bodies by the federal or state governments there 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Gory details of minor US non-compliance needs to be footnoted or removed

The entire US has SSM except for American Samoa, and NMI which intends to comply. The "United States Proper" bullet is ludicrous... has anyone ever seen this term used anywhere else? So, how about we just have "United States", possibly with a footnote: "Not in effect in MP, and AS, [with links]"? The footnote could even be an appropriate place to mention some native tribes are not complying, if there is consensus to do so and it's referenced. I don't think the latter warrants inclusion though, even as a footnote here. Njsustain (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The other countries with overseas territories use this same format in this template, so I see no reason why the United States should not be listed in the same fashion. I very rarely (if ever) have heard "New Zealand proper" or "Netherlands proper" either, but it doesn't mean we can't use it in this template to distinguish the primary country from its overseas territories. And I assume if/when Northern Ireland legalizes SSM, we would just list "United Kingdom proper". Whatever we do, we need to be consistent. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rreagan007. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of the tribes complying, because the SCOTUS ruling does not apply to them: there's nothing for them to comply to. They are, however, in the United States, so a blanket statement that SSM is legal in the United States would be false. And as others have noted, territories controlled by a country are listed under that country. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding more so to the X country proper format. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we really need to list the main country as a separate entity. The United States, bar American Samoa has same-sex marriage, that really isn't in question. Denmark has marriage and now Greenland does too. We should scrap proper and just have the link related to the country highlighted. If one of the territories of these respective countries passes legislation, we can add it as a separate entity (under its the state's that it belongs too**). Regardless, many of the territories are more conservative and thus we shouldn't need to distinguish the main country in the template. All it does is take up unnecessary space. Chase1493 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Laws in Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand and United States does not apply to some parts of these countries. 2. There is no reason to treat these countries and the UK differently. 3. Your edit suggested that same-sex marriage is legal in Greenland, but not in the other parts of Denmark. Your proposition is misleading and creates inconsistency. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands

First same-sex marriage took place in Northern Mariana Islands on July 22, so we can remove the asterix. See [3], [4]. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's great news. I doubt everyone will accept this source though, and some will dig in their heels, refusing to accept that NMI is recognizing marriages without proclamations from Congress, the U.N., the Vatican and Jimmy Wales saying that it is so. I thank you for finding this though.

Meanwhile, since all of the US now has marriage equality, the file should just list "United States " with a footnote about American Samoa. Njsustain (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I support this shorter footnote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 11:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. We'll see how it flies. I didn't add wikilinks in footnotes as I didn't think it was necessary, but if someone wants to, go crazy.Njsustain (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No, how we handle countries and their territories on the template must be consistent. So unless we will be changing New Zealand, Denmark and the Netherlands also, we can't be changing the United States to a different format. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The situation in each country is different so there is no reason they all need to be treated the same. The U.S. is all the same now barring an unincorporated territory that is not even, apparently, subject to U.S. law, and a similar situation with sovereign tribes. Marriage equality is clearly the rule in the U.S., not the exception. Presenting it otherwise is inappropriate and misleading. Njsustain (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the rule in ND, Den, and NZ as well. If we use fn's for exceptions there, we can for the US as well. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I still fail to see the need to differentiate at all. If a territory legalizes a form of union, then it can be appropriately placed under the country that has jurisdiction over it (i.e. The Pitcairn's or Greenland). The "proper" designation is redundant to what is already present in the country's name already being present. As I recall, the U.K. and Denmark's same-sex marriage page have mini-tables that show where their territories stand. It would be easier just to do that for the remaining ones and have a section of the U.S. page dedicated to the legal question of American Samoa's non-compliance. Chase1493 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. This "proper" stuff is ridiculous, redundant, and clutters the whole table needlessly. And again I don't see any need to have a rigid rule for how to treat each country that has "extra" jurisdictions. For the US at this point it should clearly be "except AS (& sovereign native tribes)". Njsustain (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

So, we should say it's legal in Denmark, though it's not, and legal in the Netherlands, though it's not, and legal in the UK, though it's not, and legal in the US, though it's not? I guess it's close enough, and we can't expect our readers to know what all these countries are anyway. Better to dumb things down than confuse them with details. We could simplify the table even further, stating that it's legal in Europe, America, Oceania, and Africa, with a footnote noting it's not legal in all jurisdictions in those areas. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Like all things, it's necessary to find a balance between too much and too little information. What serves the chart best? What are people looking for? Is it "dumbed down" to say simply that same sex marriage is legal in the US when there is only one unincorporated territory in which the situation is unsettled, and in some native tribes, for which the residents can still get married within whatever state they live in? If someone wants to know the gory details of the individual country's laws, is the link provided not adequate? Readers know what the countries are, but how much detail do they need to glean about each country from the chart? Should we list every county in the US which is complying? Every town?Njsustain (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the only good alternative would be replacing all sublists with notes. See my sandbox. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015

There is no reliable source that can confirm the existence of civil unions in the state of Mérida, Venezuela. There is no recognition of same-sex couples in this country. Can you delete it, please? TitoBRPA (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a source here ("In the state of Merida we currently have civil unions"). And here ("In Venezuela, only the state of Mérida recognizes same‐sex civil unions"). Stickee (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Malta

