Template talk:Same-sex unions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Template  Quality: rating not applicable
 

Vietnam[edit]

The way that I read the references (specifically http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/society/89082/same-sex-weddings-officially-permitted-in-vietnam.html) in the Same-sex marriage in Vietnam, what changed recently is that it used to be if two men (or two women) held a marriage ceremony, both could be fined. Now, while still not recognized or legal, the fine has been removed.Naraht (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw s.t. recently about it being equivalent to cohabitation, but forget where. — kwami (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The western understanding of marriage is irrelevant in case of Vietnam. In East Asia, marriage is not the same concept as it is in dominant culture of Europe, Australia or America. Nevertheless, it is true, according to a reliable organisation, rather than just articles in press, that marriage equality has been introduced about a month ago in Vietnam.[1]--LadyGodiva99 (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
According to the Huffington Post, Vietnam only decriminalized gay wedding ceremonies. It does not recognize gay marriage. See here gidonb (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
@LadyGodiva99: I can believe that the understanding of marriage is different in Asia. However, the source you provide doesn't include the claim you make. The article says e.g. "However, the suggested changes fall short of legalizing such partnerships, making it unclear whether LGBT couples will be able to register their marriages with the authorities." SPQRobin (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
You couldn't see my ref before now (I am adding reflist). I believe Human Rights Watch confirms that in Vietnam:<quote> "The National Assembly should amend Vietnam’s Marriage and Family Law to guarantee same-sex couples all the rights enjoyed by other couples, Human Rights Watch said today. Those rights include marriage, registration procedures, and full legal protections with regard to property and children."<endquote>
I have realised that w I might have been wrong. Sorry.--LadyGodiva99 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem, that's what talk pages are for. <POV>Let's now hope Vietnam actually changes their marriage law soon!</POV> SPQRobin (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, LadyGodiva99. gidonb (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, guys, there is a problem; on this template Vietnam doesn't have recognition of same sex relationships, but according to these maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg, Vitnam has recognition of unregistered cohabitation . 187.34.250.232 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Utah Again[edit]

Backround discussion

Re Same-Sex marriage is not recognized by the state of Utah so while the marriages may be valid to the Federal government they are not in the state of Utah overall. That is just not correct. The federal judge ruled that the State of Utah must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize them and they did so for a brief period until SCOTUS put a temporary halt to them so the appeals court can hear the appeal(without ruling on the merits of the original ruling). I suggest further discussion take place on the template talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The 1,300 marriages previously preformed right now are not legal in the state of Utah [2]. So while the couples may get federal benefits they will not get state state benefits. Seeing that the SSM in the United States article has Utah in the red banning same-sex marriage I feel that the inclusion of Utah on the template is misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The State of Utah must still recognize the ones that were performed before SCOTUS ruled as that was the last court ruling on the merits. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Take it there if you want, as far as I have read though the status is a legal limbo, no new marriages can be preformed in Utah at the moment so placing Utah down on a template titled "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships" again is misleading as much as we want it to be true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued discussion

The issue at hand: Are the marriages preformed in Utah legal? and if they are Should Utah be included on states that recognize same-sex relationships? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

