Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Quit proposing we condense the U.S. states into one link!!!

Please stop proposing we replace the individual same-sex marriage articles with a wikilink. This proposal is being proposed way too many times, and has already failed here, here, here, here and was recently re-proposed here (and will probably fail). Thank you! --Prcc27 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, now that we have significantly more U.S. states with legal same-sex marriage (thus a longer list), imho it was worth discussing again. (And please don't use bold all-caps.) Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• More U.S. states legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't change the fact that there was clear opposition against removing individual articles. Why can't I use bold caps..!? Prcc27 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've fixed the section header per policy, and I'm quite disappointed with the level of OWNership this section indicates... Again, I'm tempted to have the template fully protected or the editor exhibiting the improper behavior blocked... Not sure what to do at this time, maybe someone else will help me choose... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Technical 13: Nobody is claiming ownership, I'm politely suggesting we stop making the same pointless proposal over and over again. Also, using bold all-caps on a header isn't a good enough reason to try to get me blocked (especially since I didn't know it violated policy). Furthermore, you already tried to increase the protection level of the template and failed. Remember what CambridgeBayWeather said to you..?

“ As it appears that you are in an edit war on the template I would suggest that you take a step back and confine yourself to the talk page. ”

If anyone should be blocked it's you... Prcc27 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Fully-protecting a template would be a rather drastic (and unnnecessary, and improper) response to what people say on the talk page, don't you think? - htonl (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree I think the template should be fully protected and we should have an official RfC on things, I feel the same discussions are spinning around like wheels here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • The previous flurry of editing on the template has settled down. Which of the criteria at WP:FPP do you think would apply? A flurry of discussion on the talk page does not justify protecting the template. If you want an RfC, that also does not require protection of the template. - htonl (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Discussions on the talk page do not directly impact the template; at the very least, we're discussing things before simply making changes to the template, and isn't that what WP:Consensus is about? Protection of the template seems highly unwarranted just because we keep bringing up the same issues on the talk page. Also, banning is a very drastic step. Banning someone based on a talk page discussion that is heated, but not in any way offensive or impolite, would be completely unfair. Kumorifox (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Technical 13: Your previous request to increase the protection level of this template was denied less than 2 days ago. What has changed in the last 2 days that makes you think that increasing the protection level is more warranted now? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I personally think that all the talks of banning, or protecting, just because of a somewhat spirited discussion on a talk page is completely uncalled for. I think an RfC could be helpful because we can get the opinion of more people, but I don't think protection is needed in the meantime because there's been no edit wars lately. Does anyone support or oppose? Swifty819 (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm still not sure what an RfC actually is, but yes, as detailed above I agree with this statement. Kumorifox (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
        • "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct." So we could use it to obtain template input. Swifty819 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

          @Kumorifox: You can read about RfCs at WP:RFC. You can see examples (good and bad) of open RfCs at WP:RFC/A. This was a WP:RFC/U that is very much related to the above, but as others have opined, one of the two matters discussed there would probably have been better taken straight to WP:RFPU, and the other was not a RFC/U matter at all but something for this talk page - where it had already been discussed. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

          • @Swifty819 and Redrose64: Thanks for the information :-) I'll look it up. Kumorifox (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Creating a new section on the talk page with ALL CAPS demanding that everyone stop proposing to make changes to a page is an indicator of OWNership. Insisting on reverting every single edit by another editor who has REVERTed all of your BOLD edits that there is no consensus to add on the talk page and has attempted to start DISCUSSing for you, is an indicator of OWNership and VANDALISM. Insisting that places that do not currently recognize same sex marriage on a template that is specifically only for places that do currently recognize SSM is an indicator of someone who feels their OWNership justifies VANDALISM to support their edits that go against FUTURE and the need to gain a CONSENSUS on the talk page first. These are the reasons this template needs to be protected. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I already addressed your points about consensus, vandalism, and WP:FUTURE here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ASame-sex_unions&diff=630059009&oldid=630058624 It would be nice not to go in circles. Tinmanic (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: "Insisting that places that do not currently recognize same sex marriage on a template that is specifically only for places that do currently recognize SSM" This again? How about adding a new section at the bottom of the template, or a part at the bottom of each section (like there are with the "recognised, not performed" states and countries) that lists countries, states, regions etc. where laws were signed, or the government decided not to appeal, or whatever, and the laws are due to go into effect at any time? It shows the legal status of SSM or similar unions in those locations, and sets them apart by showing there is some form of legality definitely pending there. Places where there is absolutely nothing pending will naturally be left out. But countries like Luxembourg, Scotland, and Estonia, and states like Florida and Wyoming must be mentioned in order to show progress with same-sex unions. The template is generally the first impression people get on this topic, and first impressions do matter, just as much on Wikipedia as outside of it, and they should give as complete a picture as possible. Kumorifox (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd have no objection I suppose to a collapsed section at the bottom of the template that was titled something like pending or predicted (or anticipated even) or some such where all of the places not currently recognizing and preforming could be listed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Can you show me where it says we are not allowed to use all caps for headers..? If not, I'm going to re-add them. I did not "demand" anyone to stop proposing, I asked politely. I said, "Please stop proposing"; what part of "please" don't you understand..? If anyone is claiming ownership of this page it's the person saying they are going to have the page protected (you). Also, I reverted your Bold edits, not the other way around. Your edits to the template did not have consensus and per WP:BRD I did the right thing. Remember, the admin said that you were the one in an edit war, not me (because I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one reverting you). As for your vandalism accusations, WP:VANDALISM says there has to be a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" which I definitely didn't do. Furthermore, I am not the only one who supports keeping jurisdictions with laws that legalized same-sex unions but haven't gone into effect. And since there is consensus to keep Luxembourg, Wyoming, etc. on the template; you removing those jurisdictions was totally uncalled for. This template does not need to have its protection increased, the admin would agree with this statement as well as other users on this talk page. Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:SHOUT says ALL CAPS is not appropriate and WP:TPO#Section headings / WP:TPO#Fixing format errors say I'm allowed to change it to all normal case as long as I set an {{Anchor}} to the original version (which I did). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Technical 13: Still, that's not a good enough reason to report me.. Prcc27 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • This topic kind of backfired on you, rather than just letting the discussion die, you make a big bold statement that fueled the debate more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Knowledgekid87: Not really... Once this discussion is resolved and the condensing U.S. states into one wikilink proposal fails miserably (again); it will discourage people from making the same proposal and it will strengthen the consensus for keeping the individual articles. Prcc27 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As the person who made the most recent proposal (to switch from listing US states that permit SSM to listing those that do not), it might be useful for me to make a comment. I understand the reasons why some people feel that we have not yet reached the right time to make this change. However, there will come a time when not permitting SSM will be far more exceptional and noteworthy than permitting it. We perhaps haven't reached this point yet, but I suspect we can all see it coming. When there are only a few exceptional areas - perhaps Northern Ireland in the UK, and one or two states in the USA - it seems to me that the sensible thing to do will be to have articles on the absence of SSM in those areas, explaining why this has not happened, rather than to have pointers to the states where SSM has become a normal part of the legal and cultural landscape. As an encyclopedia we will certainly have articles on how SSM came to all the places where it is legal, but what our readers are likely to want in the future, at least in the first instance, is information about the hold-outs. At some point in the future the template should reflect this, because if you live in a place where SSM is the norm - and this is increasingly true for our readership - you're unlikely to question it, any more than anyone nowadays wonders why black people and white people can get married. In time, the question people are more likely to ask is "why doesn't this place permit people of the same sex to get married?". The time may not yet be ripe to make this change, but at some stage it will be. I see no harm in discussing this topic from time to time, and reviewing whether we've yet got to the stage that it will be more helpful to our readers to make the change from listing places where SSM is permitted to listing places where SSM is not permitted. I should also note that I feel that one or two editors may be taking this topic a little personally, and may be attempting to "own" this issue. I feel this is unwise and uncollegial, and hope that a calmer mindset will prevail. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Listing exceptions would be neater, but I also think that, as of this time, we're not far enough into that with the US to warrant this proposal. It's almost half and half. Once we get to, say 25% or 20% exceptions, then I'd consider it. But even then, it might confuse people when they look at the template and expect to see places where marriages are allowed. We'd have to check closer to the time, or maybe highlight the explanation where there are exceptions, maybe bright red text for the note saying "except"? Or some other form of highlighting? Kumorifox (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, it hasn't failed, despite that description by the editor who started some of those new discussions that he's pointing to rather than continuing the old ones. Looking at the various listed discussions:

