Talk:Same-sex marriage

is there actually conscensus for this?

Same-sex marriage has been defined in this article as that 'of two people of the same legal sex or gender.' Do most editors agree with this? That definition clearly does not match even the name of the article. Defining same-sex marriage as a simple legal procedure is a bit dehumanising to people in those unions. Legal gender is irrelevant because it first assumes same-sex marriage is solely a legal status, ignoring cultural and social contexts. The most objective definition should be only about sex. I believe we should change the current definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heikocvijic (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The most objective definition should be only about sex: do you actually have any sources that support this statement? I get that some editors believe this, but as long as sources don't, their beliefs are pretty much irrelevant. As far as I know, essentially all the RS on this topic are concerned with legal sex and/or gender. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

marriage is only a legal concept? If that's the case then this entire article is extremely flawed. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage Marriage is defined as an institution. https://www.britannica.com/topic/marriage 'The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions for which it provides structure, such as sexual gratification and regulation, division of labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption, and satisfaction of personal needs for affection, status, and companionship.' Even the article marriage does not define it as always legal. Still, 'same-sex' is a pretty simple concept which the definition of this article does not encapsulate Heikocvijic (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the concept "same-sex" when applied to marriage has always applied to legal sex and/or gender. Please note that the term legal is relevant to sex, not to marriage - this is not an attempt to specify "same-sex legal marriage" but rather "marriage of persons of the same legal sex or gender". I hope this helps. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I fully disagree with this. It is saying marriage is only a social institution if it applies to straight people. This is homophobic. It is also not true to assume that the term 'same-sex marriage' only applies to legal marriage since most coverage on it has been about the effort to make it legal, understandably. The words marriage and same-sex have definitions, and saying gay people can only experience the institution of marriage on a legal level does not add up to the definition of marriage. The article doesn't just talk about marriage as a legal institution either Heikocvijic (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

All of the coverage of SSM assumes legal recognition of the marriage. A gay couple shacking up is marriage in the social sense, but is not considered a SSM.

I have friends, an opposite-sex couple, who lived together. They considered themselves married. After ten years, they decided to make it official. They asked the county clerk to recognize their marriage, and he said he couldn't do that, because they weren't married. That is, to the clerk, the legal recognition, not the social institution, was the marriage. They then asked to speak to his supervisor, and he said, "sure, we'll recognition your marriage", and stamped the marriage certificate. Legally I don't know whether they were married or not before that point, but all the coverage of SSM assumes that they weren't.

At a national level, "marriage" means legal recognition of marriage. I don't know about societies that consider shacking up to be marriage and accept same-sex couples who shack up as married, but we speak of countries legalizing SSM, and afaik that always means legal recognition of the marriage. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

then if the article is only about legalisation of same-sex marriage, then the title is incorrect. The article is not only about that, and the sections about it are in the article (e.g. the table of countries and territories that have legalised it). The article is not about marriage only as a legal institution Heikocvijic (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but do RS's ever speak of a same-sex couple shacking up in the 1950s as "married"? We need to follow RS's. — kwami (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I have already stated my position. The definition of SSM in this article is fully a legal one, implying the concept of marriage for gay people is only a mere legal status. That does not match with the definition of marriage, hence with the name of the ssm article. If this article will only care about the legal aspect fine, but it does not. I respect your positions but I disagree with them Heikocvijic (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A compound word may mean something other than the sum of its parts. If the 'same sex' part of SSM doesn't mean same sex, then the 'marriage' part doesn't need to mean marriage. SSM is a term for a specific cultural and political phenomenon. If you have sources which use the term for something more, then great, we can expand the article to include them. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It is saying marriage is only a social institution if it applies to straight people. This is homophobic. What? You are replying to my comment, but neither I nor anyone else in this discussion has said anything like this.

