Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Washington state (NOT DC)

Washington state needs an update because of recent 2009 "all but marriage" bill passed the senate and house and got signed into law by the Gov. Is there an eff. date for the 3rd stage of the domestic partnerships (passed in 2007 and 2008 as well)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Washington state domestic partnership (the 3rd stage or everthing but marriage bill) passed both senate and the house - even got signed by the Govonor. The effective date is 1 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to update the template, since Washington already had registered partnerships and was already listed in that area of the template (under "Recognised in some regions"). Ronline ✉ 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

China (PRC)

It would seem based on the article that China is no longer considering SSM. Does anyone have anything different? If not it should be removed from the templete. 140.90.131.108 (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think China was ever seriously considering SSM. All it had were bills proposed in the National People's Congress which never really got anywhere and were designed to be more of an awareness-raising exercise. So, yes, China is definitely not debating SSM in the same way as New York or Denmark (which isn't even included in the list). Ronline ✉ 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything related to Denmark advancing SSM, and its article seems to suggest otherwise. 140.90.131.108 (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Denmark hasn't advanced SSM because the parties in the conservative governing coalition do not support it. You're right in saying that there hasn't even been a SSM bill submitted yet, simply a "recommendation". Nevertheless, SSM has very wide support in Denmark (around 70%), and pretty much all of the non-governing parties support it. One problem is that there is a lot of apathy about SSM in Denmark, since most people, including LGBT people, think that registered partnerships are essentially "civil marriage", and that there would be no point in granting full marriage since same-sex couples couldn't marry in church.

To digress a bit: A similar situation is happening in Iceland too, where the national LGBT rights organisation doesn't even seem to be campaigning for equal marriage (despite the Prime Minister herself being lesbian). This is very different to the situation in the US, where there is a very strong conviction among LGBT rights supporters that civil unions are not equivalent to marriage and that "separate but equal is not equal". Indeed, despite much lower levels of support, the US may end up taking the lead over Europe when it comes to same-sex marriage. Ronline ✉ 15:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing PRC from the list, since it seems that it does in fact have no purpose up there. 129.2.170.45 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

In Brazil, there is no guarantee of legal recognition of de facto union between homosexuals, as there is in Portugal. In many states (Rio de Janeiro, for example), most of the decisions is against the recognition as stable union.

See a decision of Tribunal de Justiça do Rio de Janeiro (date: June 19, 2007, quoted in http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/peticaoInicial/fazerDownload.asp?classe=ADPF&processo=132):

“Although shown for a long time, the relationship between two gay men, it does not apply the provisions of Law No. 8971/94, under allegation of stable.”

The prevision is that the Supremo Tribunal Federal (the Constitutional Court) decides on it this year. Jur (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Estonia, Ireland, Hungary

Is it really necessary to include these countries under Same-sex marriage debated? I know there are some political parties that support them, but even the Green Party in Iran supports same-sex marriage. As I don't see Estonia legalizing marriage in the near future, and they haven't even passed a civil union bill yet, should we leave countries of the like out until we see solid evidence of a debate? I'm basically just thinking out loud here — any input would be great. Thanks. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these countries should be stay. Criteria was set in earliest discussion. See [1] Ron 1987

(talk) 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire

Shouldn't NH be in recognized, not performed - per it's article? --haha169 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NH does recognize foreign marriages, but only as civil unions, not as a "New Hampshire civil marriage" as heterosexual couples can from other states. VoodooIsland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

I see. Thanks for the information. --haha169 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan?

