User talk:Chase1493

LGBT relationship recogntion map for South America

Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and French Guiana no longer have sections because they have full legal protection for LGBT couples. If you have edit suggestions for any of the other countries, please post them under the header for its respective one and provide a suitable source.

File:World homosexuality laws.svg

You seem to be a go-to guy for this map! Here are some suggested updates:

• Vietnam apparently has removed fines on marriage, and now allows a form of unregistered cohabitation: Vietnam
• The 'individual cases of same-sex marriage ring' could probably be used for New Mexico?
• The brown for 'limitations on freedom of expression' is not specific enough. See discussion here.

My belief is that the color either needs to be removed, of better specified. -- Lejman (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam government's decree issud in September has just removed fines. The bill to give legal recogniton for cohabiting same-sex ouples is still pending before parliament. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Ron 1987. For example, the U.S. state of Indiana has no recognition of same-sex relationships in any form. However, they do have fines and charges for any clerk that allows one to proceed. Vietnam for all purposes, removed a similar law that would have made the act of calling a same-sex relationship a marriage criminal. At the same time this does not mean we can assume that they legalized any kind of relationship recognition, even if it is perceived as in a de facto sense. If you followed the debate we had on Colombia's Supreme Court ruling, the community decided to hold off on assuming marriage was legal, and evidence shows it is still decided on a case by case basis. I would also like to apologize for being one of the users that jumped the gun and changed some of the maps because of my assumption. The media and my interpretation was wrong. Hence why I'm trying to be more cautious and clear before making future edits. Thanks for the input though! You should post some of them to the file discussion board, more people will be able to see it! :p Chase1493 (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Jalisco legalized civil unions. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

Hi Chase. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Guerrero

I have read about 10 articles about the situation in Guerrero this week. None except that article you are posting says anything about a law change. In fact, that article indicate that they are going to request an amparo. They cannot just ignore the law. That is what happened with the only marriage that has taken place in Guerrero. While we would all like to see this happen quickly, it does no service to add unverified information to the encyclopedia. As the law stands, no clerk can issue a license or they will be breaking the law. If the legislature does not act, all persons wishing to marry must obtain injunctions to override the law on an individual basis. We cannot make changes saying that marriage IS legal in Guerrero until it actually IS. And at this point, it has not been approved by the legislature nor has an injunction been issued to anyone that I have been able to verify. SusunW (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You may have been right all along. What I am reading today is that they may actually pull this off. The governor seems to be backing it, but is holding both sets of cards, as he has repeatedly said they will uphold the law. Since the legislature has done nothing concrete to this point what he is actually saying is vague. But, this one is exciting. No movement and then boom! On another note, quietly in Michoacán they announced they had reached the 6th amparo and that someone could file to force the legislature to act. SusunW (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that is wonderful news. A judicially directed state and one that could have held out if it wanted too. Perhaps this will send a signal to some of the other more conservative states that it's not worth the legal fight? I'll be keeping a close eye on it with you. What would you recommend we do about Guerrero? Nothing yet, I would presume. Chase1493 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in Oceania

Hi. I've reverted your changes in the article. Maybe you would like to join the discussion here? Ron 1987 (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

SSM Template: Malta

WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You cannot interpret this source and say that same-sex marriages are recognized in Malta unless you have a reliable secondary source that backs that interpretation up. Furthermore, when I revert your WP:BOLD edits you should take it to the talk per WP:BRD instead of starting an edit war with me. Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? My bold edits have been standing for months. You take a portion of the law to justify your view but failed to look further. It also states that marriages contracted abroad are recognized as such within the country. That is your primary source working against you. In addition, I provided recent sources that were highlighting the anniversary of the law's enactment and it stated point blank that there was X number of civil unions and that foreign marriages were being registered separately. I'm not trying to start an edit war, but you know as well as I do that you unilaterally removed Malta and pointed me a year in the past for justification. Time and sources have found clarification for what the law truly means.

[1] <-- Here is the source once again. Stop removing Malta when it is rightly placed there. Chase1493 (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, I provided the source that you used to justify your edits. That source isn't "my source" it's yours... Prcc27 (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see, at first glance I thought you were throwing the Civil Union act at me. That said, the marriage act alone couldn't be vaguely justified to say so by one's own interpretation, but the source I listed above shows that foreign marriages have been recognized as such; which strikes away the ambiguity of interpretation. How else would you argue it? Chase1493 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in ...

I replied to your latest comment on this topic.176.2.12.88 (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)