• Support for keeping states all listed:
  • Rreagan007, Ron 1987, Prcc27, Difbobatl

• Support for replacing:
  • -Roentgenium111, L. Tak, Nat Gertler, Me-123567-Me (apparent support), Knowledgekid87

That one editor returns repeatedly to naysay whenever the topic is brought up does not actually mean increased support for it; there is no reason that something with a plurality support should not continue to be considered, particularly when the situation that many wish to address is just increasing as the list of states grows longer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there's a majority for replacing the individual state articles, this isn't a vote (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). These articles are useful (whenever I try to go to a state's article I usually do this by simply clicking on the link provided by the template). Just like one user pointed out, there is plenty of room for the articles and it's not taking up any space that would be used for something else. Furthermore, as I pointed out- whatever we do to the United States' sub-jurisdictions, we must do to the other countries' sub-jurisdictions. Also, someone has yet to provide a good article to link to that provides individual links for all the ssm states. Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This link is why I feel comfortable condensing the states. Swifty819 (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This should really not be a huge issue here all we are talking about doing is making it easier to read, I am sure the reader has the capability to explore Wikipedia and find the articles on the states.- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be no easier to read, but it would certainly make it less useful. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, I thought the point of this template was to link to relevant articles on the matter. It will be much harder for the reader to find those articles.. Prcc27 (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So what you mean by "failed" is "failed to convince you"??? No, it is not true that we have to treat different things the same. Just because we can sometimes abbreviate "September" in tables as "Sep." doesn't mean that we need to abbreviate "May"; similarly, just because we want to find a way to shorten a list of thirty-some means we need to shorten a list of three. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• @NatGertler: You guys failed to come up with a valid reason why we should get rid of the individual articles when there is plenty of space. Just because some people think the individual articles take up too much space doesn't mean other people will feel the same way. There are varying degrees of what people consider to be articles taking up "too much space." Also, it is inconsistent to condense the United States and not other countries like Australia and Mexico. There doesn't even seem to be a good article to link to anyways. And what do we do when 31 states have same-sex marriage and 2 states don't (yet)..?

Would we do this:

31 states

2 states*

DC

10 tribes?

---

Here's another scenario:

31 states

2 states*

DC

2 territories

1 territory*

10 tribes

1 tribe*

Btw, you forgot to tally Kudzu1 (not that it matters, but you claimed that you guys have plurality support which may not be true). Also, I abbrev. "September" as "Sept." not "Sep."

Prcc27 (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ooooh, you put "valid" in bold, so it must be true! Oh, wait, maybe if I point out that editors have had concerns about how listing thirty-some articles for the United States distorts the template as a whole, making it seem about the US, while presenting a wall of state abbreviations that many in the US even cannot fully decipher, much less the whole English-speaking world, and that clarity and balance ARE PERFECTLY VALID CONCERNS - look, see, bold AND italics AND all-caps, so it must be truer than whatever you say - then maybe your insistence that we not notice what was actually said and shouldn't talk about it any more because you insist that it failed seems less like an attempt to reach consensus and more like an attempt to avoid one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

OK folks, we're getting petty with the language now. Let's steer this conversation back on track.
From what I can tell, we have two camps, and everyone in each camp has their own reasons for wanting to keep the states or wanting to remove them, and I include myself in this as well. Let me list some reasons I managed to comprehend from the discussions above.

• Removing states

1/ Listing every state is messy.
2/ Listing every state puts undue emphasis on the US.

• Keeping states

1/ It makes for easier access to each state where marriage equality is the legal rule.
2/ It is less confusing as people can see at a glance what regions have marriage equality.

Here's my personal take on this. Feel free to (dis)agree.

• The way the template currently is written shows a lot of emphasis on the US. However, isn't that because the US has so many regions with the authority to make legal decisions? If there was a sovereignty with more than 50 regions, it would also be expanded as marriage equality progressed, correct? I personally feel that this seemingly high US emphasis isn't just because it is regarding the US, but because there is so much of it to cover. As someone said in a previous point, Mexico might be just as messy in a few years time, who knows? Will we have the same discussions then?
  
• The template is messy-looking, very much so. Removing the states would definitely make it look better, but 1/ how do we explain removing the US states and not removing regions from other countries (and simply saying "there are many more US entries" is not a reason, IMO, as that is what this debate is partly about and is what we hope to get resolved), and 2/ how do we provide proper linking to the areas where marriage equality is the norm in the US (regarding point 1 in the "keep" list)? People have suggested linking to the US template, and I'm all for that, and so far, I haven't seen anyone object to that point with a reason why this should not be done; people have objected to the idea of removing the states, but remain schtumm on the template link suggestion.
  
• Wikipedia is about bringing information to people in the most accessible and user-friendly way. So if we have to choose between aesthetics and access to information, what should we pick? If we can have only one and not the other, I'd pick information, as that is what Wikipedia is for. But if we can come up with a way to have both, I'd jump at that suggestion and support it whole-heartedly.
  

