Template talk:Same-sex unions

Formerly performed

I noticed that a user added Oregon under formerly performed, while another had added Tilos (Greece) in the same section at an earlier time. At the time being, only California qualifies to be listed under the given section. We should only include nations/regions that have legally established same-sex marriage and then revoked it, as I'm sure we could add over 30 countries/regions where licenses have been issued by a single person/group of people rather than government officials, and were later declared void. (Such as with San Francisco, CA in 2004, NM in 2004, France, Arizona, Montana in the 70s, etc.) VoodooIsland (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I think we'll keep getting this problem. "Formerly performed" can be interpreted to suggest any area where a same-sex marriage has been performed in the past, which includes a wide range of jurisdictions. I agree that the list should essentially only include jurisdictions previously included in "Same-sex marriage legal". Ronline ✉ 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ecuador

What is the latest situation in Ecuador? I know civil unions were approved in the new constitution, but when exactly is the government going to implant them? Are we sure that they are not already taking place? VoodooIsland (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done some research into this issue, and am still somewhat confused at the situation. So, Article 68 of the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador provides for the recognition of de facto unions offering all of the rights of marriage. However, these unions are to be put into practice "in the conditions and circumstances set out by the law". The interesting part is that opposite-sex unions have been legal in Ecuador since 1978, and are explicitly recognised in the 1998 Constitution. The 1998 Constitution contains an identical article to Article 68 of the 2008 Constitution, except that de facto unions are referred to in gender-specific terms. Thus, all that the 2008 Constitution did was make the definition of de facto unions gender-netrual. See [1] and [2] (both in Spanish).

There is already a law in Ecuador which governs (opposite-sex) de facto unions. It states, among other things, the procedure for how these unions will be formed and dissolved, and mentions that they can be formed after two years of cohabitation. The scheme appears quite similar to the (same-sex-inclusive) scheme in Uruguay, and is registered rather than "unregistered cohabitation".

The problem is that, despite the constitutional change, the enabling law on de facto unions still maintains the old gender-specific definition in the 1998 Constitution. The legislation does not appear to have been changed. See this site, which states at the very bottom that "La legislación ecuatoriana vigente no admite la Unión de Hecho entre dos personas del mismo género" - the current Ecuadorian legislation does not permit a de facto union between two people of the same gender.

All that needs to be done is change a few words in the existing de facto unions law so as to include same-sex couples and conform the new Constitution. Strangely, there's been no news of such a change since the Constitution has entered into force, even in the Ecuadorian press. There is, of course, the option that the unions are already occuring and that the Consular site above is outdated. I'll keep you updated if I find anything, and I will try to find an updated version of the exact enabling law.

UPDATED: De facto unions in Ecuador (currently opposite-sex only) are governed by The Law Regulating De-Facto Unions, No. 115 (1982). Here is the online text in Spanish. This is the law that needs to be reformed. Aside from legislative change, it could presumably be changed if a same-sex couple goes to Court claiming that Law No. 115 is unconstitutional when compared to Article 68 of the Constitution. Ronline ✉ 10:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! :) Maybe we'll see a challenge soon, but the same-sex union debate throughout South America seems to be rather unpredictable. VoodooIsland (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true that progress towards same-sex unions in Latin America seems quite unpredictable. This can be explained by two important and competing forces in the continent's political culture. On one hand, there is a strong left-wing progressive tradition, emphasising secularism and equality. On the other, there is a significant Catholic-conservative tradition, combined with the more recent spread of evangelical Christianity, which is opposed to divorce, abortion and gay rights. Perhaps as a result of these forces, the Latin American model of relationship recognition is quite different to models in other parts of the Western world. Features of this model include an emphasis on "de facto/concubinary unions", quite different to marriage, rather than European-style "registered partnerships", which are often specifically designed to mirror marriage.