When Proposition 8 was in effect, we didn't include California in the template. In that case, marriages previously performed were valid but new marriages could not be performed. So I see that situation as analogous to and precedent for this one. - htonl (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Er, we did include California, but not in the main list of US states. It was listed separately, under "Recognized, not performed"; here's where it was moved. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be fine adding Utah like that then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I would be satisfied with that as well. 331dot (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
But Utah ISN'T recognizing those marriages at this point, per the governor's announcement. As such, it doesn't qualify. As the state is neither recognizing nor granting marriages, it should be left off the list. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Utah is not allowing same sex couples to take new legal actions related to their marriages, but they can maintain actions already done and the marriages performed were not voided. [1] Thus they are still recognized. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Nat Gertler's position. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
No, they are not being recognized by the state of Utah. Saying that they haven't voided the marriages means that the couples will not have to get remarried should the SSM side prevail in the current court situation, but the very first sentence of what you link to explains that they are not now being recognized by the state. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The ones that were performed already are being recognized and any actions that occurred up to the SCOTUS ruling. The article states "According to the governor's memo, any state recognition that has been given so far remains in effect, but no new actions can be taken." They can't do anything new(i.e. change their drivers' licenses) since the SCOTUS order, but if they had done it already, it is still valid. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
That is not recognizing them, that is admitting that they were briefly recognized. They are not recognizing them now. Failing to undo someone's changed name on a driver's license is not recognition. The governor's memo is full of explicit mentions that marriages are not to be recognized ("It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriages but also recognizing same-sex marriages." "state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice." "The intent of this communication is to direct state agency compliance with current laws that prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages." "the law does not allow the state agency to recognize the marriage"). This is extremely different from the post-Prop 8 (or more specifically, post a court ruling post prop 8) situation in California, where marriages entered into in California during that period and entered into elsewhere before the end of that period were treated as full marriages, and even those netred into later elsewhere were given a strong psuedo-marriage status. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
We obviously disagree about this point, but the marriages already performed still have some level of status which should be recognized in this template in some manner. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(Pardon the lack of indentation). I agree with Nat Gertler and disagree with 331dot. Here are two (long) cents for me to drop in.

  • 1. California has zero relevance here. In CA, the state SC said that anti-SSM laws violated the state constitution, then people modified the state constitution to undo the ruling (later determined to be in violation of the US Const. according to Judge Walker and a vacated 9th Circuit decision) and the state SC grandfathered the pre-Prop 8 marriages in (and the state legislature created the pseudo-marriage thing referenced above). The starting and stopping (and eventual resumption after the appeal was thrown out) were all completely distinct events. With Utah, one judge refused to stay a ruling and then the SCOTUS did it for him.
  • 2. The template does reflect the Utah marriages, it notes that the federal government recognizes the marriages. The state does not recognize them at all, they won't make people undo name changes, but they won't recognize the marriages. The Utah marriages are legally the same as any same-sex couple getting married elsewhere and then moving to Utah. There is nothing legally special about them beyond that they are legally suspect pending the appeals.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why did the governor's memo state "state recognition that has been given so far remains in effect"? They have some level of recognition by the State of Utah, not just the feds. If they were not recognized, the ones already performed would have been declared void. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It did not state that. memo here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, (though that isn't how the media is interpreting it) but it still remains that the performed marriages were not voided and legal actions they took before the stay were not voided. If there was absolutely no recognition, they would have been voided. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Our own article on this subject states "On January 9, Utah's Attorney General advised county clerks to complete processing marriage certificates for same-sex couples whose marriages were solemnized "prior to the morning of January 6"." If these were "not recognized" in any form by the State of Utah, they would have just said to not process anything. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Per the AG's memo, this was an administrative function to record that the marriages were recognized at the time. It is not an indicator that the marriages are recognized now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
"The Court’s order reinstates the state ban and will keep it intact until after a federal appeals court has ruled on it." And Utah doesn't recognize the marriages that were performed. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-stops-utah-gay-marriages/ --Prcc27 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)--Prcc27 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The State of Utah and we can quibble over semantics but they did not void one same-sex marriage. I will no longer pursue this matter but even if some of these marriages are in legal limbo or whatever it is called Utah have given some level of status, if not recognition, to them which should be reflected here, and I believe not doing so does a disservice to those seeking information on this subject. I do honestly appreciate this discussion, nevertheless. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Utah will not give any legal benefits to same-sex couples. --Prcc27 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
They already did, they allowed drivers' licenses to be changed if they were processed before the SCOTUS order. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
"If a same-sex couple seeks to change their names on drivers licenses now, the law does not allow the state agency to recognize the marriage therefore the new drivers licenses cannot be issued." "With the district court injunction now stayed, the original laws governing marriage in Utah return to effect pending final resolution by the courts. It is important to understand that those laws include not only a prohibition of performing same-sex marriage but also recognizing same-sex marriages." "Based on counsel from the Attorney General's office regarding the Supreme Court decision, state recognition of same-sex martial status is ON HOLD until further notice. Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages - that is for the courts to decide." Source: Governor's memo. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
331dot, not making them undo new licenses is not a legal benefit. Joint state taxes, hospital visitation rights, etc... are benefits. Those ~900 marriages are legally no different from a same-sex couple getting married and changing their licenses elsewhere and then moving to Utah, thus they are already covered in the template. The state offers NO recognition or benefits. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Then they should void the performed marriages. They were performed with licenses issued by the State and they exist regardless of any legal benefits conferred (or not) until they are voided. As I said, I will not be pursuing this matter further and will await the appeals court ruling. Thank you for your reply. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Utah taxes[edit]