So let's hear it, please. If you have a suggestion for improved aesthetics while keeping the access user-friendly, please make it. If you feel that improving aesthetics will worsen user-friendliness, say why you think this is. The main thing I want to know on this issue is why people say what they say. I can see a lot of reasons for each point listed above (and I'm sure I left out plenty of points, so feel free to add, but keep it comprehensible please, this discussion is getting confusing), and I can see the merits both for keeping and for removing the states. We just need to get to a compromising solution. Kumorifox (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the pop-up window suggestion wasn't a bad idea.. However, I will not support it unless we apply it to all countries where same-sex unions are only legal in some jurisdictions. Prcc27 (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean something like this? Template:Same-sex unions/sandbox I just tried the US for now, and it will have to be cleaned up for a better look, but it gets the idea across. Kumorifox (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's not what I had in mind- but that works too... Prcc27 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Template:Same-sex unions/sandbox looks way better, let's implement it if nobody is against the idea. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Freddy eduardo: There's a few problems with the sandbox though. The "Not yet in effect" is different (in a bad way) and what was done to the United States has to be done to Australia, Mexico, and any other country with sub-jurisdictions. Prcc27 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As well as any entry in the CU/RP hidden area with multiple sub-juristiction mention. Ick.Naraht (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I didn't make any alterations other than adding the collapsible area, just to show how it would look and gauge people's reactions to it. The sandbox isn't up to date anyway, it's just a practice area, so don't take it to be the "final" version.
@Naraht: I'll gladly make those changes if people agree to it. Kumorifox (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We could decide on a cut off for x number of sub-national entities being turned into a link. Fifteen is a number I like, since that's about half the number of Mexican states and thus would be a good indicator of progress in the other many-state federal country gradually legalizing marriage. Fifteen states turning from a list into a link would also collapse a sub-national list right before reaching a fourth row, which is imo a good mark of when such a list becomes unwieldy. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these states have just as much of a right to have their articles listed as Luxembourg does. Every single state in the U.S. has a higher population than Luxembourg and same-sex marriage is currently legal in all but one of the states listed whereas same-sex marriage isn't in effect yet in Luxembourg. Furthermore, Luxembourg's same-sex marriage article is a lot shorter than many of the U.S. states' articles as well. Shoot... Wyoming's article is even longer than Luxembourg's and they legalized same-sex marriage a few days ago! Also, Wyoming is the smallest state population wise. Is this what we're going to do if same-sex marriage becomes legal in 50 countries..? Prcc27 (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

realize that we have Template:Same-sex unions in the United States? Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Frietjes: Yes, I do realize that. However, this is a template that deals with same-sex marriage internationally and like I just stated above- these states have just as much of a right to be listed on this international template as Luxembourg does. Furthermore, this template appears on more articles than the U.S. template (as far as I know...) Prcc27 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why the suggestion was made to make a collapsible area. Once it gets to 50 states, the states will just be removed anyway as the whole sovereign country will have marriage, and the only thing remaining will be the native American tribes. And those are kept separated on the template anyway. Collapsing will keep every area on the map accessible in a more pleasing format, and I don't mind making the changes if people are not fond of the idea of adding the code as I already applied it in the sandbox and can just copy it over. It won't take away the "right" of the valid states in any way, shape, or form. Kumorifox (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: At that point I would either a) still keep the individual articles or b) add a wikilink that says "50 states" or "all 50 states". Remember, there are also territories that would have to legalize same-sex marriage for it to be nationwide (as well as the Native American tribes). IMO, it ain't over until every state, district, territory and native american tribe legalizes same-sex marriage; so I would be against removing the states entirely until it is legal in every jurisdiction. Prcc27 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Indian tribes are inconsequential. If there are 2 gay Indians living on the reservation of a tribe that does not perform same-sex marriages, but in a state that does, all they have to do is drive to the nearest county courthouse to get legally married just like any other residents of the state. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That ick was in regards to what it would look like with the collapsable on all of the collapsible ones. As far as I can tell, simply due to the way that the show works, the will end up misaligned to the others. I am curious as to what it would look like, but that doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that I'd necessarily support it as a replacement.Naraht (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The U.S., Italy, and beyond!

We should include local govts. in the template. Many local govts. in Italy recognize same-sex marriage and should be included as well as local govts. in Italy and the U.S. that have same-sex unions. This template has had local govts. represented before (New Mexican counties) and before you argue "there was no law for or against same-sex marriage in New Mexico" well, there is no law for or against same-sex unions in Tenn. either. Prcc27 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is too much, we'll have billions of dots everywhere if we "accept" the cities (same for tribes, by the way)... Personnly, I prefer just showing the countries and the states, nothing more. And, in Italy, it's just symbolic, it does not grant same-sex union, actually, if I remember well. Titanicophile (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Titanicophile: This template doesn't have "dots". We would put the number of counties/cities like we did for New Mexico: "NM (8 counties)." I am strongly against removing tribes. Prcc27 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you may do it, I'm not against, but I fear the there are too much things on the template.. Titanicophile (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Tennessee? Isn't a constitutional ban a law against? If not, then I don't know what Tenn. stands for. Kumorifox (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: Tennessee has a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage, not civil unions. Prcc27 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• If civil unions are performed in TN, then it should be included in the civil unions section, regardless of the number of counties that perform them; if not, then TN does not belong in the template unless there is legislation or judicial precedence paving the road to having them performed (like Florida). I think the listing of counties will make things too detailed, you might as well go down to single boroughs or villages in that case. Just because it was done previously does not mean it should be kept if it makes things way too complicated, in my opinion. Adding a footnote to explain that there are certain less autonomous regions within a state or main province or whatever the main divisions are called per country would be a lot clearer than listing every subdivision. Kumorifox (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

Missouri judge has just overturned constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and the ruling was not stayed. Would like the page to be updated to reflect MO as performing same-sex marriage from previously recognizing marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/missouri-gay-marriage_n_6110348.html 2607:F140:400:A011:AD3B:1A2F:E95A:601F (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if the ruling applies to St. Louis only or to all of Missouri. If it is state-wide, the template should be updated with Missouri, but if St. Louis only, there should be no change to the template just yet. Kumorifox (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is from a state court for St Louis, meaning only officials in St Louis are legally bound by it;

""The Court FINDS and DECLARES that Defendant and any future Recorder of Deeds and Vital Records Registrar of the City of St. Louis has the authority to issue marriage licenses to any same sex couple that satisfies all the requirements for marriage under Missouri law, other than being of different sexes.""

ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dralwik The ruling only applies to St. Louis (city) per ChiZeroOne. Prcc27 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If we exclude jurisdictions that are issuing on implied precedent, note that West Virginia is still without a specific ruling. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014

Australia now recognizes same sex marriage: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/13/australia-new-south-wales-legalises-recognition-of-overseas-same-sex-marriages/ 86.3.200.81 (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: That's only 1 state, and only ones from overseas. Federal Australian government gives no recognition ("We call on the federal government to recognise the commitments..."). Stickee (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is why someone should update it. We mantion these things with the US, so why not with Australia? It's also a federal country--86.3.200.81 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