Nevertheless, I think a lot of progress is being made. Uruguay and Colombia already offer full right to same-sex couples. Argntina and Chile and have pending national civil union laws, which will probably be passed in the next few years, while Ecuador will probably also sort out the constitutional issue discussed above. Brazil and Venezuela are also moving, even though it's quite difficult to pass a national civil union law there. In Uruguay, there is talk of legalising same-sex marriage. In Mexico, there is debate in more and more states to legalise civil unions. Ronline ✉ 03:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and it certainly will be interesting to see how the "slow route" works in South America, as one of the most divisive elements of the gay rights movement is between activists who feel that activists in the movement should move very slowly and wait for tolerance to creep up to them, opposed to those who want to continue to push for marriage/union legislation and protections to get the word out about gay rights and discrimination. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

I've added Denmark to the same-sex marriage debated section. The Social Liberal Party is a very vocal proponent of same-sex marriage, and the social democratic/green parties support it too. There is also very high public support for SSM; indeed, it is virtually guaranteed that SSM will be legalised if the current conservative parties are voted out in 2011. In other news, the Icelandic government officially has same-sex marriage in its governing platform (see [3]), so chances are that Iceland will be the 8th or 9th country in the world to legalise SSM (depending on when Portugal legalises). Ronline ✉ 14:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Europe will definitely make a lot of progress in this area throughout the next five years; and we can only expect more countries to follow. I think the next countries to legalize same-sex marriage in Europe will be Portugal, Iceland, France, and Denmark in that order; though I feel we could see additional moves from Switzerland, the UK and the Czech Republic in the near future as well. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical note about references

The fact that this template uses {{Reflist}} might make problems when it is transcluded on other pages. See e.g. this diff. My advice is to use group names for the references in this template, like this: <ref group="ssuref" name="BBC"> etc. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch.  Done Fortuynist (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way that we can make the [ssuref 2]s smaller; or replace the text? VoodooIsland (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ssuref is the name of the group, which you can change to something with less than 6 letters. Read the Ref template documentation. It doesn't bother me, and I think it helps distinguish the template references from the article references. Fortuynist (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently, I find the longer superscripts distracting. I do think there should be a way to use a single character in the superscript to link down to the Notes section. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that's the reason we added the reference notes in the first place; to even out clutter. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is, and the code is there, and is defaulting on [1], [2], [3] (but can be changed with the 3rd parameter in {{ref}}). Now it uses {{note}}s instead of the reflist, so there are no conflicts. Fortuynist (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Why are the notes references starting at 12, and 13… instead of 1, 2 ,3…? I'm either confused or misunderstanding something, but it seems a little odd? Nevermind, fixed! Andrew Colvin (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You said "Good catch". But you forgot to remove the {{Reflist}}, so the problem persisted and I have had to addept another 2-3 articles since my post here. Therefore I have now removed it myself, with your permission of course. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire Part 2

The bill has been signed into law. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It, as well as the others listed in this template, need to be sourced - not just added to the template. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Navigator templates do not require citations or sources. Those are remedied in individual articles that the templates link to. --haha169 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But when the articles are missing the sources, then they need to be put in the template. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the articles are missing sources, then the articles need sources. Navigational templates cannot handle citations. --haha169 (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Faulty reporting, or does Mexico City recognize foreign SSMs?

I've read through several articles (including Spanish language ones), and while I would normally assume such a report to be a misprint, it was listed on Yahoo News so I wasn't as quick to reject the possibility. The article says:

Gay activists say that even though laws are improving in relatively more liberal places such as Mexico City — where legislators passed a law two years ago recognizing same-sex marriages — many are still reluctant to acknowledge their sexual orientation publicly

It's likely supposed to read as "civil unions," but maybe someone knows something most on this template don't.VoodooIsland (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To what Spanish language publications are you referring to? Fortuynist (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