An IP user left a message at WikiProject LGBT maps that Japan was now recognizing foreign SSM, with this URL from the Advocate (article dated March 27th) ... the first sentence states that Japan will recognize foreign SSM, but does not back it up any (the following line of the article cites the AFP news agency, with info we already knew here -- that the Japan govt would now give out credentials where Japan nationals could enter SSM abroad -- which is not necessarily the same as recognizing the marriages in Japan after they are performed abroad.). Has anyone else heard anything to back up Japan recognizing SSM? (or did the Advocate just interpret the news wrong, like many of us did upon first reading/hearing of it) ? Have not found anything else so far that would back-up Japan recognizing foreign SSM. Thx, Wikignome0529 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm about 99.9% sure that Japan does not recognize foreign same-sex marriages. I read the article and I can see how it would be easily interpreted to appear as if Japan is recognizing foreign ones. However, I think The Advocate and others simply misinterpreted/poorly-phrased the news accidentally or either to get the readers' hopes up with news of marriage equality spreading. While Japan could make such a move in the near future, they have yet to do so as of today. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

United States - recognized in some regions

Although same-sex marriage is recognized in some regions, the federal government itself does not recognize it and denies those couples over 1,000 rights. This is far different than others on the list, such as Canada and Belgium - as those allow full rights. Is there a way to fix this issue? --haha169 (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The situation is different to California and Belgium, but I don't think that's surprising. The US does not have SSM recognised nationwide, so it is pretty evident that "full rights" are not allowed. As to ways to fix the issue, there are several. One option, currently under discussion, is to allow all same-sex marriage performed in states where it is legal to gain access to federal benefits. This incremental step, which would require a repeal of DOMA, would still mean that SSM would only be recognised in states which choose to recognise it, but at least couples in those states would gain all the rights of marriage rather than simply state-based rights. This change would not affect the template in any way, since it would still amount to SSM only being recognised in some regions. Nevertheless, it raises a very interesting scenario. What happens if a couple from Wisconsin (no SSM) goes to, say, Iowa (SSM legal) to get married? Currently, their Iowan marriage would be unrecognised by the Wisconsin State. However, if federal benefits apply, could the couple gain federal benefits while living in Wisconsin, but not state benefits? Or would they only be able to gain federal benefits if they settle in Iowa?

A second option is full federal recognition of same-sex marriage. This would mean that every state would be obliged to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, and would bring the USA to the same status as Canada, Belgium, Sweden, etc. In my view, this will be very difficult to achieve in the short or even medium term. The best prospects for full nationwide recognition would be a ruling by the Supreme Court that denial of SSM is unconstitutional. I don't know how probable such a ruling would be and when it would happen.

Until then, it is likely that progress towards SSM will continue taking place at the state level. Aside from the four states that currently recognise same-sex marriage, it is probable that two states will legalise it soon: Maine and New Hampshire. Bills with reasonable prospects of passing are pending in New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia. In the medium term (until around 2012-2014), there is also a reasonable prospect for same-sex marriage to be achieved in California, Washington State, Oregon, Rhode Island and perhaps Illinois. Nevertheless, I predict it will be very difficult to get the Southern states on board, even in the long term. Ronline ✉ 16:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, I misworded it wrong. I meant if there is a way to fix this discrepancy in the template. (DOMA refuses federal rights to same-sex couples, so technically, the marriages in the states are only partial...) :P By the way, as a reply to your third paragraph, I found this link interesting: [2]--haha169 (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think we really need to change the template. The fact that marriages are recognised by some states qualifies for "recognised in some regions". They're not really partial marriages, they're just not recognised by any jurisdiction outside of the state performing them, including the US federal government. However, they're still fully recognised by the jurisdiction performing them (thus, they're "recognised in some regions").

The article by Nate Silver is indeed really interesting and very encouraging when it comes to progress towards same-sex marriage. However, I still feel deep down that his predictions are too optimistic. In a lot of the states that have constitutional bans on gay marriage (or on all forms of recognition), the problem is that electors will have to affirmatively repeal the ban and then affirmately approve SSM. This is psychologically somewhat different to just rejecting a same-sex marriage ban (e.g. voting "No" and keeping the status quo). So, while Wyoming electors will probably reject any gay marriage ban after 2011 according to Silver, this doesn't mean that in 2011 there is a real prospect of SSM being legal in Wyoming. Nonetheless, one of the fascinating aspects of the same-sex marriage movement worldwide is its unpredictability. I would never have predicted the full extent of the developments that took place in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa this year. Ronline ✉ 03:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And New York. April has been an exciting month indeed. And you speak the truth there - the psychological mentality to refuse a gay-marriage ban, but inability to strike down existing ones...that will certainly prove as a big roadblock. --haha169 (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