It is also not true to assume that the term 'same-sex marriage' only applies to legal marriage since most coverage on it has been about the effort to make it legal, understandably. The words marriage and same-sex have definitions - I don't see the relevance of any of this to the current discussion, except the point at the end that "same-sex" has a definition. It does, and on the topic of this article, that definition is "of the same legal sex or gender". Nobody in this discussion has put forward any evidence to the contrary. Newimpartial (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A marriage needs to become official, and we can't call it a marriage without that. That's why the legal aspect of a marriage is so important. I hope you agree with this at least. Aminabzz (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, @Newimpartial clearly stated that here, the term legal is relevant to sex and not to marriage. But you again insisted on the term "legal marriage". Aminabzz (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe talk to more LGBT people? :) I don't want to get too involved but for what it's worth, I *am* in a SSM and it's very much about the legal status and implications for us and a lot of other people in SSM we know, especially those surrounding next of kin status, the legal status of a surviving partner and (though not in our case) that of children. While we enjoyed celebrating the event with friends, we didn't do it to somehow announce it (everyone who needed to know already did...) or because it changed how we felt about each other, we don't need a registrar who doesn't know us for that. If you look at the history of SSM and its precursors, it always was to a largel extent about the terrible positions the lack of a legal status put LGBT couples in when running up against anything where you need to prove this relationship is formal, not just casual. So no, I'm not offended by the legalistic aspects in the description. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Akerbeltz. You may be trying to keep out of it, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on the thread above. We're just going around in circles. What is SSM -- is it only based on legally recognized sex or gender, or does gender identity play a role? If the latter, then our history section is wrong; if the former, our def needs to be clear about that and have a RS to back it up. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually get it why there is this furious debate above. To me, certainly in practice, SSM is about what it says in your legal documents (birth cert, passport, whatever) and your prospective spouse's and whether the combination of the two entitles you to (religious or civil) marriage and the entailed legal consequences. The sex stated in your documents may or may not coincide with your gender identity but I have never seen or heard of marriage paperwork that asks you what your gender identity is, it's all about what your legal sex is (whether that's the one you were born with or - where that is possible - what you changed it to) and whether the combination thereof in- or excludes you from marriage with your chosen partner.

As it's biology, which isn't as binary as humans sometimes think it is or would like it to be, I'm sure there is a grey area where you get combinations of partners which seem to defy the mixed-sex model of marriage, but I don't see what that should prevent the core definition of SSM being about people of the same legal sex being allowed to marry. It's in a way the same as other legal entitlements that are gender-based, take retirement age (in places where that is still different depending on your legal sex), which is also based on your legal sex, not your gender identity though of course you can change that - legally - since the gender recognition act. But again that's about the legal sex in your paperwork, irrespective of whether you identify with that or not.

Whether it should be based on gender identity is a different debate altogether to my mind. Not sure if that helps? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

PS the bit of the debate about whether the historic semantics of the word marriage mean it cannot be used for SSM, that's absurd. Sure, people who like language often study the derivation of words but every living language is replete with words which have shifted meanings, some over a long time, some abruptly. Not ever hoover is a Hoover and not every kleenex is a Kleenex but hey, genericization will do its thing. A deer used to be any animal, not just a cervid. Does that mean you can prosecute someone for shooting a duck and claim they shot a deer because a deer originally was any animal? Of course not. So whatever 'marriage' meant 200 years ago or 2000 years ago, the fact is that people use it in the term SSM to refer to two people of the same legal sex getting married. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, our sources covering which countries have SSM, and the history of SSM, use your definition or at least something close to it. If we consistently used that definition, there would be no problem.

(We could have a section on non-recognized SSM if we had sources to demonstrate its notability. My working def of 'marriage' is 'people in a sexual or romantic relationship move in together to form a family'. Move in together, you're married; move out, you're divorced. That is, same-sex couples have been getting married for forever, it's just usually been under the table. Everything else is social/legal recognition for communities that are too large for everyone to know everyone's business.)

But we have RS's with contrary definitions -- biological sex, social gender, and gender identity. By those definitions, Italy has SSM today and the US had SSM in 1850.