They were basically news stories from Spanish-language news sites and direct excerpts from the mentioned law, though they provided nothing of additional worth; and were even murkier than the article from Yahoo. I would be pleased if I could get my hands on a copy of the full text of the law, as google certainly didn't help much with that. I'll keep searching. VoodooIsland (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The law governing civil unions in Mexico City is very similar to laws in South America on this issue. It provides only limited rights and definitely does not recognise SSM. The Spanish Wikipedia article on Ley de Sociedad de Convivencia provides some more information about what rights are provided. The text of the law is here. It doesn't seem to provide for recognition of foreign SSMs. Ronline ✉ 02:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, I guess it was just a misprint. And thanks for including a copy of the law; it was very helpful. VoodooIsland (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) More often than not, references to "same-sex marriage" in jurisdictions that have not legalised them really only refer to civil unions or registered partnerships. I have read countless newspaper articles in several languages that list the United Kingdom or the Czech Republic as countries where same-sex marriage is legal. See this for a glaring example. Indeed, I was quite surprised to see that, back in the 1990s, even gay rights groups would refer to civil union laws as "same-sex marriage" (e.g. a shorthand way of referring to "the same-sex institution equivalent to marriage"). Even nowadays, many use the language of marriage to refer to same-sex civil partners. Whether this should be done is an interesting political question. For some, purposely using the language of marriage ("married", "husband/wife" etc) is a way of dissenting against the "separate but equal" nature of civil unions. Others refuse to use the language of marriage, in order to draw attention to the fact that civil unions are not equal and are not a satisfactory substitute for marriage. Ronline ✉ 10:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed civil unions being referred to as "marriages" in several nations as well; particularly in the UK; where I rarely hear anyone refer to the civil partnerships as what they are: civil partnerships. I remember also reading an article on the subject of civil unions in Germany; to which it read "Germany legalizes gay marriage." I suppose such unions were such a new phenomenon back in the early through late 90's; with few expecting a country to actually make their marriage laws gender neutral; that they just presumed civil partnerships were going to be marriage for same-sex couples and that would be it. Anyway, I guess I got excited about the possibility of Mexico City recognizing foreign same-sex marriages; as it's always nice to see progress in such areas; so I wanted to check and see if Yahoo simply misreported the news as they did, or if Mexico City in fact really did recognize foreign SSM. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cambodia?

Is it just me, or does this article make it seem that same-sex couples can wed if they have children? VoodooIsland (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"As per Cambodian law on marriage, stated in the Constitution, marriage between people of the same sex is illegal." is from the article. I'm not sure about the children policy, but the constitution explicitly banns SSM. --haha169 (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the situation raised in that article is a really interesting one. In many non-Western cultures, there is a tradition of same-sex unions receiving recognition, usually on an informal/customary basis. Homosexuality in India#Recognition of same-sex couples similarly notes that some same-sex couples have been married under Hindu religious custom, and are thus arguably legal under the Hindu Marriage Act. Similarly, the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon recognises same-sex marriages under tribal law. Nevertheless, I think a jurisdiction should only be included in the template if same-sex marriage is officially conducted by the state in a consistent fashion. Ronline ✉ 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, I've heard about customary law applying to polygamous marriages as well; though the subject has always been quite vague. Anyway, I agree that Cambodia should not be included on the template; but Just for my own personal knowledge, do couples who register their marriages under customary law gain benefits of any kind? VoodooIsland (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the Cambodia case you refer to above, the couple were apparently officially married and recognised by the state. Thus, they would presumably gain all of the benefits, but I'm unsure exactly what benefits married couples gain in Cambodia. In a lot of non-Western countries, marriage is more a cultural and religious act than a civil one. So, as pointed out in the Homosexuality in India article, there are many opposite-sex couples who will not have their marriage registered with the state, since for them marriage is seen as a social, religious and familial institution, outside the bounds of state regulation. In India, aside from the Hindu Marriage Act which governs marriage between Hindus (and Buddhists and Sikhs), there is also a Special Marriage Act which provides for (secular) civil marriage. There are also separate marriage acts for Muslims and Christians. For all religious marriages, there is the requirement that, following the ceremony, the marriage also be registered with the state, but the extent of compliance with this provision isn't all that high. In civil marriages, registration takes place contemporaneously with the ceremony. It is unknown if the same-sex couples which were married according to Hindu rites registered their relationship with the state in order to receive benefits. It is more likely that they did not. Ronline ✉ 02:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; and the Hindu Marriage Act is definitely an interesting "loophole." And as you said, considering how few benefits are often granted in countries in the region, it's no surprise that so few couples choose to register the marriages with the state. It will be interesting to see if Cambodia chooses to recognize same-sex marriage (officially) within the next ten years; though I'm not holding my breath. VoodooIsland (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