France

Does France really recognize foreign same-sex marriages? I just read an article that France is now recognizing foreign same-sex marriages as PACS (if the president approves the law) as they previously failed to do so. I suppose they could simply have done things "out of order," but it seems a bit fishy nonetheless. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is quite a complex question. In September 2008, this article (in French) stated that France had recognised a Dutch gay marriage as legal. It is unclear exactly how far this recognition extended, but it did involve recognising the couple as married for taxation purposes. I'm unsure whether the French state recognises foreign same-sex marriage exactly as it would recognise any other opposite-sex marriage, offering it exactly the same rights as a locally-married couple. It is likely that this is not the case, and that the Dutch couple mentioned in the article were simply recognised as a married by the Tax Office and on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, it is true that France should not be listed in the template as recognising same-sex marriage.

The PACS issue is also quite confusing. The recent bill passed in the French National Assembly seems only to recognise foreign civil unions and registered partnerships under French law. It doesn't seem to recognise foreign same-sex marriages as PACS. Actually, I think it doesn't even recognise foreign unions as PACS, it simply recognises them as registered partnerships which are entitled to the same rights as a "PACSed" couple under French law. So, for example, a couple joined in a British civil partnership would be able to gain access to join tax returns, social security benefits, etc, simply by proving that they are registered partners in Britain. But yes, the effect is similar to what the UK currently has, where people joined in a variety of same-sex unions throughout the world are recognised as civil partners when in Britain. Ronline ✉ 09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and helping resolve the issue. I always thought something seemed a tad off with France's recognition of foreign same-sex marriage. But I agree, it seems more like the couple was recognized as married for tax benefits only, but not receiving benefits found in a French civil marriage. Even still, if the Socialist Party wins the upcoming election which is likely if Nicolas Sarkozy runs again for his current party, I could see same-sex marriage becoming legal in France within the next three years. Though only time will tell, I suppose. VoodooIsland (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the Socialist Party seems supportive of same-sex marriage, even though I don't thing it's officially in the party platform yet. My prediction is that France will be the 7th country in Europe to legalise SSM, after Portugal does so in 2010. Denmark and Iceland are the other wild-cards in the short term. Ronline ✉ 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I could definitely see Iceland joining the list of near-future candidates...Denmark, possibly, though I'd be surprised if it legalized same-sex marriage before Iceland. I've heard talk of possible same-sex marriage legislation in the Czech Republic and Scotland...do you think those could join the list anytime in the next five years? I suppose only time will tell, but it's fun to predict future countries nonetheless. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

California

Someone removed California citing that 'in flux' was not a good use of words, so I re-added it and changed 'in flux' to At standstill, keeping the same link that went to 'in flux.' If someone feels that this is not the best use of wording, feel free to correct it. VoodooIsland (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally think "In Flux" is better - but I'm pretty sure there is a better word. Its on the tip of my tongue right now...but I just can't think of it. --haha169 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "in dispute"?Theknightswhosay (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's uninformative. See the article on samesex marriage in California. Since early November 2008 it hasn't existed there. Ain't no reference to 'in dispute' on Template:The Holocaust despite the existence of scholars who run that line, either.114.72.213.100 (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The marriages in this case wasn't technically halted by the votes - they were halted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had two choices when the lawsuit was filed - suspend marriages or continue them until they reached a decision. And because the court is still arguing this business, its status is still 'in flux'. --haha169 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Court's action is 'refusal of stay of enforcement of Prop 8' not 'in flux'. No court would give an order for something to be 'in flux', therefore we reflect the fact that the only recognition and celebration of the events in CA are former ones. On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits, but denied the requests to stay its enforcement.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khuntlessness (talk • contribs) 03:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

D.C.