@Textorus: Hey, when I removed Malta from the template a user shared this link to justify Malta being in the recognition column. Does that source suffice? Prcc27 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Prcc27:. My first question would be, is KaleidoScot a reliable source, with fact-checkers and a reputation to uphold? Or just a part-time college student with a groovy-looking LGBT blog? One short sentence in an interview does not establish the fact of a law. If you care about this point, and it is true, then you ought to be able easily to find an official Maltese Government source that says, yes we *do* recognize foreign SSM's. Textorus (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015

Same sex marriage is recognized in Malta when married overseas Renard98 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you look at [[5]] this the marriage act of Malta makes no distinction in validity of a marriage based on gender. It also states that marriages which do not come in conflict with any of the listed limitations are recognized as such. There is no evidence that Malta does not recognize foreign same-sex marriages as marriages. That source I provided a while back says nothing contrary to the laws of Malta. Chase1493 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Greenland

Same-sex marriage in Greenland is legal, a law providing for same-sex marriage is yet in effect since 1 October.

Change in the Danish law is required in order to implement legalization. It was not done yet. See [6]. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, I didn't make the change; just clarifying that. I've been watching the bill as well. What I can't seem to understand is that the full text states that the act goes into effect on October 1, even though the Danish parliament hasn't finished passing it. So legally speaking, there cannot be marriages, but the act even states that marriages were supposed to available from the effective date. I also noticed some other provisions were going into effect 1 January 2016, but I'm assuming that that has to deal more with technicalities than anything else. What do you think is causing the delay here, Ron? Chase1493 (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The delay was caused by the elections, which took place in June, three months earlier than initially expected. The parliament had a break in September, if I remember correctly... If the parliament will not change the effective date, then the law will take effect retroactively as of October 1. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ireland

What constitutes "now in effect"? The Marriage Bill is now the Marriage Act (signed into law as of 29 Oct. 2015), I would've thought that would remove the asterisk. Or do we wait fir the Minister to issue the first commencement order for same-sex couples already in a civil partnership, who can make use of a 5 day fast track provision. Jono52795 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here, the asterisk is gone...Naraht (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2015

Remove Malta. Own page clearly states it isn't recognised as being a "marriage". 5.179.66.114 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Done - you appear to be correct, although I don't see where at Recognition of same-sex unions in Malta it "clearly states" that civil unions are specifically not recognized as marriages. Malta is already listed under civil unions, though, and doesn't apparently perform or recognize same-sex marriages officially, so I have removed it as you suggested. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Greece

Please could you take off the asterisk from Greece?The law was effective immediately .See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Greece Weatherextremes (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Guernsey

I added Guernsey to the template given that reliable sources such as the BBC have reported that same-sex marriage has passed the legislature. However, this was removed by two editors. Should Guernsey be included, like other jurisdictions, with an asterisk indicatng 'not yet in effect'? AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't add jurisdictions to the template just because a same-sex marriage bill is introduced. It has to be completely approved by all parties involved in approving a law. Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The parliament agreed to the introduction of same-sex marriage and to direct the preparation of the necessary legislation, but no changes in the law were made at this stage. See [7]. If we were going to add Guernsey, Jersey also should be included. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Prcc27 - the bill wasn't just introduced, a vote was held which passed 37-7. AusLondonder (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Until the bill becomes law there should not be any change to the template. Prcc27 (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Guerrero

Same sex marriage is not legal in Guerrero. So can we take it out of the template, and Can someone please edit the map of Mexico because I don´t know how to change it. Thanks in advance. Can you help me User:Prcc27 I will really appreciate it. http://elbigdata.mx/diversidad/invalidos-20-matrimonios-gays-en-acapulco-registro-civil/ --Allan120102 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The marriages were not invalidated, the article says that the director of the Civil Registry of Acapulco warned that they might be invalid. There are no other news that suggest annulement by the court etc. The wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guerrero says "Same-sex marriage is legal in the Mexican state of Guerrero without an amparo or legislative change per a decision of the chief executive of the state". So Guerrero probably should be listed as SSM state. --94.254.133.79 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2016

By the page's own description, Malta does not recognise them as "marriages" even if for all intents and purposes they may be the same thing. This should be removed. 5.179.66.114 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Removing a whole section with a SPER is a bit outside the scope. Please gather consensus from other editors, then open this again --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan...

Taiwan had less subentries than several other countries, I don't see the reason to change that to "Various Juristictions".Naraht (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Israel/Malta

Are there any reliable sources that say same-sex marriage is recognized in Israel and Malta..? Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Malta

Prcc27: Hi, does this [8] suffice as a reliable source to justify Malta being listed as recognizing same-sex marriages performed overseas. Article 18 of the Marriage Act points out that all marriages which are valid in the country in which they were performed are also valid in Malta:
"Validity and annulment of marriages
18. A marriage, whether celebrated in Malta or abroad, shall be valid for all purposes of law in Malta if -
(a) as regards the formalities thereof, the formalities required for its validity by the law of the country where the marriage is celebrated are observed; and
(b) as regards the capacity of the parties, each of the persons to be married is, by the law of the country of his or her respective domicile, capable of contracting marriage."
Jedi Friend (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. But it might be a violation of WP:OR to assume that that applies to same-sex couples when the source doesn't explicitly say that. Prcc27🎂 (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Colombia