European Union

While I think the article on Same-sex marriage in the European Union is a good idea, having it in the template seems a bit redundant as the EU has no power to change the Legal recognition of same-sex couples within Member States. Suggest removing it from the template. Johnhousefriday (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read that there is a pending proposal to require all members to allow same-sex civil partnerships, which the EU can apparently enforce. Reading through the archives, apparently the page was created as a placeholder for European nations (which all happened to be EU members) that weren't actively debating same-sex marriage; and the page would be included under foreign marriages if the EU passes the proposed law to require all members to recognize each others civil unions and same-sex marriages. I'm open to removing it from the template, but because of the mentioned proposals, I'll wait for others to put their two cents in before removing it. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposal wasn't to require all member states to allow same-sex civil partnerships, but rather to allow mutual recognition of same-sex unions in states that had already recognised them. Actually, there were two proposals. The strong one would oblige all states to recognise same-sex unions registered in other states. So, for example, while Romania would not be obliged to perform registered partnership, it would have to recognise a same-sex married couple from Sweden as married, and a British civil-partnered couple as civil-partnered. The rationale for this is the EU right of free movement of persons, which stipulate that a person should have the same benefits in a foreign EU member states as they would in their home state. The weak version of this proposal is that only states which already recognise same-sex unions would have to mutually recognise other union schemes. So, for example, France would have to recognise British civil partners as PACS partners, while Finland would have to recognise German "life partners" as registered partners within Finland. The second approach is a lot less controversial, since it doesn't involve the granting of new rights. It only seeks to harmonise recognition across countries already providing recognition.

There is, of course, the question of whether, in the future, the EU has the right to oblige all states to perform civil partnerships or marriage. The EU Parliament has at various times passed resolutions calling for recognition of same-sex unions, but these are not legally binding. The only way to legally bind states to perform same-sex marriage/civil unions would be to issue a regulation or a directive in this area. It is unknown whether it would actually have the power to legislate in this area, since it has no specific jurisdiction over family law (it does have a "social policy" jurisdiction). Indeed, EU representatives have at various times stated that family law remains a responsibility of national governments. Thus, at least in the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that there will be any EU-wide legislation in this area. The movements towards mutual recognition of existing national schemes may, however, make progress. Ronline ✉ 07:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maryland

I think it's kind of misleading to say that Maryland "performs" same-sex unions. You can't go to any state body and be enrolled on any kind of registry, as is the case in other states that have such unions. Instead, the state government grants certain enumerated rights and responsibilities to a couple if they can prove that they are "a relationship of mutual interdependence." This strikes me as more along the lines of the "Recognized, not performed" header. --Jfruh (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Recognised, not performed" section refers only to jurisdictions which recognise same-sex unions performed in other jurisdictions, but does not have any local recognition schemes. You are right in saying that the Maryland scheme is a registered partnership scheme like that of California, Nevada, Oregon, etc. Instead, it is a form of "unregistered cohabitation", similar to what is offered in Austria, Croatia and Portugal. My only fear is that moving it to "Unregistered cohabitation" would clutter up the template too much, since we would have to create a new subsection stating "Recognised in some regions". Ronline ✉ 05:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: I think that is an excellent idea that in the Unregistered cohabitation section MD should be added next to "performed in some regions" Add - United States (MD, NY and RI). For example, Rhode Island and New York also have the same thing as well in some statutes (no registory) - Just like Australia, Columbia, Hungary (1996 law). It is also called the common-law marriage. Both Hawaii (since 1997) and Colorado (effective from 1 July 2009) have about 17 rights/benefits as a registory.

California, Nevada (effective from 1 October 2009), Oregon, Washington State and DC have domestic partnerships which gives the exact same 365 rights, benefits, obligations, responsibilities as marriage. New Jersey have civil unions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• DONE - fixed the unregistered cohabitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the other states you metion should be in the "Unregistered cohabitation" section. My understand is that in New York (and arguably Rhode Island), same-sex couples who are married in another state will have their marriage recognised and gain all the rights stemming from that. However, there is no other scheme which recognises local domestic partners. "Unregistered cohabitation" refers to a type of recognition where there is no need for same-sex couples to register; they can claim rights (usually on a one-by-one basis) simply by proving that they are in a same-sex relationship. The scheme in Maryland appears to confer this unregistered type recognition. Note that the distinction between unregistered cohabitation and registered partnership is one of process rather than substance. Some unregistered cohabitation schemes (Australia, Portugal) are very comprehensive and offer pretty much all or almost all of the rights of marriage. Conversely, some registered schemes (Colorado) offer quite few rights. Ronline ✉ 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maine

In Maine I have noticed that it says "mid" September - Is there an ACTUAL date 12, 14, 16, 18??????. It just seems that no none has a clue what is going on, so I will assume it is 1 October, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that SSM will take effect a certain time after the legislative session closes, and there is no set date for when it will close. 14 September is thus just an estimate (but don't assume it's 1 October, since 1 October would be just as arbitrary as 14 September, if not more =). Ronline ✉ 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Same Sex Marriage Debated, and Civil unions and registered partnerships debated should be removed from the infobox

Is this section about currently debated or a history of debated? I dont think topics that dont have a current debate bill or a planned one in place should be included.