Utah is allowing SS married couples to file joint state taxes. [2] I would submit that this might warrant a footnote much like the Ohio one(Ohio recognizes SSMs for death certificates) 331dot (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that may be reading too much into it. Utah is allowing couples who they recognized as married on Dec. 31 to file joint taxes for the 2013 year because that's what tax calculation is based on: marital status as of December 31 of the year being paid for. So they are not recognizing the marriage currently, but recognizing that they had recognized the marriage; they are treating them no differently than a straight couple who had gotten divorced January 6. (The notice, which you can read here, applies only for this tax year; there is no statement that couples who were married during recognition and fail to specifically unmarry before Dec 31, 2014 will be able to file joint taxes in 2015.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Why does Ohio get a footnote? Ohio does not and has not recognized SSM for any period of time. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it should. Ohio doesn't even give them the tax breaks of couples the way Utah does. — kwami (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I would support removing it as well under these circumstances. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I thought we were talking about taxes. Death certificates: Does that confer any benefits, such as inheritance if intestate? — kwami (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Reading LGBT rights in Ohio I'm not sure what benefits it carries; Ohio only does that by court order on an equal protection claim(dealing with out-of-state marriages only). I'm just not seeing how Utah is different(even if it is only for this last tax year so far). 331dot (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I thought you said that you were giving up pending appeal? Utah has not place on the template. In Ohio, every OoS SSM will get recognition on death certificates until the law is changed. In Utah a small set of SSMs will get joint taxes in one circumstance (until the law is change). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I was giving up on listing Utah as a state where SSM is recognized and legal, not as a state which offers just one form of recognition as Ohio does. I still don't see the distinction with Ohio, which only involves SS couples who leave the state to get married(a small group of SS couples) as Ohio has never had legal SSM for any period of time. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Under the current law in Ohio, anybody in an SSM can move to Ohio, die, and have the marriage recognized on the death certificate. Under the current law in Utah, a small number of SSM couples that got married in Utah can do joint taxes for 2013 (but not 2014 or later and not any for any SSM from another state). Every other SSM couple in Utah does not have this right, just the few that got married in the 2013 part of the non-stay period. Ohio's mention is for a universal SSM right within the state, which can merit being mentioned. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
No, the tax memo is not limited to couples who had married in Utah. Presumably, any couple that had had a same-sex marriage anywhere before December 31 and who have to file Utah taxes for 2013 would be covered. (And, unlike the Ohio situation, it can actually apply to people who are currently married; people who are getting death certificates do not qualify as currently married in any US jurisdiction, I believe, as death dissolves marriage.) The Ohio situation, while laudable, seems so minor that I'm not sure it merits a mention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Countries/states with multiple types of recognition.[edit]

