Template talk:Same-sex unions

Mexican State count

The change here has been from 20 to 21, the first reference that I can find in English is https://yucatanmagazine.com/yucatan-gay-marriage-equality-bill/ which says it is 22nd. Any ideas? Naraht (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, https://www.equalityontrial.com/2021/08/23/8-23-open-thread/ I *know* it counts as a blog, but it has a *lot* of links to News sources as it goes. And there seems to be consistent use of 22nd but with the *however* that they have undone the chance to the state constitution, but they still have to change the family code. (so the count would still be 21)Naraht (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Not yet legal in Yucatan. It had been both illegal and unconstitutional; now it's just illegal, like the other 10 states where SSM is illegal.

As for the count, the discrepancy of 1 is 'states' vs 'federal entities' (states + CDMX). It's now 20 out of 31 states, 21 out of 32 entities. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

And just making it illegal isn't going to fly with the Supreme Court. Ah. I'm in Maryland which actually has the same situation, the City of Baltimore isn't a county, it is a county equivalent. (so 23 counties, 24 county equivalents). At this point, there appears to be growing support for actually giving the supreme court the ability to make National decision because everyone involved is getting sick of the Supreme Court having to deal with all of them separately.Naraht (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It's just a matter of time, either way. But some states won't budge until the court threatens to start fining them. Though I think Veracruz is trying to legalize to avoid the embarrassment of that happening. — kwami (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Switzerland revisited

Switzerland legalized same-sex marriage, but it's premature to have it listed how it currently is, because so far, same-sex couples aren't able to marry. The law hasn't taken effect yet [1]. Prcc27 (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's marked as not in effect yet. That's how we handled previous cases like this. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for fixing that! It wasn't like that when I intially created this section. Prcc27 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I only noticed your comment here some time after I fixed it, didn't realized that until after I responded. — kwami (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

three columns now?

Does it make sense to try to change the template so that the countries show up in three columns? I tried changing the width to 6em, but the UK and US went outside the border with their footnotes numbers.Naraht (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Too wide for my browser, or columns too narrow for indented contents. — kwami (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If the United Kingdom becomes UK and the United States are USA, then the Marriage section looks OK. However, I can't seem to get the other sections to the same setup. (I tried adding the entry with 6em to the front of the remaining sections and got wierd overlap)Naraht (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

In Chile

Chile just approved same sex marriage. The national congress ratified it on 7 december 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.231.106 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Still needs to be signed into law. Won't take effect until 90 days after that, so presumably some time in March 2022. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup of usages and links?

In *General* a template should be on the pages that it links to. I know there are exceptions, but this template seems to have a particularly large number of issues in that regard. There are 153 Wikipedia pages that this template is on that aren't links, and 13 that it links to that it doesn't appear on.

https://templatetransclusioncheck.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3ASame-sex+unions

Most of the pages in the first group (153) are pages about Same Sex Marriage in subnational entities that may have been linked from the template at one time, but no longer are, for example: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Same-sex marriage in Manitoba, Same-sex marriage in Oaxaca and Same-sex marriage in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands . There are also others where the state of Marriage in the country is so low that they don't make the template such as Recognition of same-sex unions in Serbia.

The second group, where the template links to but aren't on the page are a more eclectic mix....

Surely this template is an over-arching navigation template for same-sex marriage articles in general? If I am on the SSM article about Serbia/Mali/Andorra or wherever, I would find this template useful. Jdcooper (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe so. That would be Template:Status of same-sex unions which isn't a sidebar. When one of these two should be used and when the other should be used, I'm not sure. I can take a look to see if that Template is OK for links vs. Inclusions.Naraht (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't say what I meant to say! I meant for countries that have same-sex marriage (or civil unions etc.). I really don't see the problem with this being on more articles than it links to. Jdcooper (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Armenia

@Kwamikagami and Buidhe: The claim that Armenia offers minimal recognition doesn't seem quite right. We should have evidence before we make the claim. Due weight here is questionable. Same-sex marriages are not actually legal. That dubious information was reported in July 2017. It's been 5 years. That was never confirmed by the government. On 26 August 2019, the Minister of Justice Rustam Badasyan, actually refuted those dubious claims, stating that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriages. No case had so far occurred in practice. 212.97.4.68 (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)