Do you think "legal sex" is adequate? Do we need to add "legal gender"? — kwami (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that this article's content must, as with all other WP articles, be based on what the reliable sources on the topic actually say, and not on OR definitions and SYNTH observations made by editors. Just a reminder. Newimpartial (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean like the OR that you insisted on making yourself, against the very source you used for it? — kwami (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Re marriage' is 'people in a sexual or romantic relationship move in together to form a family I'm not sure I would concur with that, however, there's often a difference between the legal definition of a thing, common interpretations and individual interpretations. Take foraging, which is legal but what type of foraging is actually legal is quite a house of cards ... you can legally forage for private use and on private land, the land owner can't stop you but if you're doing it without their permission, they can kick you off their land and confiscate your blackberries. You can forage dandelion leaves but you're actually breaking the law if you're digging up dandelion roots because it's illegal to dig up 'wild plants' (however common). And so on. In contrast, most people have a much more simplistic interpretation of the right to forage - which is often legally wrong. And on a personal level, I think it's morally wrong to let apples (cultivated plants are excluded from foraging rights) rot on the ground even when on private land so my foraging is sometimes ... well anyway :) In many circumstances, these interpretations live happily side by side even though they're legally in conflict. But the bottom line is usually when two people disagree about something - whether that's about the apple someone just picked off the ground or in cases of, say, separation and the ensuing arguments over who gets what. At that point the only thing that counts is the letter of the law. And if that has no concept of unmarried cohabitation and does not bestow any rights on cohabitees (even ignoring the question of gender), then you may have considered yourself married for the last 50 years, but in the eyes of the law you're unmarried and can't take half the house and half the cat.

Personally I think the old lede was fine and should stay as it was, but we could by all means have a section (with pretty refs of course) about cases in the grey area where in the absence of a legal framework for SSM there were (isolated) cases of de-facto SSM. My brother's cat may know how to 'fetch', doesn't mean cats in general do fetching :) Akerbeltz (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Well sure, what the law recognizes may be different. But for most people and for most of human history, 'marriage' was simply moving in together. It still does mean that in much of the world, just not in modern law-based societies.

I don't know about any grey areas for SSM, I was just trying to provide for what to do if it turns out that Heikocvijic above has a point.

The problem with the current def in the lead is that we just say 'gender'. If a reader isn't sure what that means, they might read our 'gender' article. If they apply that definition to this article, they'll notice that the USA had SSM in 1850, contrary to our claim that the Netherlands was first in 2001 (as supported by all our sources), and that Italy has SSM today, contrary to our country list (and again all our sources). Therefor, it's obvious that we don't mean what we say. That's unprofessional: in an encyclopedia, we should say what we mean and mean what we say.

Similarly, we just say 'sex'. If the reader double checks with our 'sex' article, they'll find that 'sex' means biological sex. That means that the USA had SSM as soon as it developed sex-reassignment surgery or other methods of changing one's legal sex, and again that there's SSM in Italy today. Regardless of any RS definitions to the contrary, the sources used by this article assume a definition of legal sex and/or legal gender.

The easy solution is to say 'legal sex and legal gender' in the lead, and remove the wording that I added that by SSM, a section of this article assumes marriage between two people of the same legal sex. The more cumbersome solution would be to change the leads of the sex and gender articles to say, in SSM, 'sex'/'gender' mean legally recognized sex and gender, not what we mean by sex/gender in this article. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Another option - to which editors often seem strangely resistant - is simply not to have wikilinks that might mislead the reader. Newimpartial (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That would help, but of course any reader who wasn't sure exactly what we meant, or who had an understanding that seemed to be at odds with ours, might still look up those articles, which would then contradict this article. I just changed the links in 'sex or gender' to legal gender (which also has a rd from 'legal sex'). If that sticks, I think it should resolve my concerns. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

But for most people and for most of human history, 'marriage' was simply moving in together. It still does mean that in much of the world did/does it? I have family in quite a lot of places and in some, the time when marriage did not come with an official document is within living memory but that never meant 'just moving in'. In fact, 'just moving in' would have constituted a scandal up until not too long ago, there was always some social procedure that had to be followed unless you wanted to risk being cast out. But I strongly concur with the position that if 'gender' is taken to mean 'the gender someone identfies as, whether it matches the biology or not' and if 'sex' means 'the (usually binary) choice of M or F made on official documents' then 'gender' has no place in the lede. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've lived in places where that's the only kind of marriage there is. Set up house together and you're married. It would only be a scandal if others thought the relationship was inappropriate -- like if you were siblings or already married to someone else, both of which happen from time to time. Not a scandal but an object of humor if the woman's twice the age of the man. I've never heard of a SSM, and that would be quite the scandal, but presumably ppl would still accept that they were married.