I see that some users wants to include countries/states in civil unions section, even though these jurisdictions legalized same-sex marriage. Listing only the highest level of recognition available in concrete jurisdiction is a long-standing policy proposed by Ronline in February 2009, see [3]. Changing the policy will lead to significant expantion of the template, since majority of countries with marriage allows civil unions at national or regional level, not to mention unregistered cohabitation, which is recognized in many countries with marriage and/or civil unions. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Would there be some way to indicate that a jurisdiction with legal SSM also has lower levels of unions/cohabitation? (bolding, a footnote, etc.) I support such an idea in principle, though, so the template is not bogged down. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
If anything, Illinois should be listed because same-sex marriage since the same-sex marriage law has not yet gone into effect --Prcc27 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be great to add in the Civil Union section the countries and states which legalized SSM without converting the existent Civil Unions : in the United States, Washington state, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island converted the Civil Unions when they legalized SSM. So Illinois, Hawaii, California, and it seems Maine and Maryland and Washington DC kept the Civil Union when they legalized SSM... Also Quebec, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Alberta in Canada ; Catalonia, Aragon, Navarre, Valencia, Balearic Islands, Madrid, Asturias, Andalusia, Extremadur, Basque Country, Cantabria in Spain ; Rio Negro, Buenos Aires in Argentina... and the Civil Unions are still possible in United-Kingdom : England, Wales, Scotland even if they passed SSM (and Northern Ireland too by the way, but there's no SSM here)... and in all the other countries which legalized SSM that I didn't write before. I hope it will help you, and I hope also I didn't make mistakes! Titanicophile (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody cares?... Titanicophile (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I think sometimes we tend to forget that this is just a template to link together articles on same-sex marriage. It does not need to reflect every nuance and detail of every country's laws - that is what the articles are for. A detail like "did they convert existing civil unions or not" is far too specific to be included in this template. - htonl (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Civil unions (at least here in the states) are seen as only a stepping stone to full marriage, so once these jurisdictions pass same-sex marriage, the question of whether they keep civil unions or not is a secondary question, and not notable enough for this template. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Thanks for the answer! Titanicophile (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. This template lists the highest form of recognition for each area, and performing marriages trumps every less-extensive form of recognition (like civil union). This way, the template stays streamlined as you don't have countries showing up in multiple places depending on what unions get grandfathered in. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Scotland[edit]

Unless there are any objections, I think it's appropriate to include Scotland under the United Kingdom after it was passed by the parliament. Or is it best to wait for Royal Assent which could take anywhere from 1-30 days? Regardless when it does get included, the commencement date should read something like 'Not yet specified (Autumn 2014).' (Jono52795 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

The established principle on this template is not to add until the bill has been formally signed into law and become an Act; for Scotland, this occurs when Royal Assent is given. See how England & Wales was handled in the edits of 16 July 2013, including the edit summaries and the <!-- hidden comments --> in the template text. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It's something that comes up time and time again when there's a sizeable gap between the legislature passing it and a compliant executive signing it into law. Primarily it's happened with regards to Commonwealth countries, despite the fact that a bill hasn't been directly refused Assent in 300 years. but it also happened with Illinois, when Pat Quinn wanted a more convenient day to sign it into law.
With specific regards to Scotland, it would be more speculative to say that marriages won't take place in Autumn. Even last night's vote was merely a formality, a fact recognised by everyone in the chamber and news sources reporting on such. The only steps left are foregone constitutional matters, albeit ones that will take four weeks to dispose of.
In that respect, I believe that we should relax the rules a bit, especially for Commonwealth countries, so that the bar for addition is when all legislative matters are dealt with. Perhaps we can also do the same for jurisdictions where the executive has clearly signalled that they will not veto it? Sceptre (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK the bill cannot be submitted for Royal Assent until the Lord Advocate has confirmed that the bill as passed by the Scottish Parliament falls within its devolved powers. A situation like this held up Royal Assent of the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 for almost five months: although it was the first bill to be passed by the National Assembly for Wales (3 July 2012), it received Royal Assent on 29 November 2012, so was second onto the statute books, being beaten by the National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Act 2012 (passed by the NAW 3 October 2012, Royal Assent 12 November 2012). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I would have imagined if there was any question on either the Lord Advocate or the Queen in this regard then it would have come up when the British Parliament did this for E&W.Naraht (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Acts passed by the Parliament of the UK (such as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013) go straight to the Palace, because they are not devolved matters; there is no equivalent of the Lord Advocate for legislation affecting England & Wales (or even for England alone). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I meant if there was any question on the Lord Advocate viewing the Scottish equivalent bill as part of the devolved powers.Naraht (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Why should it have been? A UK Act extends to Scotland, unless there are explicit clauses to the contrary. These are usually in a section titled "Extent", which is typically found close to the sections on "Short title" and "Commencement", near the end of the main text, before the Schedules. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 has it at section 20, which has one clause stating "This Act extends to England and Wales" and a further eight clauses setting out which parts apply to Scotland and which to Northern Ireland. Since UK Acts are by definition not devolved matters, the Lord Advocate does not need to judge whether it is a devolved matter, and so is not part of the chain. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a massive difference between Scottish and Welsh devolution, though; anything not reserved to Westminster is devolved to Holyrood. The only thing in the English Act that was reserved to Westminster was the review of occupational pensions. Sceptre (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's not argue about the legal technicalities of devolution. What I am saying is that in the cases of England & Wales; France; New Zealand; Uruguay and others, we have waited for the bill (or equivalent) to become an Act (or equivalent), this event occurring with the signature of monarch/president/governor, therefore we should not treat Scotland any differently. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, basically, it's wild speculation to suggest that the act would be anything but assented to without issue (especially as marriage is one of the most notable ancient liberties of Scottish governance). That's why I'm suggesting moving the goalposts back to "has passed the legislature and there is no prospect of being vetoed". This also would apply to Gov. Quinn's "wait until a convenient date to sign a bill I said I'd sign" thing last year. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
We have the ochre color for things like Quinn's promise. Politicians not uncommonly break their promises, and signing is more than just a formality the way it is in Scotland. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
See Template:Same-sex unions#Inclusion criteria. I completely overlooked this earlier, because it's "below the fold". But it's what was agreed on well over a year ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky[edit]