However, they don't allow same sex marriages. They only recognize ones that have already been performed overseas. I am declining this edit request. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We do (and did when the U.S. federal government didn't) list the U.S. states that recognize marriages of other jurisdictions. So if Australian states do as well, the IP's request is entirely correct. However, the news sources don't seem to be entirely correct since the referenced legislation has not been passed yet. The sources also say Queensland and Tasmania already recognize overseas same-sex marriages, but I didn't find much more information on that. SPQRobin (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please place it on the map, as it did go through, judging on the government-issued document (http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Forms/60-Rel-Reg-12Nov2014.pdf), so the law is in place right now. When it comes to Queensland, it's not recognised (http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/legalinformation/Relationships-and-children/Relationships/Pages/Marriage.aspx) and so in Tasmania (no source to confirm it). The government page on that was not updated since 2012 (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/SameSexMarriage), and is definitely out of date (it mentions only 6 states in the US having same-sex marriage, doesn't include other 7 countries). Talking about maps, User:Stickee, User:G S Palmer, User:SPQRobin: please could you update the map for EF English Proficiency Index to November 2014 results. I'd be REALLY GRATEFUL!--86.3.200.81 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Queesland and Tasmania are recognising marriages, BUT as CIVIL UNIONS - that is the essential information, so basically they don't recognise marriage- they just treat it as a civil partnership (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/differing-samesex-marriage-laws-create-headaches-for-couples-20140706-zsxvy.html). Now everything's clear.--86.3.200.81 (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Michigan

Since Michigan's same-sex marriage ban was upheld, shouldn't it be removed from the "Previously performed and not invalidated" section..? [1] Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: That's the same source I provided and it says the ruling invalidated the 300 marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say not yet as the case on those specific marriages has not been decided yet. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: To clarify, it says the circuit court ruling invalidated the 300 marriages. Since the ban is perfectly constitutionally (in the eyes of the Sixth Circuit) doesn't that mean that until a ruling states that those marriages are valid and should be recognized, the marriages are invalid because same-sex marriage is banned? Prcc27 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, since the State is refusing to recognize the marriages, it probably would be best to take them off until a ruling that Michigan must recognize them. If you remove Michigan I will not contest. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Absent a specific ruling that the marriages are void, I think it would be jumping the gun a bit. Because of the principle of separation of powers, I don't think Schuette has the power to void them himself; he only has the power to not recognise them, which is a different thing entirely (one of them is a judicial decision under common law, the other is administrative). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Sceptre: According to the sources provided and the AG, the Sixth Circuit ruling invalidated the marriages. Do you have a source that says Schuette doesn't have the power to void the marriages? Also, the wording in the template isn't "void", the wording is "invalidated" and because the Circuit Court decision trumps the District Court decision, it's as if the marriages never happened (according to one of the sources provided). Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

§25 of the Michigan constitution says nothing about the validity of marriages, only the recognition of them. Schuette has no power to void marriages because he's neither a judge nor has the state government of Michigan been given the power to do so. The federal government can, and almost certainly will, continue to recognise the 300 couples in Michigan as married as they were still legally entered into, even if the judgement allowing it has been overturned on appeal. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/16/3592750/michigan-void-marriages/; this seems to suggest that the marriages are in a "limbo" state, and not necessarily invalid (they're still being recognized by the federal government remember). I think perhaps they should be included under a different heading.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2014

please change from "10 tribes" to "11 tribes", see Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions 155.245.69.178 (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Prcc27 (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • cheers! 155.245.69.178 (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014

In the civil unions section, why are Gibraltar, Isle of Man, and Jersey listed separately and not under United Kingdom, as is the case with Greenland under Denmark, etc.? 104.174.8.144 (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is because Jersey, Gibraltar, and the Isle of Man are not actually part of the UK. They are considered Crown Dependencies and are subject to rule of the monarchy of the UK, but are not considered part of the UK itself. See the first paragraph on [2] for details on Jersey (which also applies to Gibraltar and the Isle of Man). Kumorifox (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

They also have their own parliaments, which (unlike those of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) do not have their powers devolved from the UK Parliament at Westminster but are wholly separate; hence laws passed at Westminster have no effect in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Gibraltar. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas

Why do we have the odd parenthetic comment on Kansas? We have not done this for other states that have had rulings against a ban where the circuit and SCOTUS have refused to hear the state's appeals. The ruling makes it clear that same-sex marriage must be allowed and recognized in Kansas. We should remove the count of counties that are actually following the ruling. Difbobatl (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Difbobatl: It was a preliminary injunction that only applied to two counties and one state official. Same-sex marriage is not legal statewide, nor is the state recognizing same-sex marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but it is legal statewide, no matter what the state officials say. The judge in Marie v. Moser found the ban unconstitutional, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court and, by having cert denied, the Supreme Court. And as John Marshall famously said 200 years ago, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is". Sceptre ^(talk) 18:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Sceptre: Just because a ban is found unconstitutional doesn't mean same-sex marriage is legalized. In Kentucky the ban was found unconstitutional but only recognition was legalized. In Cook County, Illinois the ban was found unconstitutional but same-sex marriage was only legalized in Cook County because the judge specifically said that the ruling only applied to Cook County. Limited rulings are possible and more common then you think. Prcc27 (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Finland

This vote does *not* legalize SSM in Finland, it is rather a vote to officially consider there is still a committee vote and then another vote of the entire parliament. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141128/world-europe/article/finland-takes-first-step-towards-legalising-gay-marriage Naraht (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

The listing for New Zealand under "Marriage" should have bullets under it that read "New Zealand proper" and "Ross Dependency" since same-sex marriage is not legal in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. This information can be found on the "Same-sex marriage in New Zealand" page. 98.71.18.19 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! I added NZ proper only, not the Ross Dependency, as it is doubtful any marriages will be performed there and it will just clog up the template. Kumorifox (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi

Aside from this ruling only being a preliminary injunction, the same-sex marriage performance part of this ruling is stayed indefinitely: "The Circuit Clerk of Hinds County shall continue to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex applicants and only those applicants until further word from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court." Thus, same-sex marriage recognition will go into effect in two weeks but same-sex marriage performance will not go in effect until we hear from a higher court [3]. Prcc27 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have a secondary source to back up my same-sex marriage performance indefinitely stayed claim: [4]. Prcc27 (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? Because this source contradicts your source. [5] I think he was only talking about the stay time and not talking about after December 9, 2014. I'm gonna edit it to show mississippi legalizing gay marriage soon and not recognizing it from other states because you don't have a link to back that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHC300 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• @AHC300: That source doesn't contradict my source. Both sources are consistent with when the stay expires, but my source notes that even when the stay expires, same-sex marriages can't be performed until we hear from a higher court. Please stop edit-warring! Prcc27 (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27: Uh yeah it does. Guess you didn't bother reading the article: "Mississippi argued that it wanted to avoid the “recent debacle in the State of Utah that resulted from the courts' 'on-again, off-again' treatment of same-sex marriage.” “[T]his Court should take action to prevent Mississippi from having to endure the same experience,” officials said." You have still yet to back up any of those sources that same-sex marriage would be recognized ONLY from different states. I would you for you to point that out for me. If the Circuit courts say otherwise in the next few days is one thing but I'm just going by the ruling he made. If it goes into effect it will. AHC300 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The order states that the State of Mississippi and all its agents, officers, employees, and subsidiaries are prevented from enforcing both the statute and the constitutional ban. The Hinds County clerk is named extra as she was also a defendant, but she is also an employee of the state, so she is already prevented from enforcing the bans. Both clauses state that out of state marriages will not be recognised in MS, but the constitutional amendment states that SSM will not be performed in MS. Since the amendment is also no longer enforceable, SSM is covered under the temporary stay.
  Additionally, the stay is pending appeal. If the state does not appeal to the 5th or to SCOTUS, the stay will simply expire. The stay might not expire on Hinds County, but once again, nothing is determined for the rest of the state, and that should be clarified if nothing is done with the 5th. Since MS already filed a notice of appeal, we can expect to hear from the 5th soon, with clarification on the stay. And while Wikipedia:CRYSTAL applies to the article, I am 99% certain that MS will soon be under a permanent stay, knowing the 5th and Justice Scalia. So let's leave it out of the template for now, as we all know what the likely outcome will be within the next 14 days. Kumorifox (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Prcc27:[6] And here is the most accurate source I could find saying it WILL go into effect on December 9/10, 2014. This is from the state of Mississippi who is fighting this case in court: "Pursuant to 5th Cir. Rule 27.3, in non-death penalty cases,motions seeking relief before the expiration of 14 days after filing are considered emergency motions and must meet the requirements of both Rule 27.3 and Fed. R. App. P. 8. The emergency arises from the fact that the temporary stay will expire on December 9, 2014. Unless this court enters an emergency stay, at that point, the preliminary injunction permitting same-sex marriage in Mississippi will go into effect.The State requests the Court enter a stay no later than December 8, 2014, effective unless and until such time as this Court rules that Mississippi’s traditional laws (and substantively identical laws in Louisiana and Texas) are prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. Absent the immediate entry of an emergency stay, at the open in of business on Wednesday, December 10, 2014, Mississippi circuit clerks will be forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in derogation of Mississippi’s strong public policy favoring traditional marriages, as reflected in state statutory and constitutional provisions." AHC300 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the point is moot, as the 5th granted a permanent stay. I took the liberty of removing MS from the template, so it is in line with TX with its permanent stay. Kumorifox (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015

The asterix following "Mexico" in the side-column reads "4" -- it should read "5". Thanks.

99.232.70.85 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Done. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam?

Apparently Vietnam has abolished the ban on same-sex marriages, even though the marriages are neither officially recognised nor protected by the government. But people can now get married in Vietnam. Should this be mentioned in the template? See [7] for the source. Kumorifox (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No. The template is titled, "Legal status of same-sex relationships", and it does not appear that the Vietnamese government gives same-sex marriages any legal status. - htonl (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad I asked, thanks. Kumorifox (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama

Same-sex marriage isn't necessarily legal in Alabama: [8] Prcc27 (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@S51438: Get consensus for your edit here before edit warring, thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Then at least add an asterisk after Alabama instead of removing it every time. The ban was struck, there is no stay, and no limitations were placed on the ruling itself. We are just waiting on clarification from the judge; until then, the ban is de jure struck and unenforceable. Kumorifox (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Chile approves same-sex civil unions.

Can you add Chile in this List, please?. Chile approves same-sex civil unions. Thank you! http://news.yahoo.com/chilean-lawmakers-approve-same-sex-civil-unions-011329435.html

Cquezadam (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Chile world same-sex marriage map

Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Missouri fine-tune

I fine-tuned the wording for Missouri's footnote; switched it from "Only legal in St. Louis, Missouri" to "Only legalized in St. Louis city, Missouri". I believe it more accurately captures the intricacies of both the legal decision and the difference between St. Louis city and county. Thanks, Abeg92contribs 17:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Abeg92: I don't think the change from legal to legalized is necessary since same-sex marriage is currently legal and sometimes legalized refers to a law that isn't in effect yet. Also, I would change "St. Louis city, Missouri" to "St. Louis (city), Missouri; and I will. Prcc27 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not what legalized means, see wikt:legalized → wikt:legalize → wikt:legalise#Verb. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

SSM is legal in all 50 states. (No-where will you be convicted of a crime for SSM.) It is recognized in all of MO. But only in St. Louis is legally required to issue licenses, while two other counties issue them without being required. So neither "legal" or "legalized" are correct. — kwami (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Legal means "permitted by law" and legalized means "to make legal"; which is why I think "legal" is more appropriate. Something doesn't have to be a crime for it to be illegal, it just has to be "forbidden by law". Prcc27 (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Prcc27. For the reason he gave, if you have a problem with "legal", then "legalized" doesn't help because all it means is "legal after having not been legal". To say that SSM is not legal in a state is to say that the law doesn't provide for SSM. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2015

Removing the * from Michigan regarding recognition of previously preformed marriages. Recognition is no longer pending. It took effect February 5, 2016, 21 days after the January 15, 2015 ruling in Casper v. Snyder http://freemarry.3cdn.net/a23500c04c85189d47_50m6b90fz.pdf and the state is not appealing http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277--346819--,00.html

Toajones8 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done I've brought the template up to HTML5 compliance, but I don't see a * next to MI, so I can't remove it. Please be more clear with what you want or preferably show us by putting the desired change in the /sandbox per WP:TESTCASES. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Making the third "See also" box consistent with the width of the rest

188.246.72.30 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what change you want done? I don't see a problem with the text in the template, myself. Kumorifox (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. In this line in the original template, the semicolon is after the quotation marks
{| class="collapsible collapsed plainlist" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #E6E6FA";
and it should be before it and then the "See more" section expands to the full width of the rest like so
{| class="collapsible collapsed plainlist" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid #E6E6FA;"
You can try it in the template and you'll see that it affects it. --188.246.72.30 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I was mistakenly looking at the example you posted instead of the actual template. I changed it, the template should be fine now. Kumorifox (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

In future, please don't copypaste the entire template to the talk page (see WP:PER#Requests for templates), instead amend its sandbox (see WP:TESTCASES). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2015

President of Finland just signed the gender-neutral marriage law. The map should be changed then. We usually don't wait the moment the law take effect.

2A02:1205:34CE:ED30:6525:BE10:E8FB:AD4B (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Template changed and asterisk added. Not sure if a footnote is needed, as the law will not go into effect until March 2017. Kumorifox (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In Venezuela the recognition of same sex couples not exist.