Before we had laws and govts, the whole world was like that, though in some places there might've been ceremonies involved. Even in the US I've had friends who set up house together and considered themselves married (for a decade) and only eventually filed it with the county clerk because of the legal benefits of doing so. — kwami (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

The edit or change I suggest is that when searching for this topic, the question it answered is: What is the marriage of two people of the same sex called?

The answer is this article saying that it's called same sex marriage or gay marriage.

I submit this is patently false and continues a legacy of discrimination or what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called "skim milk marriage".

The answer to what is a marriage of two same gender people called is simply: MARRIAGE.

Calling the marriage of people of the same gender same sex or GAY marriage perpetuates stigma and different or lesser significance.

I further submit that your terms are widely used, and I saw you noted preferred use of marriage equality. Therefore, if the answer is MARRIAGE as I suggest, it's ok to say the terms gay marriage or same sex marriage were previously used. If you wish to include the modern historical context, you could add something like during the worldwide struggle fir marriage equality, proponents and opponents, as well as media, often used the terms same sex or gay marriage as the issue was on ballots or legislation in states, cities, counties, provinces and countries. However, in addition to diminishing gay couples, it's redundant! It's like saying "HE is a MALE model" or "SHE is a FEMALE doctor" -- as saying that two people of the same gender are GAY or SAME SEX married, Bob and Bill are MARRIED.

The last example is that I checked 6 jurisdictions where gay couples may marry, Sweden, United Kingdom, Cuba, Canada, Mexico and USA, NONE of them issue licences to marry called "SAME SEX Marriage Licence" nor do they have "APPLICATION for SAME SEX Marriage". Instead, there's just applications for marriage and Marriage Licences.

While I didn't survey the dozens of countries which provide equal marriage for gay couples, they are a representative sample of populous and sparsely populated, in both traditionally liberal and conservative nations, and countries which are traditionally deferrent to the Papacy, those with official state religion, and officially secular governments and/or societies.

While the change I'm requesting is small, I hope that the more lengthy context helps illuminate the issue, and it's significance not just legally, grammatically, but also socially to fairly and accurately describe a group who have faced discrimination for centuries and longer in some societies, and hard fought equality is diminished by continued marginalization, including different and redundant terms. 2600:8805:C503:A700:79F8:967C:87E5:32FE (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done according to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RGW. You're still free to try Wikipedia:Requested moves. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that if you're "same-sex married", that isn't marriage equality. But we can't call this article just "marriage", because that article is about marriage in all its variation. It does cover same-sex marriage, of course, but there's more detail we should cover than can fit there. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally do not like anything but calling it "married," but a Wikipedia article on same-sex marriage should be about states and territories that allow two men or two women as married. In this regard, it is not like the example of a male model or a female doctor, but more like the lists 9f political firsts, of which there are that have to modify the noun with reference to sex, gender, etc: the first female Prime Minister of the UK was Margaret Thatcher. The first female speaker of the house in the United States is Nancy Pelosi. The first female president of Brazil was Dilma Roussef. These job titles do not address sex, but for the sake of clarity and significance these three women are listed using the terms female Prime Minister female speaker, and female president. Though it w I uld be improper to address than as anything but their job titles. Furthermore there are pages dedicated to first female heads of state and government, first women office holders. Even pages dedicated to the first lgbt governor or first lgbt prime ministers are on Wikipedia and though no one addresses Xavier Bettel as Mr. Gay Prime Minister. Andrew1444 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government. Just a descriptive phrase. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, in Ecuador, Taiwan and a dozen Mexican states, married for SS couples isn't quite the same as "married". — kwami (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is such a non-issue. In language, there's something called context and that means that we don't always use the same words to talk about something. Sure, when I refer to myself, I'm just married, not "I'm same-sex married" or something. But talking to someone else in a different country, I may well ask if they have SSM. This page specifically deals with a sub-group of marriages and calling it SSM is both accurate and inoffensive - it's simply descriptive. And incidentally, we also have pages like interracial marriage. If anything, I feel that calling it anything but SSM would be doing a disservice to all those who had to fight hard to get it in the first place and those who are still fighting to get it. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The maps