Same Sex Marriage Debated:

DC - This section just covers civil unions and in no place does it say that that there is an ongoing bill proposed or debate reguarding SSM. Just this: "The move was hailed as a possible gateway to legislation of same-sex marriage in the near future"

Michigan - NOWHERE in this article does it mention that SSM is debated or that any bill has been proposed the only thing in there is a poll.

Minnesota - A bill that was proposed on March 5th failed to get a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Civil unions and registered partnerships debated:

Hawaii - There have been no new debates or bills proposed as the last one "failed to reach the full body for a vote" in March 2009.

Utah - last debate was in 2008 with an outcome of "all of the measures of the Common Ground initiative failed, some in committee"

Knowledgekid87 11:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

With D.C, an anti-marriage referendum is being proposed to halt the recognition of foreign marriages (which is in the Congressional review period), and the sponsor of that foreign recognition bill says he wants to introduce a new bill fully legalizing SSM in the future.

In Michigan, a repeal effort for the constitutional ban is in force, because voters' views, according to a recent poll changed drastically.

In Minnesota, there are a variety of bills relating to same-sex partnerships, with at least one passing giving same-sex partners health care agency. On marriage, no bills have moved forward, this is probably the weakest.

I could not find anything on Hawaii and Utah. Fortuynist (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not just including states that currently have bills pending; as all of the states you mentioned have proposals that supporters have vowed to introduce the next year. Only including states with pending bills is much too narrow, and we agreed on a criteria about a month ago. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay so there are references on the SSM sections for debate (They should go in the sections). "Only including states with pending bills is much too narrow, and we agreed on a criteria about a month ago." So what are you including? How does saying that "Civil unions and registered partnerships debated" when they arent? Anyways there are no current debates going on in HI or UT that relate to a propsed bill or such. Knowledgekid87 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a criticism for how the current inclusion criteria are handled. First and foremost, this template is a link to articles. If you're going to say X is debated in one area, Jalisco, Mexico, for example, the link should be X in Jalisco or X in Mexico#Jalisco, not Jalisco. If there are interesting developments in places, such as hearings and committee reports, or a broader debate outside of government that may spur a referendum, and if that is in the appropriate article, the template should link to it, because readers will want to read that. Otherwise, the links are useless. Fortuynist (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Another template change proposal

After reading (and re-reading) through some comments concerning the template, I fooled around a bit and came up with a few new tweaks that I personally really love. The new proposal completely eliminates "same-sex marriage debated" and "civil unions . . . debated;" with "Status in other jurisdictions" in place. For this section, I only included countries/regions with no current form of recognition, though including countries without nationwide recognition, yet have certain regions that provide recognition.
Here's my proposed template; please tell me what you think. :) VoodooIsland (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I really, really like it! I think it both saves space by consolidating "same-sex marriage debated" and "civil unions debated", and is more informative by providing links to jurisdictions which previously didn't make the "debated" criteria. The only significant loss of information is that there's no way of knowing which states are debating SSM, having already legalised civil unions. However, I think that's not that important, considering that nearly all countries which have civil unions are "debating" SSM in one way or another, and beyond that it is notoriously difficult to tell which countries will move first. Again, a great idea! Ronline ✉ 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a great change that puts this template in line with most of the others within and without this subject. Fortuynist (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone likes it. I too agree that it fits in line with other templates, especially since qualifications for a debated section can be questionable. I'll go ahead and roll it out on the main template. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I approve the proposed template, it erases any (Does this belong here or not) debate issues that other people might have in the future =). Knowledgekid87 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad everyone likes it. I agree with Knowledgekid87; that is my favorite aspect of the new template. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating ugly footnotes

