Template talk:Same-sex unions

United States and United Kingdom notes

In the US only minor jurisdictions (in size/population) don't recognise/perform SSM, that being American Samoa the overseas territory and an indeterminate number of tribal jurisdictions scattered over the country, all located in states where it is legal. Obviously that's a little different to the UK, where Northern Ireland is one of the four home nations, but the remaining jurisdictions are all overseas territories. In short, why can't we just name United Kingdom and United States and attach small numbers to them, where a note on the situation is shown at the bottom of the template (just like what currently appears for Armenia and Israel). Thoughts? Jono52795 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

actually have just gone ahead and done it. Not a controversial change and makes the table far less cluttered. Also undertaken a similar process for Mexico. You'd have to be mad not to think the table doesn't look a lot cleaner/less cluttered than what we had before with a list of tens of sub-jurisdictions. Jono52795 (talk)

Well done! I agree with every single word Finedelledanze (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This change should be done in two other sections too, not just in "Marriage" one. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

I also think the change should be delayed. Changes of this type have usually been made after the enabling legislation is in place, fully signed and only awaiting going into effect. Unlike in the US where the court mandated the change with immediate effect, here the court dictated that the legislature do something about it, and the mandate, that it would go into effect in two years if the legislature failed to act, was (if our own page is correct) in a press release but not explicit in the ruling. The big question is how much leeway the legislature has in satisfying the court's mandate: our own article says "it could elect to pass a new law recognising same-sex marriages or civil partnerships but giving said couples only some of the rights attributed to marriage." I think we need to wait for the formal legislation. 50.37.113.176 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The precedent probably comes from 2014 when binding decisions were being handed down by the US Circuit Courts. Then, states that were bound by circuit court decisions were added to the list and marked with an asterisk. Isn't this true of Taiwan as well since the judicial decision is binding if the Legislative Yuan doesn't act? Andrew1444 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't view it the same. Those court decisions mandated marriage equality. This one, as we describe it, is mandating that they do something, which could be marriage equality or could be some other solution that embodies equivalent rights but needn't be marriage itself (e.g. civil partnerships). Thus it is not mandating same-sex marriage, per se, and it is a bit CRYSTAL to conclude that the legislature will choose to enact marriage equality when they have this other option. 50.37.101.177 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. We have no consensus to add Taiwan, much less assurance that the legislature will definitely enact marriage equality. It has the ability to test the court's ruling by legislating for partnerships. The same cannot be said for Austria, where (short of an amendment to the constitution) SSM will automatically become legal on Jan 1 2019. Remove Taiwan. Jono52795 (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Japan

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)

Removed as there was no objection.

Paullb (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Mexico

Please see the same-sex marriage in Mexico page; reports that same-sex marriages are performed without amparos in Guerrero and Tamaulipas are erroneous. I removed those references for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsalerno (talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017

Slovenia allows gay marriage. It should be displayed in the info box and on the map.

The only reason I can imagine for not identifying Slovenia is the lack of adoption/IVF rights. But this was the case originally in Portugal and probably other countries, and is not a valid reason to exclude accurate information about marital rights. 73.134.0.36 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 17:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The law, which was passed by the parliament in April 2016 and took effect on 24 February 2017 is a new, upgraded partnership act (the old one, much narrower in scope, was repealed). See information on the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities's website and other Slovenian sources ([1], [2], [3]). Marriage is still available to opposite-sex couples only. See article 3 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Austria

The court ruling, to my rather uninformed eyes, appears to mirror the Taiwan case. A law banning same-sex marriage has essentially been struck down by court, telling the legislature to amend the law by a certain date into the future, and a fair bit of crystal gazing requires us to consider it simply "not in effect". If that was the basis for Taiwan not (yet) being included in the template, personally I think Austria should be treated the same. Thoughts? Pinging Prcc27, Jdcooper, Andrew1444 who all contributed to the Taiwan discussion. Jono52795 (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Also Ron 1987 who added Austria in the first place. Jono52795 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The difference I find is that the Taiwan case gives the Legislative Yuan the ability to enact legislation legalizing equal partnerships; the Austrian court definitively states that partnerships are not enough. Andrew1444 (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew; Austria already has registered partnerships, so there would be no other way to fulfill the court's ruling than by implementing same-sex marriage. We should keep Austria in the "marriage" section, but with a *. Isseubnida (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage will become legal on 1 January 2019, and no action from parliament or government is required. Of course, the parliament could adopt legislation to legalize it earlier, but it seems unlikely given its current composition. See [4], [5] Ron 1987 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Appreciate the feedback. Jono52795 (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Should be the same situation like Taiwan. Remove it. Paul Lincoln (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the Austraian ruling differes from Taiwan. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think Austria and Taiwan should both be added. In Taiwan, if the current laws remain as is, same sex marriage will become legal full stop. Same-sex marriage is legalized, but the parliament has the authority to block this legalization. Since they haven't blocked legalization yet, it would be WP:CRYSTAL to assume that they will do so in the future. Prcc27 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The law still not yet effect. Should not put in.Paul Lincoln (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's what the asterisk is for.. Prcc27 (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Australia

Was reading http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/when-will-samesex-couples-be-able-to-marry-after-law-in-australia-changes/news-story/d5c5eecef4e5d9cb16df9abec0025c8d . So the steps are Royal Assent, at which point we add the country with a star. When the Government indicate that the law has commenced we add to the recognizes foreign marriages, and then since couples getting married in Australia need to give 1 month notice which can't actually happen until after the date of commencement, we actually take off the star when the first marriage occurs in Australia? These are my *guesses*, I'd like other comments.Naraht (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

From 9 December, same-sex couples will be able to lodge a Notice of Intended Marriage (which has a one-month waiting time between the lodgement and the actual ceremony), so the law will at this point fully come into effect - there is no need to put Australia under "recognizes foreign marriage" during this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.121.82 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

So do they recognize foreign marriage now?Naraht (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The bill will enter into effect tomorrow (9 December). From this point on, foreign marriages will be recognised and Notices of Intended Marriage (in Australia) can be lodged. The new forms will be available from tomorrow: see here - https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/marriage-equality.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.45.121.82 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The asterisk should be removed when the law goes into effect. Prcc27 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding correctly, at this point Australia has complete Marriage Equality, but the limiting factor is that it doesn't matter if Joe and Karen or Mike and David decided today that they want to get married, neither can get married until Early January 2018, right?Naraht (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The star should now be removed. The law is in effect and recognizes overseas marriages. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Australia and the "star"

So, between now and January 9 (or whenever the first date that a Same Sex Couple who filled out the paperwork first thing could actually tie the knot), do we list them with the star or not? As far as I can tell, there is complete equality now in Australia, the delay is exactly the same for Same Sex and Opposite Sex couples.Naraht (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say no because effective 9 Dec they will also recognize overseas same-sex marriages. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

For goodness sake, the law is in effect. The asterisk is used for jurisdictions where a law/ruling allowing SSM is not in effect. Australia's law is now in effect and treats same-sex married couples as any other married (or intending to marry) couple. If married overseas they are automatically recognised as married in Australia and if marrying in the country they have a (minimum) 1 month waiting period after signing the paperwork. However that waiting period can be shortened in some circumstances, as has occurred for at least three same-sex couples if you care to look at the Same-sex marriage in Australia article. Expect the first (same-sex) marriage ceremony in Australia before christmas. Jono52795 (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2017

Update recognition of same-sex unions in Poland as "unregistered cohabitation" similar as situation to San Marino? 80.51.136.158 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)