In Venezuela the recognition of same sex couples not exist. The information about of the state Mérida with the same sex couples is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJAJ55 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

All sources I can find says Mérida recognises civil unions. Which one did I miss that says they are not? Kumorifox (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Alabama 2

Not sure what to do w AL. Technically legal, but apparently licenses are no longer being issued anywhere in the state. I added a fn; feel free to change. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose a move to "no longer performed but still recognized", barring clarification from either the state Supreme Court that the state must enforce the ban or from the federal court that the state Supreme Court is in flagrant violation of the supremacy clause and binding judicial precedent. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. This move by the AL Supreme Court is unconstitutional. Difbobatl (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The sick thing is that a court order does actually only bind the plaintiffs and defendants. When you get to the nitty-gritty of it, the SCOAL is simply reinforcing the initial ruling, stating that Judge Granade's ruling is only binding for the plaintiffs who were part of the case. The ruling stopped short of saying SSM is legal in AL, and the SCOAL is taking this literally. The remaining states that had their bans struck did not go this far (aside from KS, of course) because they knew there would be further litigation involved if judges or clerks would hold out and refuse to issue. But AL has a history of making life difficult for people after court cases involving civil rights. Kumorifox (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It probably is, and the other standing bans in other states and territories are probably unconstitutional as well -- but that is for a higher court to decide, not us as Wikipedians. As the state court ruling was silent on the point of recognition, I have moved Alabama to "recognized" for now. I wouldn't be surprised if some legal "clarification" (which may or may not actually clear up anything) comes down the pike in the near future, and we'll just have to deal with it when it does. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Or we can just keep misrepresenting the status of same-sex unions in Alabama. That's cool. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

AL should be moved to "no longer performed" for the time being. Constitutional or not, the fact is that there are no marriages performed right now, so its position in the "performed" section is incorrect. Kumorifox (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Until the conflicting rulings situation is settled, Alabama belongs in the recognition section with a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Recognition, yes; performed, no. I assume that is what you mean? Kumorifox (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Kumorifox: Yes. Prcc27 (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Kumorifox (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

Add Slovenia. 82.132.218.75 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The bill has not been signed yet, and the template rules state that, until a bill is signed or a judge has handed down a verdict, the template should remain as-is. Until the bill is signed, Slovenia should not be added. Kumorifox (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Check the same-sex union legislation page, the President merely promulgates laws; it is published as an act of parliament. We should make the change now. Chase1493 (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sicily Italy

I think that Sicily should be marked in light blue. Although civil unions in other Italian regions are symbolical, Sicily is semi-autonomous region and recently approved civil unions:

http://livesicilia.it/2015/03/21/registro-delle-unioni-civili-sicilia-modello-per-litalia_608641/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.100.211 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Guam

Guam recognizes all marriages legally performed outside of the territory. See page 3 of this document, and this secondary source. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I support Guam being in the recognition column. Prcc27 (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Malta

Shouldn't Malta be removed from the recognition column per previous consensus and because there isn't a source that explicitly says Malta recognizes same-sex marriages? Prcc27 (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Under court order

I think it's important to list St. Louis as issuing under court order, because the other two jurisdictions are technically rogue! Prcc27 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't go into that degree of detail for other jurisdictions. Also, what were your reasons for removing AL? I don't see anything about AL stopping recognition of its own marriages in recent reports. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami: There aren't any other rogue jurisdictions on this template. I'm against mentioning those two counties as it is, but if we're going to mention them- people should be aware that ssm might not technically be legal there. As for Alabama... I'm not sure what the status of same-sex recognition is there or how the ruling today affects it. Prcc27 (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I kinda see your point, though the entire state of Kansas is rogue. Maybe we can get some feedback at the SSM in the US talk page?

No indication of change (for AL) means that we shouldn't change anything. Of course, if the claim wasn't justified in the first place (I don't know), that's another matter. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In a way, yes, all of Kansas is rogue with the exception of two counties. However, the judge that legalized same-sex marriage in Kansas has jurisdiction over the entire state of Kansas while the judge that legalized same-sex marriage in Missouri has jurisdiction over St. Louis only. So if a county follows the district court ruling in Kansas, they're not necessarily breaking the law because the ban was struck down, but they're not required to follow the ruling either. In Missouri however, the ban is intact everywhere but St. Louis. Prcc27 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

update on the number of tribal jurisdictions to 23 + 1 necessary, see Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Done! Prcc27 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • thanx! 155.245.69.178 (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Mexico?

According to this article, Mexico has complete access to SSM, even though couples may have to go to a judge to get an injunction if they are initially refused a license. Is this ready for inclusion in the template, or is it necessary for the Supreme Court in Mexico to rule outright on the ban? Kumorifox (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I know the English press is making this sound this way. There is a discussion on my page, which I should probably put on the Mexico page. They do not have full access to marriage. The situation is NO different than it has been except that now a judge cannot say no to the amparo request. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you :) Kumorifox (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I posted it here and if you can think of anywhere else it needs to be posted, please feel free to add it. I am overwhelmed by the amount of queries this "wee bit of exaggeration" is producing. Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico SusunW (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands

It seems that the British overseas territory of Pitcairn Islands have legalized same-sex marriage via an ordinance issued by the Governor on 5 May and published on 13 May 2015. It took effect on the day after publication. See [9], [10], [11]. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Should the Pitcairn Islands be added under the UK? It is an overseas territory, but it is not part of the UK. We have places like Jersey and Gibraltar separate, so Pitcairn Islands should be as well. Kumorifox (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Jersey, Gibraltar, and Isle of Man are also listed under UK in civi unions section. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Must have been another template I was thinking of then. Thanks for pointing that out for me. Kumorifox (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Whilst not part of the actual Kingdom (ie the Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), they are part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, and under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

British crown dependencies and overseas territories

Should we treat the crown dependencies and overseas territories as a part of the UK? Ron 1987 (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but that might be confusing. The law which passed in the UK only applied to England and Wales. All of the rest of the UK, overseas territories and dependencies are having their own debates and discussions. In fact, though the law provided for a means to convert a civil union, if one resides in an overseas territory that does not allow equality, the only way to convert your union to marriage is to go to England and do it. Human Dignity Trust is currently involved in an inquiry as to why this is so, but it is at present the state of the situation. SusunW (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to my edit, I would say it only seems logical to list them as possessions of the UK. For a similar instance, take Greenland. It is autonomous over its own marriage and family law, but we still list it belonging to Denmark. Likewise, the crown dependencies (plus Gibraltar) have the most similar relationship to the UK as Greenland does to Denmark and thus should be formatted the same. I'm not trying to argue either way, just merely pointing out we should have consistency; which was the basis for my edit. Chase1493 (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are not independent nations, they are just highly autonomous form the United Kingdom. As such they should be treated as part of the UK for the purpose of this template.CH7i5 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

The state of Chihuaha just turned blue.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/mexico-state-chihuahua-officially-approves-same-sex-marriage120615

2A02:1205:505F:7050:ACA4:DA48:77DD:F3B0 (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now:
You will need to update Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico#Chihuahua, to include the information and reference(s), before the template is changed.
That article is not protected, so you can do that, then reactivate this request by changing "answered=y" to "answered=no" on the edit page (first line under the header, in this section) - Arjayay (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Updated article, made Chihuahua its own page Same-sex marriage in Chihuahua and corrected lede on Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico to reflect legality in Chihuahua. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Does that let you do it? And, please see comment on my talk page. SusunW (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And can someone fix the map that is only blue for Chihuahua if you click on it? On the pages Same-sex marriage in Coahuila, Same-sex marriage in Chihuahua, Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo and the main page Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico it shows as brown, but if you click on the map, it turns blue? SusunW (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that is an issue with the pages being cached and should work itself out. I'm not seeing it on Coahuila.Naraht (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure when it was added, but this has been done.Naraht (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Mexican states