In the first two maps of the article, some countries are gray-colored in both. That means the same-sex marriage is both legalized and criminalized in those countries. How is that possible? Aminabzz (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd think that. — kwami (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Aruba and Curacao

Commenting here since they've been added a couple times:

AFAICT, this court ruling may be appealed. Indications are that Aruba won't appeal, but for us that's CRYSTAL. Also, not clear if it's enforceable on St. Maartin. So SSM may be legalized as early as March 07. Not something we can put in the table yet, unless I've misunderstood something.

But yes, when added, they should have their country flags.

@Rex30: — kwami (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Mexico

The bill in Guerrero was never published and so has been sent back to the legislature. So SSM has been passed, but AFAIK we can no longer say it's pending. I imagine it will go through sometime in 2023, though that's CRYSTAL. Note that Guerrero is the only state in Mexico with no amparos, presumably because SSM has been available at the municipal level. — kwami (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Serbia provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Free movement directive apply to all EU member states and all candidate countries excluding Turkey. https://www.rklambda.at/index.php/de/rechtsvergleich#SCHWEDEN, https://www.rklambda.at/index.php/de/rechtsvergleich#partner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.48.31.34 (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Poland has recognized same-sex partnerships.

Sąd orzekł (), że związek osób tej samej płci to nawet nie "konkubinat", ale "związek partnerski". Zawiązek partnerski ma te same prawa co konkubinat. Jest nieformalny. Coś podobnego do Łotwy.

Same-sex spouses also have access to residency rights under EU law. Other colors on the map (two: Civil union or partnership, and Limited foreign recognition (residency rights)) plus a table.

Poland recognizes all marriages contracted abroad (January 1, 2012) (Act) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.48.31.34 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you requsting an edit? — kwami (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Add Slovenia to notable countries

I'd like to request an edit: adding Slovenia to the list of notable countries as a first Slavic country with same-sex marriage.

Most Slavic countries are conservative, as of 2023 only three of them recognise civil partnerships for same-sex couples. Therefore I think that Slovenian law is an achievement worth mentionig. 2A02:A310:833A:D700:6C52:107D:37E5:E527 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How is that notable? Should Malta be listed as the first Semitic country and South Africa the first Bantu country? Few of either have SSM. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race but that section is a bit vague in general i.e. it's not obvious what the criteria here are for notability. First ever, clearly, first by continent, ok, but the US being in there is a bit harder to define in terms of how that is more or less notable that, say, Slovenia as the first country in a significant ethnocultural grouping. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There are no clear criteria. I don't know how much the US being first affected things, whether that's important or trivia. I don't see that Mexico or Cuba are particularly notable though. — kwami (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I provided reasons why I think Slovenia should be mentioned and I still request that edit.

Regarding the above examples of Malta and South Africa, there's a case for every country to be listed or delisted. Why Cuba is mentioned as a first one-party state, but there are no first monarchies/presidential republics/parliamentary republics? Why not list Andorra as a first micro state? Why not distinguish religious traditions of a country? And so on.

Pehaps it is a good idea to clearly state what can make a given country notable or remove this section alltogether. 2A02:A310:833A:D700:79CF:4084:1D26:773E (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This all feel like a stretch, and not really useful at that. I believe we should just delete it altogether.--Aréat (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Anything particularly significant, which perhaps a few different reliable sources take note of, should be incorporated in prose into either the very poor History section here, or the similarly poor History of same-sex unions. CMD (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Poland in the lead

Some countries, such as Russia, China, Hungary and Poland, banned the propagation of LGBT ideology in public. Nothing has been banned in Poland; there is a heavy anti-LGBT propaganda coming from the government, but no law has been effectively introduced. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed Hungary and Poland.KlayCax (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Israel