I really dislike the "heavy" footnotes inside the template. For regular articles, extensive footnoting is great, but for templates it is just distracting. Moreover, these notes do not add anything important or helpful. Most of the notes are for various US states (US-centrism is definitely prominent here too), and contain various information about the dates on which laws go into effect or were in effect. However, the abbreviations of each state listed already links to a whole article on "Same-sex unions/marriage in [State]". Readers who are curious about the exact dates and rules for a given states can perfectly well click on the wikilink for that state/jurisdiction without needing the extra footnote. The leads of all those various articles will provide details on dates-in-effect, or whatever else is most germane to that jurisdiction. LotLE×talk 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The footnotes are only used for one purpose: to show when same-sex marriage will come into force in jurisdictions where laws have been passed but have not come into force. As such, I think the possibility of footnote bloating is limited. As to US-centrism: it just so happens that this year the US has been the country where most of the developments in SSM have take place. Nevertheless, there is nothing structural in the template to make it US-centric: if 5 European countries were to pass SSM, there would be five footnotes showing dates of entry into force. I agree that the heavy footnoting isn't particularly appealing, but it is a temporary phenomenon. Ronline ✉ 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this purpose is a completely unnecessary purpose. The US is different than many places in having so many jurisdictions that are not unified in this legal matter, so a certain "US bloat" is hard to avoid. But the specific detail of date-of-effect is too much of a digression for a template. Following the same lines, we might add all kinds of other details that could well be interesting to know, and indeed would/will be contained in the relevant full articles: How does the law in a given jurisdiction effect religions institutions that perform marriages? How are transgendered people considered in the law of that jurisdiction? Are there any limitation/difference on marriage benefits for same vs. opposite sex couples? How does the legal framework in a given jurisdiction affect rights in an encompassing jurisdiction (e.g. state/provincial versus federal; or nation versus EU)? And so on. Any jurisdiction we list here could well have footnotes about exactly what partnerships/marriages amount to legally in that place... which is why we have full articles.

I do understand why and how the footnotes got into the template. In a rapidly changing legal environment (especially in the US), editors wanted to be as correct as possible in listing jurisdictions. But it is not obvious that if we keep the heavily footnoted style, as an editorial judgment, that they will ever go away. Outside the US, we may well see other countries/regions that have changes in law before the several US states that are "pending" go into effect. And other US states may change their laws in this timeframe. And after July or September or whatever, other jurisdictions may be newly pending for whatever change they've made. Deciding now to make the template cleaner, and relegate minutiae to main articles, lets us keep things cleaner going forward. LotLE×talk 03:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've always been for making the template less bloated and cleaner. I've thought about it and I support the removal of the footnotes, except for California, which has a "sui generis" situatuon. The footnotes do give the template a "work-in-progress" appearance, and while the rate of progress in early 2009 will probably be unprecented, it is likely that progess on same-sex unions will continue at a steady rate, with the result that there will always be some footnotes. The reason I've come to this position is also because the idea of providing notifications for date-of-effect is relatively new. Before mid-2008, there were no footnotes at all, even though 2005-2006, for example, was also a period of rapid progress on same-sex unions. Ronline ✉ 11:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of the footnotes as well, but I do propose that we include an asterisk "*" next to the states which have legalized same-sex marriage/unions but the laws have not yet become effective; and we can have the corresponding text "*Law not yet effective" down at the bottom of the page. If we do not include some kind of notice for states that have legalized but not yet performed same-sex marriage; I feel this would be quite misleading. VoodooIsland (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the footnotes removal (well-intentioned, but the template is way too long already when transcluded), but asterisks don't give much information... the former method of in-line eff. dates provided the informative value of dates while not taking up much space. This is one of the reasons people check the template, for current/upcoming info. The template could use some tightening up, but why not try to lose the wasted blank space instead of the eff. dates? Wikignome0529 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The parenthetical descriptions of the various state date-of-effect were almost as ugly as the footnotes, and for pretty much the same reasons. It is just too much detail for the template, and takes up just as much visual space as the footnotes (or very close). Moreover, it required us to use a separate line for each US state, which made the US focus much too prominent. It's also not clear that date-of-effect is the most important detail to add there: what about which were changed by courts vs. legislatures vs. referendum? what about any niggly differences in laws by gender? what about restrictions, such as on out-of-state partners?. Of course date is interesting, but again that's why we have whole articles for the interesting details. LotLE×talk 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is date more relevant than all of those questions? Because this is a template of the status of same-sex unions; whether they are legal and effectual or not, not a history which may warrant a mention of how same-sex unions came to pass. Niew (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Let's give a specific example about the status of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, the first US state to allow SSM (where I happened to live at the time too), same-sex couples can marry... BUT ONLY IF they reside in a state that allows same-sex marriage. When I was there, that meant MA-resident couples only, but now presumably residents of a few other states could travel to get married on beautiful Cape Cod. On the other hand, opposite-sex couples from ANY US state could travel to MA to get married. Right now, today, the status of same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage is a little bit different in MA, and the set of people for whom it is legal is a little bit different. If we were to include everything that was relevant to the status of SSM in a jurisdiction in the template, we would need to transclude the various articles, defeating the purpose. LotLE×talk 23:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Laos