You not added D.C. See [4], [5]. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

DC's law recognising out-of-state gay marriage has not been fully passed yet. The Mayor has not signed it, and it hasn't gotten through congressional review (the Federal Congress has 30 days to express any objection to it). While it is likely that the law will pass, we can't put it in the "Recognised, not performed" section yet. Two other bills at a similar stage are same-sex marriage in New Hampshire and Maine. Ronline ✉ 09:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that, but there is also a way for the citizens of Maine to veto, so how do you reconcile that? Should gay marriages start being carried out first? If so, that needs to be a uniform rule.Theknightswhosay (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but even ignoring the congressional review, the DC law has not actually been signed by the Mayor yet. I suppose once it's signed it could technically be said to have been passed, since congressional review is simply something that the Congress can choose to do, but is not obliged to. So I'd say it may be OK to add DC after it has been signed (but I'm not 100% sure of the technicalities of the way DC makes laws). Ronline ✉ 01:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Montana

I removed Montana from "Civil unions and registered partnerships debated" (I was the one who originally added it there). Despite facing almost unanimous opposition, (hell, even the Civil Union bill in UT got father) the "debate" appears to have been simply a one-time-only thing, almost as a "we just might get it passed, why not at least try?" type of proposal; with no future debate following, unlike Utah. The bill was accompanied by two measures outlawing discrimination based on one's sexual orientation, which was the main focus of the debate. Several other users have agreed with me, and the proposal isn't even listed under Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States. If anyone feels that Montana should stay, please add in your two cents, though I personally feel that Montana wasn't even deserving of being added to begin with. VoodooIsland (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine

Does anyone know when the law will take effect? I put eff. date TBA as a temporary solution. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, when we alphabetize the states, do we do it by the state names themselves, or by their abbreviations? VoodooIsland (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone added Sept 24, and I'm not sure if it would be best to put alphabetical by state name, or by abbreviation. Perhaps someone else has an opinion on that? CTJF83Talk 19:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think ABC is fine. --haha169 (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to be in September, but it will be stayed pending a vote if they get enough signatures to put it on the ballot by then . TBA may be the best solution for now.Theknightswhosay (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"In flux" is rather unencyclpedic, but maybe something like: "final legal decision pending" -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming

I don't believe Wyoming recognizes foreign same-sex marriages, but others have come to such conclusion. I could be wrong, so I wanted to resurface the topic here. this link seems to suggest that Wyoming does, though it could also be a New Mexico type situation. Can anyone find proof of a same-sex couple getting their marriage recognized in Wyoming? VoodooIsland (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's stated in at least one Wyoming newspaper (as well as in a few gay media sources) that it does, and the law makes no exceptions on its face. There was a bill to bar recognition of same-sex marriages that failed, and there seems to be little debate in the legislature about what the current law is. The debates are about whether they should bar recognition and about whether there should be a constitutional amendment. Should we wait until there is a court challenge either way in every state?Theknightswhosay (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your links definitely would persuade one to think so, yet the same murky situation has arisen in New Mexico, which laws specify the recognition of all marriages performed abroad, though in practice, New Mexico has not recognized foreign same-sex marriages. There has yet to be a court decision in either of the two states, so it would be nice if someone knows about any government-released statements (not opinions) on whether or not Wyoming recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So if New Hampshire starts performing gay marriages tomorrow, it won't matter until a court case says it's all right? Laws don't have to be challenged in court before they become valid. As long as no one challenges them, they are already valid. And what you really mean is an appeals court, because many lower-level courts don't publish opinions and their rulings aren't binding on other lower courts anyway. What if it's just one appeals court and not the Supreme Court. Does that count?Theknightswhosay (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected

I've fully protected the article for an indefinite amount of time until the edit wars are settled. When they are, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Failed marriage proposals??!?!?

{{editprotected}} What the heck is up with this? The most recent vandal clearly has no information about the status of same-sex marriage. Since the page is now edit protected, I'd appreciate it if an administrator can fix the following, since I am not an administrator.