Okay, on Mar 07, the SC ruled that the state must recognize marriages performed remotely by video (in Utah). But does "recognize" mean that they are legally married, or only that their names are entered into the registry, but without gaining full rights? That is, should we leave the color on the map as-is, or change it to dark purple? — kwami (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What is "legally married?" If you are registered by the state as married then you are just that no? That registration as married is then what the couples use when applying for the services/rights that opposite-sex married couples also have, like surrogacy, national insurance etc. When they get divorced they get divorced through the family court and that court then changes the registration from married to single. As civil marriage doesn't exist as a legal concept in Israel its hard to do these types of international comparisons. Had the Israeli state not recognized same-sex marriages performed abroad (like in the other countries colored light purple) then these couples would be registered as "single" and would have hard time applying for gov services etc. So the "registration" does have more than just symbolic value, and now when same-sex parenthood through surrogacy has been legalized even more so, not sure how legal parenthood works in these situations however. With marriages taking place in Israel but officiated through zoom now also recognized its kinda weird to put Israel in the same category as Romania and the other light purple countries who do not recognize, except for immigration according with EU directives. Its complicated and its hard finding english sources that are up do date, I think Israel should be in a category of its own or in the dark purple on, because its clear that same-sex marriage carry much more symbolic and legal recognition there (especially de-facto) then the other light purple countries, 2A02:AA1:162D:C45E:74F9:5378:B54:D19B (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

change "same-sex" to gay

Same-sex is used against transgender people by terfs. They use it to say they are only attracted to sex and therefore not a transgender person of the same gender. There is many different karyotyp, therefore this term also sounds like you only like the same karyotype. 2A05:F6C6:8814:0:79ED:8F0A:307C:FEB4 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The current terminology reflects legal realities. Russia does not fail to recognise all gay marriage. For example, if a trans woman and a cis woman were to apply, the Russian government would certify their marriage. Because the marriage is heterosexual, the Russian government recognises it despite it also being gay. Were your suggestion to be implemented, the article would become misleading in this regard. 157.181.129.138 (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nepal

Could be a big deal, but IMO too early to tell what the consequences of the SC ruling will be. I changed the maps from lavender to purple, but think it might be premature to color Nepal blue. If anyone knows anything, please share! — kwami (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It sounds massive indeed! The sources listed in the Nepal page remind me of some decisions of inconstitutionality taken by the Mexican SC with respect to state civil codes. These were binding but it could take months or years before the state legislatures reacted to the ruling and reformed the marriage laws. Why color Nepal in purple on the map? Is the ruling immediately recognising foreign SSMs? I'd see the dark green as fitter: binding court decision that mandates parliament to legislate on SSM, but no legalisation nor provision of marriage yet. PS Estonia and Latvia should be dark blue like Bolivia (unions can be registered through court action). Finedelledanze (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Finedelledanze: Green may indeed be better for Nepal. Anyone else think so?

Estonia does not have CU's. The law was passed but never enacted.

The med blue should not be for registration through court action, but for accessible CU's as in Italy. If you need to go to court, that is only minimal rights and should be light blue. If that's where Bolivia is after the recent court ruling there, then it's Bolivia that should be changed.

— kwami (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

On Nepal it would be helpful to find more sources in English or also in Nepali from a third party: the only one is apparently from an LGBT NGO advocating for civil rights. It remains unclear whether the ruling is mandating the government to legalise same-sex marriage or simply compels it to recognise foreign same-sex marriages for immigration purposes (spousal visas).

On Estonia, Bolivia and Latvia: well, it's complicated. Estonia has a registered partnership law in force, which clearly enumerates rights and obligations of same-sex couples. What is lacking is the implementation acts, namely the instructions for state officials and clerks to perform and register such unions. This is why the courts stepped in and allowed the couples to register their unions in the population registry so that they could enjoy these rights. The process is windy, but unions are effectively in place and are valid within the EU and towards third parties.

