Template talk:Same-sex unions

Not yet in effect

Can we turn the greek letter into an asterisk instead..? Prcc27 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 30 June 2014

On the radar: Estonia

I won't jump the gun like I did last time, but want to note that an appeals court in Estonia has ruled same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions must be recognized. I am not familiar with the court system, but I presume it will be appealed again, but I wanted to put this on our radar for a possible action to come. TenorTwelve (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC) This article suggests that it does apply to all couples as opposed to just the plaintiffs, but this is just one source.TenorTwelve (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with that - the source states it must now be mandatory across Estonia. I will add it - if the situation changes later it's very simple to remove it! I will re-add Peru also, with a note that it's under appeal. The constitutional court did rule so, after all. Jdcooper (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ron 1987, can you shed some light on this? Why does the fact that it was appealed mean that it is not included? I can't see anything saying the appeal was successful? Jdcooper (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have evidence showing that the ruling actually took effect and is not stayed until the appeal is considered? If not, Peru should not be included. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

More on Estonia: is it appropriate to say that civil unions are in force? No implementing legislation has been passed (therefore no instruction on how public officials should conduct ceremonies may be available, or on how to convert foreign marriages into civil unions, and so on), this could affect the law making it de facto void while being in force. Can any Estonian user confirm that civil unions are currently being performed? Thanks Finedelledanze (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cohabitation agreements cannot be entered in Estonia (the law needs implementing decrees that are stuck in Parliament's committees ), therefore I move the country's law to 'not yet in effect' status. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Recognition of foreign marriages

In legal terms recognition and transcription (or registration) of foreign marriages are not the same thing: whereas the former implies that the recognized foreign marriage is treated on a par with domestic marriage (obtaining all the rights that married opposite-sex couples enjoy), the latter is simply a public notification that the same-sex couple got married in another country, but without other effects than this. Reading the wiki pages on Estonia and Israel, it is not clear whether these countries recognize or simply register same-sex marriage. In my country, Italy, EU law has been applied and the right to have same-sex marriage registered has been won in many individual court proceedings. However, this carries a mostly symbolic value, since no other rights apply to these couples. Situation may vary still if the couple or one of them are foreign-national. I wonder whether Estonia and Israel are in the same situation as Italy. Estonia in particular seems ambiguous. Finedelledanze (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I have repeatedly removed Israel and it keeps being added without a good enough explanation. I will be removing the two until your concerns are properly addressed. Prcc27 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Israel recognizes same-sex marriage for citizenship purposes actually. Prcc27 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Caribbean Netherlands

The Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint Eustatius) are a part of the Netherlands proper. Separate listing makes no sense. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan

How should we handle this Taiwan ruling? It's supposed to be be binding in two years, right? Isseubnida (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it belongs, but of course with a *.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Prcc27 (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's binding in two years, but as no bill has been passed yet, I don't think we should include it. It's more than just "not yet in effect" - there is no law. Jdcooper (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a legally binding judicial ruling with a set period of time for when same-sex marriage needs to be implemented by. When same-sex marriage was legalized in the Sixth Circuit by SCOTUS we treated those states as "not yet in effect" since the mandate was not officially finalized. I know these are two separate cases but I still think that a judicial ruling itself can be more or less considered a "law". Prcc27 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

But that judicial ruling actually changed the law, it was just under appeal. In this case the judicial ruling, as you note, says something will happen in the future. The government is probably going to write and pass legislation, to actually legalise it. Nonetheless, I don't think it matters much either way so I'm happy to go with the crowd, just I would personally wait. Jdcooper (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Japan should be removed.

Japan's same sex registration in the limited jurisdictions have no legal effect and therefore should be removed.

Paullb (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan: Keelung City

The Keelung City approved sex-same partnership--190.124.155.112 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)