• "Legal status of same-sex couples" back to Legal recognition of same-sex couples
• Failed marriage proposals to Same-sex marriage debated

Thank you. Camillex555 (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely I agree. Could you change that? Ron 1987 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Status" and "Recognition" mean two different things. As for the second one - that list isn't of "failed" proposals, they are of currently pending ones. We don't have a list of failed proposals.--haha169 (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not changing anything until the issue is resolved about the stay of recognitions and event celebrations in California. The Supreme Court of California did not order those things 'at standstill' or 'in flux'. They REFUSED stay of the enforcement of Proposition 8. In other words: 'Recognition and celebrations ceased from Novemer 2008' is the actual status in Calif, not some other formulation. It's the truth, reflect it. And any proposal to recognise or perform these things that has not achieved confirmed acceptance, in the past or present, is a failure. They don't often succeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khuntlessness (talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Khuntlessness, your view seems to be out of line with others on this. However I am not completely sure of what is being requested. Please could you put the proposed version on the sandbox and replace the editprotected? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really confused by what's happening here. Same-sex marriage in California has nothing to do with what the template and one of its sections should be titled. I have unprotected the template and restored the prior version. I don't see any arguments for why it should stay the way it is or indeed what the edit war was over.

On the California issue: I'd personally take CA out of the same-sex marriage section altogether. At the current moment, same-sex marriage is not performed in CA, so it's status is not really in dispute. While the recognition of 18,000 marriage is in dispute, this does not really amount to recognition under the "Recognised, not performed" heading, which should only encompass jurisdictions where current same-sex marriages are recognised (e.g. New York). If a couple goes and marries in Iowa and returns to California, their marriage will not be recognised as valid in California. Of course, the Court may strike down Prop 8, but then changes can be made accordingly. Until then, I'd propose removing CA from the template altogether, and leaving it only in the "Same-sex marriage debated" section. Ronline ✉ 14:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it belongs there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camillex555 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See the California section on this talk page. There is no consensus to remove it. The fact that it was not stayed does not indicate whether or not it will be repealed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a new segment on the template for Formerly Performed for California. To state that California is just like all the other states that are considering SSM is an atrocious oversimplification. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think a formerly recognized section would be the best for the template, but it's a plausible temporary solution. A while back below the United States listing there was a note in place of California that I felt looked very fitting, though it was removed, so perhaps there was specific reason why. Either way, here is what it looked like, and I feel that it could be possibly the best solution until the SC rules on it. Once the SC rules on Prop 8, California should unarguably be removed from the Recognized in some regions section.

Note: The validity of California's same-sex marriage ban is in question in the state's Supreme Court.

VoodooIsland (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Once the SC rules on Prop 8, California should unarguably be removed from the Recognized in some regions section. That is assuming that they uphold prop 8 and they annul the interim marriages. In this case, there would only be OSMs in California and no SSMs (unless people repeal prop 8 in 2010 or later, but that is a story for much later)

If they uphold prop 8 and keep the marriages, we are in a template-snafu because in that case there will be legal SSMs in California, but no new ones will be able to be recognized in California. In this case, I think a formerly performed section will be the best way to solve this, as putting California in the same boat as the other states would be, as I said before, an atrocious oversimplification.

If they repeal prop 8 (or the people repeal prop 8 in 2010 or later), California marriage laws will return to as they were on 11/4/2008 and there really won't be much question for what to do. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What if, then, the SC decides to nullify all marriages and make everything into a Civil Union or a Domestic Partnership like was suggested? What would that do to the template? (Not that I think the SC would do that, but...) --haha169 (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that they decided that doing that was beyond the job of the SC. My prior message was meant to address (in my opinion) the three most likely results. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Amendment proposal to earlier criteria concerning country qualifications