In Bolivia 'free unions' already existed for opposite-sex couples (Law 603 of 2014) and the Surpreme Court simply extended acccess to same-sex couples. Absent a law, registration for same-sex couples may be longer, but we can say that unions are available and provide similar rights as marriage.

Latvia is more problematic: unions can be registered after court action, but what rights are provided is not clearly set out, because there are no civil unions for opposite-sex couples. From a legal point of view, though, the Latvian ruling equates these unions with opposite-sex marriage. Our Latvian article reports some parts of the ruling, which clearly points to the marriage rights (Article 110) defined by the Latvian constitution as a reference: "Article 110 The State shall protect and support marriage – a union between a man and a woman, the family, the rights of parents and rights of the child.". Consequently, as long as the Latvian parliament does not pass a civil union law, Latvian same-sex couples can register their unions (with a process similar to Estonia's) and shall enjoy the same rights as married couples.

The fact that registration of unions is available, however windy and uneasy it is, and that these registrations provide rights that are actually enjoyed and enforceable towards third parties, tilts me in favour of treating all these countries like any other country where the law allows for registered unions (dark blue). Finedelledanze (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

We've gone back and forth on these several times, practically each time someone new comes in with an opinion. So I'd like to see some sort of consensus for these, and for Israel as well.

(I assume you mean medium blue.) — kwami (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(Yes, medium blue, 'civil unions blue', apologies!)

BTW, both Estonia and Latvia are listed as having legalised same-sex unions in the sidebar, their national pages and the European section. So, I guess there is a consensus (there actually was a discussion on Latvia quite recently - I initially erred on the cautious side against Latvia legalisation, but then I've changed my mind as the Latvia article was enriched with more details).

On Israel: my understanding is that the country has been recognising same-sex (and civil opposite-sex) marriages performed abroad. However, I see that these marriages only confer a limited set of rights, but I haven't found a clear explanation on the differences with domestic marriages. I won't go off topic any further. Best, ciao. Finedelledanze (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Life Partnerships in Croatia

Since there was an effort to recognize the recent "Free Union" court ruling in Bolivia in the "Same-Sex Marriage Around The World" section. I think maybe the page can also take notice of countries like Croatia and Liechtenstein to be added, as a joint-adoption law comes into effect in June for Liechtenstein and a recent court ruling in Croatia legalizing joint adoption has rendered same-sex couples there virtually equal in all aspects except for the name of marriage. SunnyWinx (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What were you thinking exactly? We might indeed want to list countries where you have marriage in all but name, but we'd want a RS that that's actually the case. I've seen that claim for Italy, but Italy does not have adoption. But then neither does Ecuador, which we list as having SSM. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

edit request for timeline

can someone add the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, 21st December 2022 to the timeline ... thank you ... 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that when it happened? That's the latest law, but looks like SSM was available before. — kwami (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

Request on updating the public opinion for Venezuela: 55% support; 32% oppose; 13% neither. Source: https://cronica.uno/encuesta-refleja-que-mayoria-de-venezolanos-apoya-igualdad-de-derechos-para-la-poblacion-lgbtiq/ 188.253.239.12 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Also good for adoption support. — kwami (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

Add link to the page for Michael McConnell and Jack Baker as context for the first country where a local jurisdiction knowingly issued a marriage license to a same-sex couple

Change "American country" to "Country in the Americas".

More precisely, under Same-sex marriage around the world change:

Notable countries:

• United States: The first country where a local jurisdiction knowingly issued a marriage license to a same-sex couple (1971)
• Denmark: The first country to offer civil unions (1989)
• Netherlands: The first country to legalize same-sex marriage, and the first European one (2001)
• Canada: The first American country to legalize same-sex marriage (2005)

to:

Notable countries:

• United States: The first country where a local jurisdiction knowingly issued a marriage license to a same-sex couple (1971)
• Denmark: The first country to offer civil unions (1989)
• Netherlands: The first country to legalize same-sex marriage, and the first European one (2001)
• Canada: The first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage (2005) Tsattolo (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Namibia

Seems like the country is now recognising same-sex marriage performed abroad. Any other sources? https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230516-namibia-recognises-same-sex-marriages-concluded-abroad-with-foreign-spouse