Talk:Legal status of same-sex marriage

Norway

Recently, Norway has been taking steps towards legalizing same-sex marriage. I think this is worthy of inclusion here. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovenia

There seems to be a dispute over whether Slovenia recognizes civil unions or civil marriages. I've added the marriage info twice based on this source: [1] (also: [2], [3], [4]) and was reverted by an anon IP both times. This is confounding, but I'm going to guess their point was the arguable one that if guests are restricted, it's not full marriage. If that's the distinction they're trying to draw, it's an arguable one. Fireplace 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not called "marriage" in Slovenia, so by definition it's not same-sex marriage, but only domestic partnership/civil union. (Pick your poison.) —Nightstallion (?) 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It s a cvil union (!) not a domestic partnership but also not a civil marriage.--GLGerman 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

Does anyone have a source for this? Again, see all the links above calling it marriage. Fireplace 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovenia has been up on Same-sex marriage for a couple days now (with a footnote about the ceremony requirements) and no one has removed it (other than a vandal) or provided a contradictory source. So, I'm going to float it on this article again, with a footnote. Again, the main justification is the news stories above which call it marriage. Fireplace 04:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is very tentative given what some editors have said. If anyone has contradictory sources, please post them. Fireplace 04:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere before, that's most definitely wrong. I'd trust gay rights sources much more on the intricate details than just general news sources; compare http://365gay.com/Newscon06/07/072406slovenia.htm for instance, which calls it "domestic partnerships". A lot of sources also called the UK's civil union "marriage", but it definitely isn't (the distinction was even argued before courts quite recently). —Nightstallion (?) 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Italy

The European and world map need to be changed as no civil unions nor gay marriages are recognised in Italy.

Until now there are only some regions in Italy with civil unions; but late 2006 Prodi will introduce a bill in parliament for civil unions in whole Italy.GLGerman 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of states not allowing same-sex marriages

Data from the liberal organisation "Human Rights Campaign" suggests that there are 45 states in total that do not allow gay marriage. Of these, 19 have passed a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman. See http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=28225&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm. This information was last updated in July 2006 and may therefore be more accurate than the data provided by the Heritage Foundation that this article cites.

Mc andi 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.K

There isn't any mention of the U.K (were same-sex marriage is legal). Wikisquared 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is mentioned, and no, the U.K. does not have same-sex marriages. It has Civil Partnerships, which are not the same thing. - Outerlimits 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That s right: In U.K. we have civil unions (but the rights of a civil uion there is nearly the same as same-sex marriage)GLGerman 21:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)GLGerman

Organization of page -- Why the religious opening?

Here we have a page about SSM that opens with the line:

"Worldwide, most, but not all, religious traditions do not recognize or perform same-sex marriages."

It then proceeds to detail varying Jewish and Christian perspectives on SSM (and not those of other religions), before the page proper describes the status of *civil* marriage throughout the world. This seems more than a little sloppy. Why is a narrow religious overview the opening to this article, especially when it's the political, unconnected bulk underneath for which most users would be searching? How about moving the religious stuff into its own section, if not its own, expanded page? Maxisdetermined 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Since no one bothered to reply to your message, I can only assume that there were no objections to reorganizing it and have done so. Indecine (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

California 4-3 ruling is not yet final until 30 days

Lest non-lawyers readers be misled, the court decision 4-3, is not yet final, since it is highly divided, and one vote can change. So, under CA rules, an appeal or motion can be filed withing 30 days to stay it, and after May 15, as of now, no marriage can still be held pending the finality. Besides the November ballot might reverse or avoid this ruling by Constitutional amendment. I am a lawyer/judge, and our Philippine laws were copied from California federal rules of service. I repeat, just one vote can can change the 4-3 judgment. So I added this: Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed interracial marriages ban, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, (in a 4-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice Ronald George) struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (passed with 61%). The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.news.yahoo.com, California's top court legalizes gay marriage Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling --Florentino floro (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

The section on sweden needs major revision! Its way outdated and even talks of somthing that is supposed to happen in 2007, yet its almost 2009. Also, Sweden has assured that same sex marriage will be legal by March 1st 2009. Azcolvin429 (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nepal

Nepal should be added to the list since Sweden has — Nepal is officially going to recognize them, but the date has simply not been decided upon yet. The unions are permitted, but legal recognition will take place shortly. I think that Nepal should be listed with (?) or (TBA) ["To-be-announced"] beside it. Plus, it will balance out the page, which looks strangely uneven with Sweden listed on the right but nothing on the left. Nepal could easily fill that blank space, and I see no reason why not to include it in that section (with the (?) or (TBA)) talk 4:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)