While the criteria was set here several months ago, I would like to make one of the requirements a little bit more narrow, or at least specify my thoughts. One of the possible qualifications was that if a political party was supporting same-sex marriage, it could be listed. And while this could have been what the users were getting at, I feel that only major political parties should be qualifiable, such as we should not list Iran because of the underground Green Party's support and other countries with unlikely contenders for the government. Also, I feel that with such a qualification, we should only include countries with major parties that have same-sex marriage officially on the platform, as certain parties (more so candidates) have expressed that they support same-sex marriage when asked, but this does not necessarily mean that the party has confirmed its intent to legalize same-sex marriage. Also, we have to be a little practical. Such as with Estonia, for example. Civil unions will be tough enough to legislate in the country based on the attitudes found throughout the Baltic States and I doubt that moves to legalize same-sex marriage will even occur in that country within this decade. Unless a bill legislating same-sex marriage is pending or for a fact will be introduced, I do not think it should be included under the Same-sex marriage debated section while it is currently under the Civil Unions debated, akin to how we remove the countries/states granting civil unions once same-sex marriage has been legalized there. And still, there is yet another loophole. Even if we say the "_____ party" of ___ country supports same-sex marriage, which are included in the template, why are the US states with major political parties supporting it not included under the template in addition? Examples include the Democratic Parties of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and many others, yet these are not included in the template. When other users added these in, we (myself included) have all been quick to revert such edits, as most of us did not find the additions to be practical. This brings me to my final question: why doesn't the same go for cases like Hungary and Estonia? VoodooIsland (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would make the template too complicated. --haha169 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How would it make it more complicated if it was simply reduced? :) VoodooIsland (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my eyes slid while reading that huge, blocky, paragraph, but I thought you wanted to add political parties that support? Wouldn't that make it more complicated? Correct me if I'm wrong... :o --haha169 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha I guess I got a little carried away...my bad. Anyway, I wasn't talking about adding the political parties that support it, but it was critiquing a previous qualification for additions to the template (which create unneeded clutter, in my opinion). VoodooIsland (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S states are perhaps governed a bit differently, with little party discipline, a separate and powerful executive, and 7919 parliamentary procedures to delay bills that make same-sex marriage, even with majoritarian support like in New York and New Jersey difficult to pass. Fortuynist (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the status quo for the "Same-sex marriage debated" section is problematic, not least because it is inconsistent. Essentially, there are two models we can adopt for this section:

1. Include only jurisdictions where there is a real debate/possibility of SSM being legalised.
2. Include all jurisdictions for which we have an article about same-sex marriage, and change the name of the section to "Other jurisdictions" instead of "SSM debated".

Personally, I prefer the second model, since it is of interest to many to find out what attitudes towards SSM may be in countries which are not actively debating it (e.g. Italy, Hungary, China, etc). Nevertheless, it seems that consensus supports a more narrow interpretation, and I agree that if we are going to go down this path, we have to make the criteria more stringent than they currently are. VoodooIsland's criterion of a "major political party" is useful, even though defining "major" can be quite problematic. If we define major as a "party represented in Parliament", this would still be a very broad definition. In most European countries, at least one parliamentary party (usually Greens or far-left parties) support same-sex marriage. Alternatively, we can define "major" as meaning a party which has a chance to be in government, but this is a very slippery definition in countries which do not have a two-party system and where coalition governments are more likely. For this reason, I suggest we adopt a broader, "commonsense" view of what should be included, taking into account various criteria but not sticking absolutely to the criteria if it produces a counter-intuitive result.

Below I examine all of the countries currently included and the current status of SSM, and place in italics those countries I think should be removed:

• Australia (Tasmania) - the national Green Party supports SSM; in Tasmania, a specific bill has been proposed by the Greens. The main reason for its inclusion is because there is quite a significant debate in civil society about SSM.
• Estonia - the Social Democratic Party supports SSM, but it is unknown whether this support is in the party platform; the other parties oppose it, and tend also to oppose civil unions.
• France - the opposition Socialist Party supports it, along with other leftist parties. Definitely should be included, particularly since Segolene Royal included SSM as part of her campaign in the previous elections.
• Greece - Synaspismos supports SSM; a same-sex marriage has been conducted officially but later declared invalid. For this reason at least, the country should be kept.
• Hungary - the Free Democrats (small parliamentary party) support SSM, while the major parties oppose it. Recently legalised civil unions, meaning that the civil society debate seems to be over for the time being.
• Iceland - a very difficult situation, actually. SSM paradoxically seems to be somewhat of a non-issue in Iceland, with even the national gay rights group not visibly campaigning for it. The article says a government committee is looking into SSM, but provides no source.
• Ireland - there is a well-organised SSM lobby group, MarriagEquality, and quite widespread civil society debate on this issue (similar to Australia).
• Israel - there is a debate over whether civil marriage should be introduced (currently, only religious marriage is legal).
• Mexico (DF) - a bill has been announced with the intention of legalising SSM in the Federal District.
• Nepal - definitely should be included following the High Court ruling
• New Zealand - it is unknown whether the Labour Party supports SSM, even though former PM Helen Clark seems to have issued statements in support.
• Philippines - there are bills explicitly banning SSM currently before the Parliament, and the article mentions no parliamentary party supporting SSM.
• Portugal - the governing party supports SSM and stated its intention to introduce SSM legislation if it is re-elected.
• Switzerland - the Greens support it officially, as do some other politicians from the Liberal and Socialist parties. However, there seems to be no active lobbying on this issue.
• United Kingdom - very similar to Iceland, in that not even the main LGBT rights group, Stonewall, is pushing for SSM.
• Taiwan - previously supported, but now appears to be deadlocked. Taiwan should be included under "civil unions debated".

As you can see, it is very confusing to choose which countries to include and which to exclude. If we are to exclude Hungary and Estonia, several other countries would also need to be excluded for consistency. Ronline ✉ 07:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all, especially Ronline, for your well-thought-out responses.

Fortuynist: I see your point, and I feel that the United States states should not be effected by such changes, as moves to legalize same-sex marriage can sometimes spur when everyone's off guard (especially with supreme court cases), therefore, the state politics have a much different basis than in other countries.
Ronline: Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I agreed with all of your changes except one just partially, which I had a few confusions about, that being United Kingdom. Legislation has been introduced in Scotland to legalize same-sex marriage, so should Scotland be listed in place of the UK? I'm not very knowledgeable about how the legal systems work throughout the United Kingdom, so that's why I have a gray spot concerning the nation. Anyhow, while I definitely think the suggestion of including all judristictions with same-sex marriage is a valid and substantial one, I feel (personally) that simply including the debated countries makes it a much quicker read for readers who simply want to know the status of same-sex marriage; without having to read the individual articles to sort out where a debate is presently taking a place and where former debates have occurred. However, I do feel that we should somehow include a link to all of the articles concerning the status of same-sex marriage (I'll try to work on a template or article) that would fix that very problem. The template could be one identical to the Marriage Amendments table I created and we could divide the regions by continent on the template.

To clear up future confusion, perhaps we can draft up some form of list of qualifications for adding countries to the template, which we can then edit and vote on for a select period of days and include a link our consensus below the < noinclude > so other users can see it. Just some thoughts, and I'm sure others will have numerous additional ideas or critiques on the subject. VoodooIsland (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have started a template in my sandbox (identical to the present one) that I implanted all of our current edits into and can serve as a "tester template" until we can all reach an agreement. Please edit things all you like, that's the whole purpose of its creation. VoodooIsland (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think current template's version is good. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Here's a link to the proposed template I created that would be displayed on the main page, which links to every country with an article about same-sex unions. I've grown too tired to finish it for tonight, so I filled in all but Europe. If anyone wants to help fill those in, it would be very much appreciated. Template:Status of same-sex unions VoodooIsland (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I added European contries. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) VoodooIsland (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and update the template a bit with some of the suggestions Ronline came up with? I don't want to do anything radical without first coming to an agreement with everyone, so I just wanted to check here first before I make any changes. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)