According to the Associated Press, the Guardian and other sources, the Constitutional Court rejected the draft of the ruling to uphold the current definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, prepared by judge Jorge Pretelt. Judge Alberto Rojas Río was assigned to prepare the new draft of the ruling in line with a majority's view (i.e. to declare that prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married is unconstitutional). So, same-sex marriage is not legal yet. It will be legal, when the final ruling is issued. See [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: Here is Constitutional Court's statement. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• The article Recognition of same-sex unions in Colombia states that same-sex marriage legal and same-sex couples can get married. Is that article wrong or this template? Jdcooper (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Why is the Isle of Man being excluded from this template? @Ron 1987: the sources, such as the BBC and PinkNews indicate the Isle has passed same-sex marriage. If it awaits royal assent (a formal process) why should it not be included with an asterisk? AusLondonder (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• The royal assent is the moment the law is passed. The other asterisks are for laws which have been passed fully but have not taken effect. Should only be a couple of days though! :-) Jdcooper (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Denmark and Faroe Islands

Now that the Faroe Islands have passed gay marriage (of course, pending ratification by the Danish parliament) all constituent countries of the Realm of Denmark have marriage equality. Does the 'denmark split' in the template still make sense? Shall the items 'Denmark proper' and 'Greenland' disappear from the template and merge in one link to 'Denmark' where one can access the sections 'greenland' and 'faroe islands'? Intuitively I think this would be the most logical move to do since there is no longer the need to differentiate national subdivisions with same-sex marriage from other constituencies without it (which was the original purpose of the split). Finedelledanze (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It should be done after the matter is finalized in Copenhagen. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

We'll see if they add other things to the bill the way they did for Greenland.Naraht (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Morelos (Mexico)

It is still premature to list Morelos on the template. Other Mexican states have been amending their family or civil code (where the bill must be passed and then published in the state's gazette), Morelos is legislating a state constitutional amendment. Step one is approval by Congress; step two is ratification by the states' municipalities. Until ratification is complete, Morelos should remain off the list. Andrew1444 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ascension

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha#Recognition_of_same-sex_relationships signature/royal assent hopefully soon 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Philippines?

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Philippines#Marriages_by_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Philippines ... should it be added to the template? 155.245.69.178 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would say no, seems like those marriages are very unofficial. The party that issues them is not even legal. Jdcooper (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Finland partnerships

Since Finland will have same-sex partnerships available up until same-sex marriage is legal there- I feel like it should be added to the partnership column. I was reverted when I added Finland to it. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Country/territory is removed from partnership section upon same-sex marriage law's promulgation (Isle of Man is the latest example). I don't see why Finland should treated differently. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The same user that made that edit said "I think adding Finland made sense, but it doesn't really matter to me either way." So I don't really think that is even a precedent. In fact, I have edited this template that way in the past. It would be nice if we could agree on what to do with jurisdictions like Finland now/moving forward. Plus, the status quo isn't always what's best for a template. Putting Finland in the same-sex partnerships conveys more information. Looking at the template one might assume that Finland doesn't offer same-sex partnerships anymore which is false. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, we have kept jurisdictions in the same-sex union column before the law took effect in the past. i.e. Slovenia. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Osage Nation separately under "recognized"

any need to add the Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions#Osage_Nation separately? 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Convert to meta-template

This template really should be converted to make use of {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, could you briefly explain what it is, for the uninitiated? Jdcooper (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Japan Partnership

Japan has started partnership yet it was written on the side but now it's gone. It started in 5 areas already but I think no one likes Japan. I feel sad that someone has to delete the "Japan" part. I hope all of Japan section for LGBT won't be deleted then I will be very sad that Wiki has to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.187.101.117 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted here, I think it is worth discussion. The two questions that need to be answered are

1. What level of legal recognition is needed for the "Civil unions and registered partnerships" section and
2. What level of legal recognition do LGBT couples have in each of the 5 cities?Naraht (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are the sources: http://life.letibee.com/partnership-japan-20160226/ http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/2015/11/04/lgbt-couple-shibuya-setagaya_n_8475140.html

The partnership allows a person over 20 years old or older in 5 cities which are Setagaya ward, Shibuya ward, Takarazuka city, Iga city, Naha city. And the merits to have this certificate is so the couples can rent a room, get insurance together, get mobile phone plans together, the person can visit the partner at a hospital when he/ she is hospitalized for emergencies with no questions asked, and inheritance for things when one of the partner passes away. The only down side for this certificate is that it doesn't allow the partner to get visa to stay easily but it can be negotiated through the government depending on how the other partner can work in Japan or not. And foreigners can get this certificate as well. Not just Japanese only. If there is more source needed I will write it down but it feels so awkward that other countries doesn't need so much source yet for certain countries you need a lot of source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.187.101.117 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added them to the template and have sources. The sources were located on the same-sex union legislation page. TenorTwelve (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Embassies

I have a question. Can we add that certain embassies perform same-sex marriages? I know the UK does that. Could this be included in some way? I was not thinking of putting down each country but acknowledging that certain embassies across the world perform marriages. For example, the UK marriages I think should be listed under the UK if edits like this were adopted. Anyone have thoughts? Are there any other countries that do this? TenorTwelve (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've given it a go. Is that would you had in mind? Jdcooper (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep! TenorTwelve (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And if anyone else has comments, feel free.