So I noticed that all of the Mexican states have been changed to their full names. While I like the idea, things will probably be changing quickly there now that the Supreme Court has created the precedent necessary to force change across the states. I think that we should stick with the two letter abbreviations for the states, primarily because there simply won't be enough room to list all of them later. Thoughts or proposals? Chase1493 (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. And I don't think there was every consensus to change it... Prcc27 (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• We'd have to do the same thing for the civil union section with Mexico, Australia, etc. also. Prcc27 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That does leave one glaring inconsistency though, what to do with the United Kingdom. I suppose we could justify keeping the full names due to them being four constituent countries. However, if (but more likely when) Northern Ireland legalizes marriage, will we remove the England, Wales and Scotland? I would be under the assumption we would, but that leaves the crown dependencies and overseas territories. While I don't think there will be any movement in most of the territories for a while; they are pretty numerous. The only way I could see something happen rapidly would be if there was an order in council to legalize across the board, although that seems very unlikely. We could save this conversation for another day, but if anyone has an idea I would love to hear it. Chase1493 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2-letter abbreviations for the Mexican states seems like a safer option to me. I think in the event Northern Ireland legalizes same-sex marriage, the template should just say "United Kingdom". I don't think the overseas territories are important enough to worry about, just like if American Samoa never legalizes in the United States, I don't really think that's important enough to include in the template. People who are that interested in these minor outliers and exceptions can read about them in the main articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Support rv to abbrev for Mex states. If NI legalizes, we can just say "UK proper", as we do for NZ and Denmark, since the names are ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support the change for Mexico. SusunW (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright well then I'm going to go ahead and make the change. Hopefully it doesn't get reverted. Thanks for the input. Chase1493 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Two Letters or Three?

From looking at Administrative divisions of Mexico, it appears that the entire concept of which two letter abbreviations to use for each state represents Original Research. Should we use the three letter ISO codes instead?Naraht (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

United States

The supreme court has ruled same sex marriage legal nation wide (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341) 87.112.206.54 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The ruling will apply to most territories, but not clear about American Samoa, where the 14th Amendment does not fully apply. Also not clear how it will interact with the sovereignty of the tribes. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I read articles published before the ruling that said the tribes would not be affected by the ruling as they are sovereign nations.--occono (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Why does the 14th Amendment not apply to American Samoa..? Prcc27 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The 14th guarantees citizenship for all born in the US. But Am. Samoa is not in the US, so citizenship requires an act of Congress. (This was legislated to prevent the country from being overrun by savages - not kidding.) This was upheld in the recent DC Circuit case. If I remember correctly, we have a treaty obligation with Germany to *not* grant citizenship to Am. Samoans. The Am. Samoan govt. opposes the granting of US citizenship because that would interfere with the local judicial system, which currently does not need to follow US law in several areas. It's clear that the SCOTUS ruling applies to US territories where the inhabitants are citizens, as they're equal under the law per the 14th, but I haven't heard anything about it applying to non-citizens. For all we know, it could be similar to the tribes. — kwami (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

All American Indians born in the U.S. (including on Indian reservations) are U.S. citizens by an act of Congress back in the 20s. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Even though they're citizens, the ruling does not apply to them. So does it apply where people aren't citizens? — kwami (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think the ruling does not apply to them? If you have a source for that claim I would like to see it. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They're "sovereign" (sort-of) nations, so US law does not automatically apply. (This has been sourced elsewhere on this or a related page.) For Am.Samoa, the people are not citizens, so US law does not automatically apply. It could be that it does in this case, that there's no difference, but this is an obscure area of constitutional law that I rather doubt anyone here is competent to answer. We really need a RS specifically for Am. Samoa. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop adding a disclaimer about places that aren't following the law according to the SCOTUS! We don't list any given judge anywhere else that doesn't follow their own law. There is absolutely no consensus to change this on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• The mandate hasn't even been issued yet... Besides, the SCOTUS ruling is technically a precedent; it doesn't directly strike down every jurisdictions' ban, but same-sex marriage will eventually be legal nationwide (except Native American Tribal jurisdictions). Prcc27 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? — kwami (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Inclusion Criteria for this template state: "When marriage has been legalized through a US court decision, we wait until either the supreme court in the jurisdiction affirms the decision" - this has occurred, and therefore there is no need for any additional notation on the US listing. No talk has been given to changing that! Difbobatl (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The ruling hasn't been implemented in every jurisdiction yet. For example, Mississippi is waiting for their stay to be lifted or for the Fifth Circuit to make their own ruling on the matter. Prcc27 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

That is NOT what the inclusion criteria state. You have no basis for undoing my changes. Please cease and desist! Difbobatl (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:, @Rreagan007:, @Occono: will you guys please weigh in on whether or not having a footnote that says "not yet in effect in all jurisdictions" goes against the inclusion criteria, because this getting a little annoying. Prcc27 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we can all read the inclusion criteria, so we don't need 3 select users to decide this. Do we need some official wikipedian vote on some motion? Difbobatl (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, the inclusion criteria date from a time before we had the "Not yet in effect [in all jurisdictions]" footnotes. The criteria address whether a country/state should appear in the "Marriage" section of the template at all, not whether they should have a footnote. I think the footnotes are an appropriate solution to distinguishing those jurisdictions where SSM is currently legal from those where it is inevitable but not yet happened. I'd also like to remind everyone here about the WP:3RR policy. - htonl (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If the issue is that some feel the inclusion criteria no longer fit the situation, then there should be a vote on the inclusion criteria. SSM is legal nation-wide in the US. The question is whether or not some jurisdictions yet recognize that. I don't think that is the point of this template... Difbobatl (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

And if anyone wants a citation, a quote from the opinion by Justice Kennedy: " The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize samesex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character." Difbobatl (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That kind of is the point of this template. We already have the "not yet in effect" footnote- so the "not yet in effect in all jurisdictions" is just as appropriate. We don't need to change the inclusion criteria because it has nothing to do with the footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Very recently there were judges in the south that would refuse to license interracial couples. Would you put a disclaimer for that? Difbobatl (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Difbobatl: A) the Supreme Court's ruling is already in effect for loving whereas we are still waiting for SCOTUS to issue their mandate for Obergefell. B) Every state that banned interracial marriage has officially repealed their ban so the recent actions of those judges went against state law. Prcc27 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Texas AG is telling county workers they don't have to issue SSM licenses, and tho they might face lawsuits if they have no-one to take over for them, the state has a bevy of lawyers to defend them. Sounds like marriage might not be open to SS couples across the state (tho presumably people can go to the next county over, as they can in Kansas). — kwami (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami: SSM is still fully de jure legal in Texas because federal law trumps state law. So does that mean you're for the "not yet in effect in all jurisdictions" footnote or no? Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone here agrees that it is de jure legal throughout the US after Obergefell. As far as I know, though, we try to describe the de facto position as well; the footnote is how we indicate that there is a mismatch between the law and what is actually happening currently. - htonl (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My point is that why should we list counties/judges/etc who are ignoring SCOTUS? We are now getting into the morass of individual judges and such that is impossible to keep track of and serves no purpose. The template should be to track where it is legal. It is legal in the entire US. Difbobatl (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