Is it really necessary to include Laos under status in other jurisdictions? The article is basically pointless. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Laos should stay. Ron 1987 (User talk;Ron 1987) 12:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with voodooIsland, the article is basiclly a stub, has NO references for verification, and shows little if no promise for SSM. Knowledgekid87 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is basically pointless. There are no cites and all it says is that there are no legal recognition of anything and a line on public opinion and speculation. But because it exists, it shouldn't be excluded from the template.--haha169 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can keep it; but the article is pretty pointless. I had enough trouble trying to flesh out the LGBT rights in Laos article that I doubt there's much (if any) information about the possibility of same-sex unions in Laos. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a merge on the article.Knowledgekid87 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this template about legal recognition of same-sex unions, or no legal recognition of same-sex unions? Because Laos has no legal recognition of same-sex unions, which is just about the default in most of the countries of the world, and to link to their articles, or at least not to differentiate them between nations that do recognize them or is debating the subject bloats up the template and makes it not useful for someone looking for the legal recognition of same-sex unions around the world. Fortuynist (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing that it under the LGBT scope I am going to assume it is under the legal recognition of same-sex unions. Countries that dont have any info like Laos with same sex marriage though should not be included. Quote from Haha169: "But because it exists, it shouldn't be excluded from the template." Um there are topics on wikipedia that DO "exist" as well and some make into good srticles but others that do "exist" that dont meet up to wikipedia's quality standards or dont belong as its own fork get merged or deleted.Knowledgekid87 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's for individual article workers to decide. The purpose of a template is simply to include everything. If an article is cut, fine, but if it still exists, it should be included if it matches the template's scope. --haha169 (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've just put a {prod} on the "SSM in Laos" article. Hopefully it will be deleted soon, and we can remove it from this template (either that, or hopefully something will happen that actually creates a subject matter for the article). LotLE×talk 08:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Civil Unions in some regions

There are some countries, like Italy, which offers civil unions in some regions - yet they are not on the template. Is there a specific reason for their exemption? Just wanted to make sure before I add them. --haha169 (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two countries which used to be in the template but are no longer there: Italy and Brazil. With regard to Italy, it was decided to exclude it some time ago since the partnership registration schemes that exist in several Italian regions only have a symbolic function, and do not confer any substantial rights. In this sense, they are comparable to local domestic partnership schemes in several US cities, and in the Australian cities of Sydney and Melbourne. Ronline ✉ 05:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles

Hi. It appears that, according to this article, Dutch same-sex marriages will no longer be recognised in the Netherlands Antilles and in Aruba. This would thus make the Dutch situation similar to the Danish situation (where registered partnerships are not performed or recognised in the Faroe Islands). I haven't yet removed the two from the template, however, since I'm not sure what the validity of the court's ruling is. According to the article Same-sex marriage in Aruba, it was the Dutch Supreme Court which held that marriages must be recognised in those countries. The recent article states that the overturning decision was made by the Joint Court of Justice of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. I'm not sure how it is that the Joint Court court overturn a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court, but I'll look into this. Ronline ✉ 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Did Ireland just legalize civil partnerships; did it pass the legislature? The Reuters story's vague language contradicts other reports suggesting that it will go into "second stage debate in the Dáil in Autumn" to be possibly enacted at the end of the year. Niew (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The bill was introduced last year in 2008. It was enacted in 2009 - per the article, at least. --haha169 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The Irish Times says that it still needs to become law. --haha169 (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin

I've just got a question about the domestic partnership scheme passed in Wisconsin and coming into force on July 1. The scheme that passed in Wisconsin was different to other schemes passed in the US, since it was included as part of a budget bill. It seems that, like Maryland, the scheme in Wisconsin is unregistered cohabitation, rather than a registered system like in Nevada, Oregon, California and Washington. Is this correct? Ronline ✉ 15:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, this article provides the answer: it is actually a registered scheme:

To be eligible for a domestic partnership, two individuals must be of the same sex, both be at least 18 years old, share a common residence, not be nearer of kin than second cousins, and neither party can be married or in another domestic partnership with anyone else. Domestic partnerships will be administered at the county level, and couples must sign a legal declaration of their commitment. Ronline ✉ 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the DP law will go into effect on August 3, 2009 not July 1, 2009. http://fairwisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-rep-mark-pocan-wisconsin-becomes.html Gavino (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Does Liechtenstein recognize registered partnerships? LGBT rights in Liechtenstein states so in two places; yet the template is silent. Is this a status comparable to the one in Ecuador, or is the article simply inaccurate? VoodooIsland (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the government is expected to implement a partnership early 2008. The statement, however, is uncited. Conversely, its been a while since the beginning of 2008. I'll go research it. --haha169 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[4] states that there is no legal recognition yet. But it seems to be moving through parliament quite slowly. It seems that a bill passed in late 2007...but I can't find its status after that vote. --haha169 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see...thanks. I'll fix the LGBT page to correspond. VoodooIsland (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Performed" versus "grant"

"Perform" is a perfectly fine word when discussing a marriage rite. However, what we are discussing here is not the performance of the rite (which in many cases is not a government action) but the bestowing of a specific legal status - which is more properly a "grant" rather than a performance of some kind. I tried changing this (boldly) but had the change reverted who thought "perform" simply better, so I thought I ought get some more voices in on it. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally neutral on the subject. I feel that granted sounds the best under certain headings (such as "Formerly granted" in replace of "Formerly performed"), but I personally like performed in other headings the best. I feel performed is the best choice for the regions recognizing same-sex marriage or civil unions, as most have some form of ceremony to iniciate the civil union (and all for the marriage). VoodooIsland (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I should note the list doesn't really indicate ceremonial recognition. While there are surely places where having such a ceremony without legal backing will land one in trouble, there have long been various form of personal commitment ceremonies in places where the commitment has no legal backing. And I think that splitting the terminology between "perform" and "grant" will just confuse the issue, making it look as if we're talking of two separate things. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. I agree that we definitely shouldn't include two (it would certainly confuse many), but I feel that the current titling could be improved. "Legal in some regions" would probably sound the most accurate universally, but it sounds very Kindergartenish for some reason. I tested out the granted in some regions again and I feel it fights very well (over performed) in all section titles except for the "...some regions" concerning civil unions/registered partnerships. I guess it'll rub off on me the more I preview it, but "granted" would also fix the inconsistencey for unregistered cohabitation in some regions. However, the only issue is that it if we changed it, it might look a tad off with "granted" here and there and then "Recognized, not performed" planted in the middle. "Recognized, not granted" doesn't sound as nice in my opinion, but I suppose we need to make some sacrifices in order to find the better improvement. I definitely think we should take a vote and let others chime in before anything is changed. VoodooIsland (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleware and Minnesota limited recognition

An IP address raised a rather interesting question concerning the possiblity of limited (likely unregistered similar to Maryland) in Minnesota or Deleware here. I'm not sure if the mentioned would qualify, as they could be neutral without being in an "unregistered cohabitation" scheme, but I could be wrong. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Delaware should be include. Concerning Minnesota I'm not sure. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

For countries that already have specific pages such as "Registered partnership in . . ." (i.e, no page titled "Recognition of same-sex unions in . . .") with then a section concerning information about same-sex marriage in the country, should we split these up and create a page such as "Same-sex marriage in Slovenia" and then do a See Also link at the top of the Registered Partnership in . . . page? I'm not talking about every country, but countries that have significant info or can have it added, such as within Slovenia, where such an article could serve extra significance. There are pages for a few, such as in the UK and France, and these all have substantial amounts of info concerning the same-sex marriage status only. Countries with active debates about same-sex marriage could serve additional worth with seperate articles, but only for countries that do not already have a "Recognition of same-sex unions in . . ." page. For example, Argentina, which currently uses a "Recognition of same-sex unions in" titling to cover all of its information, would stay how it is. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)