Bizarre idea. The embassies are government's institutions, not legal jurisdictions. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Peru

It sounds like Peru will recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of Peru. This was from a ruling from a Constitutional Court. This may be appealed (so we should keep an eye on this) but it doesn't have to and I hear it has "immediate nationwide impact," a commentator said. Sources English translation and commentary — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenorTwelve (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Slovenia

Today some sources like Politico, Reuters or Pink News incorrectly claimed that Slovenia has legalised same-sex marriage. The law, which was passed by the parliament in April 2016 and took effect today, significantly expanded the rights of same-sex partnerships. It's not marriage. See [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). Marriage is still available to opposite-sex couples only. See article 3 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

On the radar: Estonia

I won't jump the gun like I did last time, but want to note that an appeals court in Estonia has ruled same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions must be recognized. I am not familiar with the court system, but I presume it will be appealed again, but I wanted to put this on our radar for a possible action to come. TenorTwelve (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC) This article suggests that it does apply to all couples as opposed to just the plaintiffs, but this is just one source.TenorTwelve (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with that - the source states it must now be mandatory across Estonia. I will add it - if the situation changes later it's very simple to remove it! I will re-add Peru also, with a note that it's under appeal. The constitutional court did rule so, after all. Jdcooper (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ron 1987, can you shed some light on this? Why does the fact that it was appealed mean that it is not included? I can't see anything saying the appeal was successful? Jdcooper (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have evidence showing that the ruling actually took effect and is not stayed until the appeal is considered? If not, Peru should not be included. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

More on Estonia: is it appropriate to say that civil unions are in force? No implementing legislation has been passed (therefore no instruction on how public officials should conduct ceremonies may be available, or on how to convert foreign marriages into civil unions, and so on), this could affect the law making it de facto void while being in force. Can any Estonian user confirm that civil unions are currently being performed? Thanks Finedelledanze (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cohabitation agreements cannot be entered in Estonia (the law needs implementing decrees that are stuck in Parliament's committees ), therefore I move the country's law to 'not yet in effect' status. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Caribbean Netherlands

The Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint Eustatius) are a part of the Netherlands proper. Separate listing makes no sense. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Recognition of foreign marriages

In legal terms recognition and transcription (or registration) of foreign marriages are not the same thing: whereas the former implies that the recognized foreign marriage is treated on a par with domestic marriage (obtaining all the rights that married opposite-sex couples enjoy), the latter is simply a public notification that the same-sex couple got married in another country, but without other effects than this. Reading the wiki pages on Estonia and Israel, it is not clear whether these countries recognize or simply register same-sex marriage. In my country, Italy, EU law has been applied and the right to have same-sex marriage registered has been won in many individual court proceedings. However, this carries a mostly symbolic value, since no other rights apply to these couples. Situation may vary still if the couple or one of them are foreign-national. I wonder whether Estonia and Israel are in the same situation as Italy. Estonia in particular seems ambiguous. Finedelledanze (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I have repeatedly removed Israel and it keeps being added without a good enough explanation. I will be removing the two until your concerns are properly addressed. Prcc27 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Israel recognizes same-sex marriage for citizenship purposes actually. Prcc27 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan: Keelung City

The Keelung City approved sex-same partnership--190.124.155.112 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Japan

Japan's same sex registration in the limited jurisdictions have no legal effect and therefore should be removed.

Paullb (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed as there was no objection.

Paullb (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Mexico

Please see the same-sex marriage in Mexico page; reports that same-sex marriages are performed without amparos in Guerrero and Tamaulipas are erroneous. I removed those references for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsalerno (talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

United States and United Kingdom notes

In the US only minor jurisdictions (in size/population) don't recognise/perform SSM, that being American Samoa the overseas territory and an indeterminate number of tribal jurisdictions scattered over the country, all located in states where it is legal. Obviously that's a little different to the UK, where Northern Ireland is one of the four home nations, but the remaining jurisdictions are all overseas territories. In short, why can't we just name United Kingdom and United States and attach small numbers to them, where a note on the situation is shown at the bottom of the template (just like what currently appears for Armenia and Israel). Thoughts? Jono52795 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

actually have just gone ahead and done it. Not a controversial change and makes the table far less cluttered. Also undertaken a similar process for Mexico. You'd have to be mad not to think the table doesn't look a lot cleaner/less cluttered than what we had before with a list of tens of sub-jurisdictions. Jono52795 (talk)

Well done! I agree with every single word Finedelledanze (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This change should be done in two other sections too, not just in "Marriage" one. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017

Slovenia allows gay marriage. It should be displayed in the info box and on the map.

The only reason I can imagine for not identifying Slovenia is the lack of adoption/IVF rights. But this was the case originally in Portugal and probably other countries, and is not a valid reason to exclude accurate information about marital rights. 73.134.0.36 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 17:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The law, which was passed by the parliament in April 2016 and took effect on 24 February 2017 is a new, upgraded partnership act (the old one, much narrower in scope, was repealed). See information on the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities's website and other Slovenian sources ([20], [21], [22]). Marriage is still available to opposite-sex couples only. See article 3 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Australia

Was reading http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/when-will-samesex-couples-be-able-to-marry-after-law-in-australia-changes/news-story/d5c5eecef4e5d9cb16df9abec0025c8d . So the steps are Royal Assent, at which point we add the country with a star. When the Government indicate that the law has commenced we add to the recognizes foreign marriages, and then since couples getting married in Australia need to give 1 month notice which can't actually happen until after the date of commencement, we actually take off the star when the first marriage occurs in Australia? These are my *guesses*, I'd like other comments.Naraht (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