A federal judge has ruled Kentucky must recognize out-of-state SSM's: [4] [5] I'm not clear on if it takes effect immediately or not but when it does I think we can put Kentucky under "Recognized", much as Oregon is. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Illinois - Cook County[edit]

Judge has ruled that Cook County should start accepting same sex marriage applications immediately and the Cook County Clerk has said he will comply. Information over at Same-sex marriage in Illinois and links to [6].Naraht (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Champaign County[edit]

Is it safe to add Champaign County? Even though ssm is being performed there does that necessarily mean it's legal there..? Same sex marriage was actually ruled to be legal in Cook County by a judge. and until June 1, 2014 the law banning ssm will be in effect for all of Illinois except Cook County. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I made that edit. I was just trying to be helpful and update this (it's a rapidly developing situation). I have found other links to more official sources -like the County Clerk's office. As a matter of law, the clerk issuing the license may be illicit, but the marriage license itself would still be valid. That is my understand of acts of the state of Illinois. Example: Even if you "fail" to park properly during a driver's test, and the driving test instructor illicitly passes you, you still have a valid driver's license. I am not sure, if this principle holds true in family law though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.114.173 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-add Kentucky..?[edit]

Should Kentucky be re-added..? The inclusion criteria states that "When marriage has been legalised through a US court decision, we wait until either the supreme court in the jurisdiction affirms the decision, or a stay upon appeal of a lower court's ruling has been denied." recognition has been put on a temporary hold in Kentucky. --Prcc27 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

Is it more sensible to register the UK under "Great Britain", as all the constituent countries of GB (ENG, SCOT, WAL) have legalised/will legalise SSM and are coming in to effect in the near future. It feels a bit more conclusive than having to list all the countries. We can then change it to United Kingdom if N Ireland decides to legalise it too. StJaBe (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to me. It would seem similar to listing Hispaniola on the chart if both Haiti and the Dominican Republic legalized SSM.Naraht (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom is a country; Great Britain is not. --Prcc27 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

For the United Kingdom entry in the Civil Unions section, should it be noted as either Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland/Scotland?Naraht (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I say list Scotland as well until Scottish marriage goes into effect. At that point, we can remove Scotland, in line with our practice for US states. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Mexico Recognition[edit]

Shouldn't Mexico be listed as recognizing same-sex marriage? --Prcc27 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably should. That would also remove the Mexico footnote from the template. Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like same-sex marriage is only recognized when performed in Mexico though. --Prcc27 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all the states in Mexico must recognize the marriages performed in Quintana Roo and Mexico City. But not the foreign marriages. Titanicophile (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
And from what I understand, it's not easy to do. AFAICT, you need to be a resident of a state to get married there. It's not like the US where you can just drive across the border. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy of "giving accurate information = vandalism"[edit]

wikipedia's reputation... <full of (we want to be polite, so let's call it) half-truths>

---

Civil Union

Saying "United Kingdom" goes against "Listing only the highest level of recognition available in concrete jurisdiction" as England and Wales and Scotland have got that "highest level of recognition".