But we're not listing counties/judges/etc who are ignoring SCOTUS - I agree that would be a bad idea for exactly the reasons you give. All we have is a small footnote noting that the process is still underway. - htonl (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A footnote without details is useless, especially when the people covered by said footnote are de minimus. As I said, VERY recently (even after state laws were changed) we would have needed a footnote under interracial marriage using the same logic. State laws didn't get changed until more than 30 years after the supreme court decision on Loving in some cases (2000 in the case of AL)... 72.162.1.252 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that all states are licensing SSM now anyway. Difbobatl (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Three states are being difficult though. And it's still illegal in many territories. So the footnote is still needed. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is no legal status of "difficult". In a couple states some judges/counties are being unofficially (and illegally) encouraged to state personal beliefs trump SCOTUS. As far as territories, only American Samoa is different - which could be a sub-listing like is done for Greenland, for instance. There remains NO NEED for a footnote! Difbobatl (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The SCOTUS ruling struck down bans directly in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. he ruling hasn't even received the mandate yet. For the rest of the states the SCOTUS' ruling is precedent and same-sex marriage will eventually be legal nationwide, but that isn't the case yet. Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It is already the law now. Besides, those states have given up on their false argument about 25 days and are now saying they are allowing officiants to not give licenses / perform ceremonies (forever essentially) based on personal belief. Difbobatl (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Those states have not given up. Kansas still doesn't recognize same-sex marriages and Louisiana is still awaiting a decision by the Fifth Circuit. Prcc27 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That is not the case. There are numerous articles pointing out that licences are being offered in all states now - not necessarily by all judges. Difbobatl (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • That doesn't mean same-sex marriage is recognized in those states. If the state doesn't recognize same-sex couples and provide them with benefits, then same-sex marriage isn't fully legal. Prcc27 (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Please see [12]. Also, no state at this point is saying they won't recognize these marriages. The argument at this point is over licensing, is localized, and is very temporary. Difbobatl (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • We're not talking about what they will do, we're talking about what they're doing NOW. Since those states aren't recognizing same-sex marriages NOW it should say "not yet in effect in all jurisdictions". Kansas did NOT say they will recognize same-sex marriages- they said they're reviewing the ruling. And I still haven't heard of any territories issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Prcc27 (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I think you are trying your best to invent problems that aren't here. If you want to start providing sources and get some kind of consensus about them, fine; but at the moment it doesn't look like there is any need for a footnote. Difbobatl (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Louisiana will not comply until the Fifth Circuit steps in: [13] Prcc27 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • That is an old story and does not reflect the current situation in Louisiana. Difbobatl (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Then provide a source to shows the current situation in Louisiana! We must assume that Louisiana doesn't recognize same-sex marriages until proven otherwise. And just because some parishes are issuing same-sex licenses doesn't mean the state is recognizing same-sex marriage yet! Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Source from YESTERDAY: [14]! Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I agree a note should be added, such as 'Not yet in effect in all jurisdictions', because that is the truth and what reliable sources state. I fail to see why a note should not be added like Ireland and Slovenia AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment I disagree about adding a note. SSM is legal in the US as per Obergefell v. Hodges. Difbobatl (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, the ruling doesn't mean squat for Native American tribes and American Samoa. Just because same-sex marriage is "legal" doesn't mean the law is in effect. Prcc27 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Although a Native American couple can still be wed at their county courthouse via the state government, so while the tribe itself might not offer a ceremony or tribal recognition, federal and state recognition is still available. IMO trying to track the tribal governments is too much detail -- and effort -- for this template. When we had tribes offering marriage in banning states (like the two Michigan tribes), those were jurisdictions worth tracking but now such an exclave of equality is no longer a possibly. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Very true., User:Prcc27 Just as is the case for Slovenia, Ireland, Greenland etc, same-sex marriage may have been made legal but not in effect yet. A note is sensible. Questions also remain about tribal jurisdictions and American Samoa. Additionally, even if same-sex marriage is de jure legal, if officials and counties are not issuing licences, it is not de facto legal. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That is why I supported sublisting the territories, since they are different. Difbobatl (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The territories aren't different- only American Samoa is. And AFAIC there's consensus to re-add the footnote so I think we should do that soon! Prcc27 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, currently I think consensus exists to add a footnote. The simple reality is same-sex marriage is not currently recognised and performed in all jurisdictions. It may be soon, but it is not currently, just like Greenland, Ireland, Slovenia etc AusLondonder (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There has not been enough time for a consensus. WP:No Deadline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Essays are not Wikipedia policies." There is consensus and the footnote will soon be added! Prcc27 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The situation in the US has nothing to do with the situation in Greenland (other than American Samoa). This is why it would be a good idea to sublist the territories. There is no reason for an obsession about doing it "soon!"... Difbobatl (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• It has been discussed for long enough, there is consensus, and you seem to be the only one strongly against it. United States' situation is unique so it deserves a unique footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, now all 50 states and DC recognize SSM. If we want to be consistent with what we've done with other countries, and if we feel the need to further footnote the US, we need to sublist US Proper and Territories (with Tribal Jurisdictions as an additional if there is consensus). Then the footnotes can go to the section as appropriate. This is what was done with Greenland, UK, etc... Difbobatl (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Kansas governor is still holding off full recognition. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:, @Rreagan007:, @Occono:, @AusLondonder:, @Dralwik:, @72.162.1.252:, @Htonl: Now that there is consensus for the footnote, @Difbobatl: is changing the wording of what was originally proposed. So which wording do you guys prefer: "Legal, but not yet recognized in all jurisdictions" or "not yet in effect for all jurisdictions"? Prcc27 (talk)

I prefer "Legal, but not yet recognized..." Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The first sounds better, but it's not legal in VI, PR, or arguably KS. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "Legal, but not yet recognized". It is legal in VI, PR, and KS for the many reasons that have been previously documented. Even VI, PR, and KS themselves admit this, they are just taking time (intentionally or not) implementing... Difbobatl (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Until things are implemented, "legal" is an inaccurate term. Same-sex marriage isn't legal until a law (like PR's executive order) goes into effect. Prcc27 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Prcc27 - That is not what "legal" means. See the wikipedia article on legality. It is already legal (possibly excluding AM Samoa). Also, i'm not sure implemented is a legally appropriate term in this case. Difbobatl (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think, tribal jurisdictions should be included into the template because they are in a way sovereign jurisdictions sui generis not (yet) covered by US law in that particular field 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Last I saw with Puerto Rico, *everybody* involved is trying to get the commonwealth's "win" at the District level erased ASAP with the commonwealth committed to have all of its paperwork and regs ready for July 15. http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=21162&MediaType=1&Category=26

Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius.

I think we should add Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius to Netherlands. SSM is legal in Caribbean Netherlands. --Simon 015 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Caribbean Netherlands is a part of the Netherlands proper (already included in the template). Ron 1987 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)