From 9 December, same-sex couples will be able to lodge a Notice of Intended Marriage (which has a one-month waiting time between the lodgement and the actual ceremony), so the law will at this point fully come into effect - there is no need to put Australia under "recognizes foreign marriage" during this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.121.82 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

So do they recognize foreign marriage now?Naraht (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The bill will enter into effect tomorrow (9 December). From this point on, foreign marriages will be recognised and Notices of Intended Marriage (in Australia) can be lodged. The new forms will be available from tomorrow: see here - https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/marriage-equality.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.121.82 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The asterisk should be removed when the law goes into effect. Prcc27 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding correctly, at this point Australia has complete Marriage Equality, but the limiting factor is that it doesn't matter if Joe and Karen or Mike and David decided today that they want to get married, neither can get married until Early January 2018, right?Naraht (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The star should now be removed. The law is in effect and recognizes overseas marriages. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Australia and the "star"

So, between now and January 9 (or whenever the first date that a Same Sex Couple who filled out the paperwork first thing could actually tie the knot), do we list them with the star or not? As far as I can tell, there is complete equality now in Australia, the delay is exactly the same for Same Sex and Opposite Sex couples.Naraht (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say no because effective 9 Dec they will also recognize overseas same-sex marriages. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

For goodness sake, the law is in effect. The asterisk is used for jurisdictions where a law/ruling allowing SSM is not in effect. Australia's law is now in effect and treats same-sex married couples as any other married (or intending to marry) couple. If married overseas they are automatically recognised as married in Australia and if marrying in the country they have a (minimum) 1 month waiting period after signing the paperwork. However that waiting period can be shortened in some circumstances, as has occurred for at least three same-sex couples if you care to look at the Same-sex marriage in Australia article. Expect the first (same-sex) marriage ceremony in Australia before christmas. Jono52795 (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan

How should we handle this Taiwan ruling? It's supposed to be be binding in two years, right? Isseubnida (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it belongs, but of course with a *.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Prcc27 (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's binding in two years, but as no bill has been passed yet, I don't think we should include it. It's more than just "not yet in effect" - there is no law. Jdcooper (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a legally binding judicial ruling with a set period of time for when same-sex marriage needs to be implemented by. When same-sex marriage was legalized in the Sixth Circuit by SCOTUS we treated those states as "not yet in effect" since the mandate was not officially finalized. I know these are two separate cases but I still think that a judicial ruling itself can be more or less considered a "law". Prcc27 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

But that judicial ruling actually changed the law, it was just under appeal. In this case the judicial ruling, as you note, says something will happen in the future. The government is probably going to write and pass legislation, to actually legalise it. Nonetheless, I don't think it matters much either way so I'm happy to go with the crowd, just I would personally wait. Jdcooper (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think the change should be delayed. Changes of this type have usually been made after the enabling legislation is in place, fully signed and only awaiting going into effect. Unlike in the US where the court mandated the change with immediate effect, here the court dictated that the legislature do something about it, and the mandate, that it would go into effect in two years if the legislature failed to act, was (if our own page is correct) in a press release but not explicit in the ruling. The big question is how much leeway the legislature has in satisfying the court's mandate: our own article says "it could elect to pass a new law recognising same-sex marriages or civil partnerships but giving said couples only some of the rights attributed to marriage." I think we need to wait for the formal legislation. 50.37.113.176 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The precedent probably comes from 2014 when binding decisions were being handed down by the US Circuit Courts. Then, states that were bound by circuit court decisions were added to the list and marked with an asterisk. Isn't this true of Taiwan as well since the judicial decision is binding if the Legislative Yuan doesn't act? Andrew1444 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't view it the same. Those court decisions mandated marriage equality. This one, as we describe it, is mandating that they do something, which could be marriage equality or could be some other solution that embodies equivalent rights but needn't be marriage itself (e.g. civil partnerships). Thus it is not mandating same-sex marriage, per se, and it is a bit CRYSTAL to conclude that the legislature will choose to enact marriage equality when they have this other option. 50.37.101.177 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. We have no consensus to add Taiwan, much less assurance that the legislature will definitely enact marriage equality. It has the ability to test the court's ruling by legislating for partnerships. The same cannot be said for Austria, where (short of an amendment to the constitution) SSM will automatically become legal on Jan 1 2019. Remove Taiwan. Jono52795 (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Austria

The court ruling, to my rather uninformed eyes, appears to mirror the Taiwan case. A law banning same-sex marriage has essentially been struck down by court, telling the legislature to amend the law by a certain date into the future, and a fair bit of crystal gazing requires us to consider it simply "not in effect". If that was the basis for Taiwan not (yet) being included in the template, personally I think Austria should be treated the same. Thoughts? Pinging Prcc27, Jdcooper, Andrew1444 who all contributed to the Taiwan discussion. Jono52795 (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Also Ron 1987 who added Austria in the first place. Jono52795 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The difference I find is that the Taiwan case gives the Legislative Yuan the ability to enact legislation legalizing equal partnerships; the Austrian court definitively states that partnerships are not enough. Andrew1444 (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew; Austria already has registered partnerships, so there would be no other way to fulfill the court's ruling than by implementing same-sex marriage. We should keep Austria in the "marriage" section, but with a *. Isseubnida (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage will become legal on 1 January 2019, and no action from parliament or government is required. Of course, the parliament could adopt legislation to legalize it earlier, but it seems unlikely given its current composition. See [23], [24] Ron 1987 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Appreciate the feedback. Jono52795 (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Should be the same situation like Taiwan. Remove it. Paul Lincoln (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the Austraian ruling differes from Taiwan. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think Austria and Taiwan should both be added. In Taiwan, if the current laws remain as is, same sex marriage will become legal full stop. Same-sex marriage is legalized, but the parliament has the authority to block this legalization. Since they haven't blocked legalization yet, it would be WP:CRYSTAL to assume that they will do so in the future. Prcc27 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The law still not yet effect. Should not put in.Paul Lincoln (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's what the asterisk is for.. Prcc27 (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2017