Saying "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland" would imply that the law covers Northern Ireland only.

---

This template could be accurate - could tell the truth - by adding just a few small words to the Civil union section - words like "Belgium", "France", "Netherlands", etc. Only a few small words are needed to make this template give accurate information about the "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships".

(Just to remind you - that's the template's title) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo (talkcontribs) 15:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The decision was made not to include Civil Unions if Same Sex Marriage was available in the same jurisdiction. Similarly if either Marriage or Civil Unions are available, then unregistered cohabitation is not included.Naraht (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


but ... The United Kingdom IS included in both lists - "marriage" and "civil union". In the civil union section it doesn't say "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland". It says "United Kingdom" only. So by taking a look at this template people will know that the United Kingdom as a whole has got civil unions and that England and Wales and Scotland have got marriage in addition to civil unions. But they will not know that France, South Africa, etc. have got civil unions, too - in addition to marriage - as those countries are listed in the marriage section only - unlike the United Kingdom.

---

It is a fact that there are some countries that recognize (same-sex) couples by both - marriage and civil union. It has to be mentioned.

It could be done by simply adding an asterisk to the countries' names - and a side note - something like "A Civil union can also be entered into." Knisfo (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a few points here worth of discussion. To Enumerate
  1. United Kingdom in the Civil Union section should be changed.
  2. Notation on specific countries/states that CU still exist.
  3. General note that the existence of Marriage in the chart does not specifically mean that CUs do not exist.
  1. I'll agree with that, the only question for me is whether to say NI only or Scotland/NI
  2. I'm opposed to this, if only because expiration of CU would receive *very* little coverage and I'm not sure it contributes much
  3. Maybe. It may be worth discussing this again.Naraht (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Once again I need to point out that this template is not supposed to give a complete description of all the details about same-sex unions in every country. That is what the articles are for. This template is just to link together the series of articles. - htonl (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


1. Denmark is listed in both sections, too. In the marriage section as "Denmark proper" and in the civil union section as "Denmark - Greenland". Denmark proper has got marriage only and Greenland has got civil unions only. So in the case of Denmark it makes sense.

But mentioning the United Kingdom in the civil union section as "United Kingdom - Northern Ireland" would imply that there are no civil unions in the other parts of the UK. Mentioning the United Kingdom as "United Kingdom" is not fair towards the other countries that are in a similar situation.

2. Half of the countries that opened marriage to same-sex couples have got civil unions in addition to marriage. None of them have plans to repeal their civil union laws. In (e.g.) France and the Netherlands civil unions are actually very well-liked.

The number of countries will very likely even increase. Luxembourg is on its way to a gender-neutral marriage law - without repealing its civil union law. Malta's civil union bill will most likely be approved any day now - a bill by which Malta would also recognize marriage performed abroad.

Civil unions are not endangered. They are doing fine. They are here to stay.

Some asterisks and a side note would not make the size of this template explode.

3. Well ...better than nothing Knisfo (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

... proper[edit]

There is no jurisdiction called "Denmark proper", no jurisdiction called "Netherlands proper"...

"This formulation is the result [...] after much discussion."

Why is there much discussion needed ?

There is something called (constitutional) law. Take a look at it and you will know about the countries'/territories' (official) names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knisfo (talkcontribs) 15:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because size is also a criteria that we are taking into account. The wikipedia page for Denmark is for an area that includes Greenland, however SSM are not done in Greenland or the Faroes. If you have a description for the area which does SSM which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark that is not significanly longer, please propose it.Naraht (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

for example ... Netherlands

The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of the countries of Aruba, Curacao, Netherlands and Sint Maarten.

Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are not autonomous territories or colonies or ... - of the (European) Netherlands. All four countries have got the same status.

It may be confusing that the Kingdom and one of its constituent countries share the same name but ... calling the Netherlands "Netherlands proper" is like calling Aruba "Netherlands improper", "wannabe Netherlands". Calling the Netherlands "Netherlands proper" is offensive towards the other constituent countries.

For now it should simply be:

Netherlands:

- Netherlands

...and in ca. 100 years be changed to:

Netherlands:

- Curacao

- Netherlands Knisfo (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)