Update recognition of same-sex unions in Poland as "unregistered cohabitation" similar as situation to San Marino? 80.51.136.158 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to say that in Recognition of same-sex unions in Poland? Stickee (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Jersey

According to the Recognition of same-sex unions in Jersey, it still hasn't passed the legislature. (It seems to be the opposite end of the scale from Australia in that *lots* of other marriage related changes to the law have gotten attached to it.) Also, I think the decision has been made to wait until royal assent to list it. Do we have any information that they are recognizing marriages from elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

Sick and tired

A treaty is defined as law in almost all states in Western Hemisphere democracies. The Inter-American court ruling singles out Costa Rica. I will keep changing this back to a correct Costa Rica with an asterisk. Andrew1444 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You need consensus; please do not edit war. The ruling applies to more countries than just Costa Rica. Also, Costa Rica's status is very similar to Taiwan so it would be inconsistent to have Costa Rica listed without Taiwan being listed. Until the law is formally repealed, same-sex marriage isn't actually legalized in Costa Rica. [25] Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue Andrew1444. CR's Notary Council, which appears to be responsible for recognising marriages, is not implementing the President's direction to apply the ruling. They say they'll do so only if the national legislature or Supreme Court make them do so. I'd suggest holding off adding Costa Rica until one of those two things happen, in line with the inclusion criteria and past practice in jurisdictions like Utah and other U.S. states. Jono52795 (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Best way that I can put it is if a local government official responsible for giving out marriage licenses is legally in trouble for not giving out a marriage license then it belongs in the list. OTOH, if nothing changes on a specific date X, the local government official will be in trouble then it gets in the list with a star. Costa Rica isn't in that situation.Naraht (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Russia

Hi, there has been a change in Russia. Same-sex marriages established abroad are recognised, probably following Orlandi and Others vs Italy, as well as Oliari and Others vs Italy.--86.154.206.6 (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have a source? Jdcooper (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This source seems to suggest it's a legal loophole that may have been overlooked by accident rather than a system. Do we think this constitutes "recognition of same-sex marriages"? Would certainly be a surprising development if so. Jdcooper (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Marriage Equality in Jersey.

It has passed the State of Jersey, now needs Royal Assent. So Jersey should continue to be listed in those that don't have it. And there is no Governor General to do it like Australia...Naraht (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You are right, my apologies. I was having a "senior moment". Jdcooper (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

NP. It will be here soon enough. I'm not sure how many Marriage Equality laws have gotten Royal Assent from Queen Elizabeth II, but my guess is into double digits and I have no reason to believe that this one will be the first one rejected.Naraht (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2018

If Austria is listed under "marriage" with a remark saying it's not yet in effect, then Taiwan should also be dealt with in the same way. (I remember initially after the constitutional ruling in May last year, Taiwan was listed under "marriage" but was removed later on.)

Justification: Both Austria and Taiwan are currently in a very similar transition stage, where the constitutional court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and given a period of time before it automatically takes effect, if marriage laws are not amended. The deadlines are only a few months apart between the two countries (Austria: January 2019; Taiwan: May 2019). In short, I don't see any reason why the two countries are listed differently.

Many thanks. :) LYTCHG (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the difference is that the Austrian supreme court specified a date for it to become legal, so it is legalised but just not yet in effect. Whereas the Taiwanese court ordered the government to legalise it. So it not yet legalised, pending action from the government. In this respect it has more in common with the South American countries, where the IACHR ruling is binding but requires action from national authorities. Jdcooper (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

ECJ ruling

Per the recent ECJ ruling described here: Recognition of same-sex unions in Romania#2018 European Court of Justice ruling, shouldn't a few countries be added to the "Marriage recognized" section (albeit with a footnote stating that it's only when performed in an EU country etc)? Namely Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Czech Rep., Slovakia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, and Italy. Or do we have to wait for confirmation from the individual countries that they will abide by the ruling? Or is there something else I've misinterpreted? If we are changing it then the table at Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe also needs updating. Jdcooper (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Countries having civil unions grants immigration/residency rights to same-sex partners and recognize same-sex marriage as civil unions, so there is no need to add them to that section. Other countries should be added if compliance is announced. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say wait for an announcement of compliance. Not sure if there *is* a ECJ enforcement mechanism.Naraht (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

So this would count for example: https://spectator.sme.sk/c/20843250/same-sex-married-couples-have-the-right-to-stay-in-slovakia.html I will add it. Jdcooper (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wait for individual countries to announce compliance." I'm a little sceptical about this approach. Aren't EU member states required to implement rulings from the court? I doubt most of the "conservative" countries would announce their compliance and would either accept applications from married EU same-sex couples or not, in defiance of the court. The latter would justify removing them from the list. In short, I prefer the opposite approach, assume (quite logically) that the court's ruling is in effect until a member state defiantly acts otherwise. Jono52795 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the sources I read implied that the ECJ ruling was binding, without stating it clearly. I just read the European Court of Justice article and I'm none the wiser. It would appear to be a pretty important difference; I will ask on the ECJ article talk page if there are any legal eagles who can clarify for us. Jdcooper (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

in situations where an EU citizen, who has been living in another EU member state, wants to return to their country of origin, their same-sex marriage must now be recognised under EU law. The same law applies for EU citizens moving to any other EU member state – so for example if Coman had wanted to move to Poland with his husband, he would be allowed to. Rights clarified: The ruling provides much-needed clarity and legal certainty for same-sex couples who get married in an EU member state. It makes clear that wherever they wish to move in the EU, their union should be recognised as a marriage for the purposes of family reunion, irrespective of whether the host state allows same-sex couples to formalise their relationship in its territory. Alina Tryfonidou, Associate Professor in EU Law, University of Reading (Source)

I think this is pretty clear cut. Provided the relevant conditions are met (genuine move to permanent residence in another EU country, marriage was performed in an EU country and one of the partners is an EU citizen) the marriage is to be recognised equal to that of an opposite-sex couple for the purposes of family reunion. Not a single source I've come across says these countries are entitled to ignore the court's ruling. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and I think my edit will instigate a more expeditious conversation than the one we are currently having. I've made a change and will duplicate the section on the ECJ ruling currently in the Romania article to the other countries listed. Jono52795 (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Instead of adding those 14 EU countries to the list individually (all of which have not done anything relevant individually in terms of recognition), I would prefer a single entry "all [14] other EU member states". The template is supposed to be a summary of the world-wide situation, after all, and the single entry would in fact be more informative, since it correctly implies a common EU rule. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I support Jono's edits but would also be happy with Roentgenium's suggestion if others prefer. Although @Jono52795:, I think the text you have added to the other countries' articles is excessive. For one thing, it's out of date ("As of 2016 the case is ongoing...") and it also contains lots of detail that is not relevant to the countries whose articles the text is on. I've changed a couple back to a condensed version (here for example. What do you think? Jdcooper (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Roentgenium111's idea. At this point, the box actually feels too large. (Though I'd like to see as many countries fall into these categories as possible :) )Naraht (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting the additions. Yes, the ruling is supposed to be binding. But so is the IACHR decision (e.g. per the opinion of the president of the supreme court of Peru), but not even Costa Rica has implemented it yet. Slovakia says that they will, but of the others, who knows? Lithuania explicitly has not implemented it, at least not yet. See here. ("The Ministry of the Interior, controlling activity of the Migration Department, says it wants to get acquainted with the ECJ ruling before making any political decisions." And note the careful wording in the lead [if not in the title]: "Nongovernmental organizations hope the European Court of Justice's Tuesday ruling will pave the way for homosexuals from third countries, married to EU citizens, to get residency in Lithuania.") There may be a point where we can do this, but I don't think we're there yet. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And yes, if/when we do this, I agree w Roentgenium & Naraht. Actually, I think we should go a step further, and make a single entry for "European Union". Wouldn't need to specify "all other states", since the ruling is binding on all states, including those that already have SSM: all EU states will rec marriages performed with an EU citizen for purposes of immigration (if not necessarily for anything else), so an entry for the EU would be accurate as well as concise. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a laborious and I would argue needless task to write country-specific sections on the ECJ ruling @Jdcooper:. We all agree the ECJ ruling effects the legal situation in some capacity in the EU, but to what extent and in what kind of time frame appears to be up in the air at this stage. I appreciate your reasoning Kwamikagami and am happy to, upon reflection, adopt your approach, particularly given the Lithuanian response which suggests these countries can "get acquainted" with these rulings over time if they so choose. And yes, when it is appropriate (and identifying when seems to be a difficult task) I have no objection to adding a European Union heading under recognised, as opposed to the list of countries. Jono52795 (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not laborious.. in fact Ron 1987 has already done it! Jdcooper (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that we're going to be listing individual countries for a while yet regardless, so we have time to think what would work best. I favor having a single EU entry once it's implemented in all countries, but don't feel strongly about it. Kinda the opposite of the UK: we give a UK entry under 'Performed' w a fn that it really isn't the UK (presumably so that we don't have to list England, Scotland and Wales separately), which I don't care for, but again I don't feel strongly about it. But I do think it would be inconsistent to consolidate the UK when it's only 3/4 of the UK, but list EU countries separately once it's 100% of the EU. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In no way the ECJ ruling implies recognition of same-sex marriage. It just says that EU countries shall grant residency status to same-sex non-EU spouses of non-national EU citizens. The ruling does not even say if these same-sex marriages shall be recorded in civil registries. It is just a prescription on one very specific right and each EU country will have to apply it to national law. Of course, countries with civil unions like Italy already have in place a mechanism with which residency status is granted to these marriages through recognition of the foreign marriage as a local civil union. I suggest that the 6 EU countries without SSM or CUs shall be added to the list 'unregistered cohabitation' if they pass legislation similar to San Marino, which grants the only right of residency to foreign same-sex partners. The ruling per se doesn't strike down any ban: that is why Slovakia should be removed from the list of foreign recognitions. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content re: 2018 ECJ ruling

Hi Kwami, if you are going to remove all that information from so many articles, please could you explain your reasoning or your issues with the text on at least one of those articles' talk pages? I believe you that it contained errors but it was at least the result of an attempt to discuss everything together, and clearly there is at least something important in it that needs to be mentioned in each of those articles, no? I would say the most logical place to discuss it is Template_talk:Same-sex_unions#ECJ_ruling. If you don't have time yourself then you could at least identify what the main problems are and other editors can help.. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex marriages performed in foreign legislation

Dear all, I think there is quite a lot of confusion of what 'recognition' means in legal terms. Recognition of a civil act such as marriage implies recording of the foreign act into the country's marriage register, thus transposing the FULL effects of the foreign marriage into the local legal framework. Basically, it means that couples that married abroad (or in a specific legislation) are treated as married couples are treated under local legislation.

In this regard, we can say that this definition certainly encompasses Israel (recognising all foreign civil marriages as domestic opposite-sex religious marriages), the Netherlands Caribbean (limited to Dutch marriages) and Mexico (limited to other Mexican SSMs). It is very dubious to include Armenia (where the source cites the fact that same-sex marriages can be recorded in local registries but no national law or sentence have ever codified how these marriages should grant rights according to domestic law) and Estonia (where the scope is limited to EU same-sex marriages and, similarly to Armenia, no source reports of full recognition of rights deriving from marriage). But in absolutely no way Slovakia and Hong Kong should be listed under 'recognition of marriage'. These countries are (or are about to) grant residency permits ONLY to same-sex spouses of domestic nationals (Slovakia even restricts this to non-EU nationals married to EU nationals). In this respect these countries should be listed along with San Marino under 'unregistered cohabitation': this is because foreign marriages cannot be registered (nor transposed) as marriages, however granting the only right of residency to foreign spouses. Finedelledanze (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it in Israel, the situation is that the government of Israel will equally register and recognize (as an example) an Arab Man and a Jewish Woman who have gone to Paris to get Married and bring back a marriage certificate as it will an Arab Man and a Jewish Man who have done the same thing.Naraht (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct

A possible solution could be to rename the section 'Unregistered cohabitation' as 'Limited (or 'Partial') recognition of same-sex unions'. In such a category you can include all the situations that grant a limited set of rights compared to marriage or civil unions: that is, unregistered cohabitation AND specific rights such as residency permits for same-sex foreign spouses as in the case of San Marino, Slovakia and Hong Kong. Finedelledanze (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ecuador

Does this mean Ecuador should be added?[26] We have a court decision that is specific in terms of remedy and is to take immediate effect. It is under appeal, but until/unless a stay has been issued, and I find no indication that is the case here, this appears to be 'the law' at the moment. 50.37.125.74 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving Armenia

I'm a fan of this new Limited/partial recognition section, as the jurisdictions listed can hardly be said to recognise in full SSM, rather there is a specific or series of specific aspects of a same-sex union (marriage or otherwise) that they recognise. In Armenia's case, overseas SSM would appear to be recognised in name only (essentially on statistical grounds). There are certainly no references saying their equally recognised to heterosexual marriages. With that in mind, I'm moving Armenia. Feel free to discuss here. Jono52795 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, on that basis I've also moved Estonia as In December, the Tallinn Circuit Court ruled that all marriages performed in another country must be entered into the Estonian population register when a couple takes up residence in Estonia or is granted Estonian citizenship. Direct quote pulled from the Recognition of same-sex unions in Estonia article. No other ruling/law has recognised SSM in any other way according to the page. Jono52795 (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This section should list jurisdictions which offer limited recognition only. Estonia is not such a case as the country have registered partnerships. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica

The Supreme Court ordered the parliament to amend the family law in order to allow same-sex marriage within 18 months. Once that time passes, same-sex marriage will become legal automatically, even if the parliament does not comply. See [27], [28]. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are including Costa Rica (which we should), shouldn't we put Taiwan back up there or are we hesitant because some have proposed putting it to a referendum? -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Costa Rica ruling (and likewise the IACHR ruling that the Costa Rican case was affirming) was explicitly about marriage. As discussed earlier, the Taiwan ruling was more ambiguous: our own article summarized the situation, that the legislature (emphasis added) "could elect to pass a new law recognising same-sex marriages or civil partnerships but giving said couples only some of the rights attributed to marriage." So, the two cases are distinctly different: in Costa Rica same-sex marriage will be legal in 18 months (if not sooner), full stop. In Taiwan it will only be legal if the legislature chooses that action as the best way of addressing its court mandate - it is not a foregone conclusion. That is an important difference. 50.37.121.190 (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

In my view Costa Rica is a similar situation to Taiwan. The difference with Austria is that the law is passed and everything is finalised, just the date effective has not yet passed. Giving deputies 18 months to do something literally means it has not yet been done, not just that it is not yet in effect. I don't think Costa Rica should be included (yet). Jdcooper (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Taiwan court just said, 'the status quo is unfair so you have two years to do something about it' - something, not explicitly same-sex marriage. Costa Rica was unambiguous - 'we will give you time to pass specific enabling legislation, but one way or the other, same-sex marriage will be legal by the given date'. While these look superficially similar, they really aren't the same. 50.37.121.190 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)