Talk:Same-sex marriage

Colombia New Poll

A new poll conducted between November and December 2016 shows that support for same-sex marriage is 37% while 59% is against.[1]. So please update that information in your table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.18.52.36 (talk • contribs)

It would appear that Slovenia introduced gay marriage, please check and this to the lists - thank you

Slovenia has accepted same-sex marriage since 24th of February 2017. Check this link: https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/sprememba-zakonske-zveze-potrjena-istospolni-pari-se-lahko-porocijo/359579 and add Slovenia to the list. Plus update your outdated list because there are a couple of countries that legalized it as-well. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.37.87.50 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it did not. This has been a common source of confusion. It introduced enhanced registered partnerships on that day, and some news reports erroneously called them marriages. A similar thing happens in Italian media where civil unions are called marriages. Continue to watch this space though, as Slovenia has new elections in July and the issue could resurface. Robsalerno (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan same-sex marriage poll.

A recent poll conducted in november 2016 showed that 52% Taiwanese supported SSM:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2016/11/29/2003660214

Most polls show that a majority of Taiwanese support SSM:

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=2273290

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201506270005.aspx

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/11/30/nearly-two-thirds-of-taiwan-supports-marriage-equality-survey-finds/

Adoption

I think there is an error that resulted from somebody deleting text about Australia. In Australia, adoption is governed by State law. My understanding is that some states and territories allow it. Others do not. The article says that adoption is legal wherever same sex marriage is recognised. I believe this isn't true in Australia. That said, I'm not sure that adoption belongs in this article at all. The article is about same sex marriage. Adoption is an entirely separate issue. The right to adopt can exist without there being recognition of marriage, and there can be recognition of same sex marriage without the right to adopt. While I recognise that the two issues relate to gay rights, they aren't the same thing and one isn't dependant or related to the other. Should it be a separate article, or perhaps be relocated to an article about 'recognition of gay rights'. 114.198.91.123 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Same-sex marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620042439/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017501996?Congress%20Considers%20Outcome%20of%20D.C.%20Gay%20Marriage%20Legislation to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017501996?Congress%20Considers%20Outcome%20of%20D.C.%20Gay%20Marriage%20Legislation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

nation states

If we're going to highlight the Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand, despite the fact that they're constituent countries within their kingdoms and SSM is not recognized throughout the kingdoms (well, it was in Denmark, but in 2017, not 2012), then we should highlight other constituent countries as well, such as the three of the four in the UK that have SSM. I can't think of any other states where this would be relevant, so it's just adding highlighting/flags to England, Wales, Scotland, Greenland & the Faroes. Either that, or move the highlighting/flag for Denmark to 2017 and remove the highlighting/flags from the Netherlands and New Zealand, since SSM is not legal throughout those polities any more than it is throughout the UK. Either way, we should treat all countries the same. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, no discussion here, but it seems that we're going for only top-level states. So Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand are out. — kwami (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the flags on constituent countries. I'd even prefer than any territory that is not incorporated into the parent state had a flag (a BOT or an unincorporated territory, for example). And yes, if we are only going with "top-level" states, Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand are out Andrew1444 (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the flags too, personally. The problem with territories is that they could make the table too cluttered to read. We'd also need flag icons for all tribal govts in the US. Given that there are 400+ of them, that could become a distraction from highlighting the progress among major states. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Dont remove it all just because you didn't instantly got an answer. It's the Christmas / New year's week, there's less people around. The lack of answer within a day doesn't mean you have a consensus. I think it would be better to keep the flags for an obviously easier read of the chronology. If there's nitpicking over the extent of the legality within these countries, just add some notes. Don't remove content.--Aréat (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove any content. The countries are all still there. But SSM is not recognized by the Netherlands or New Zealand any more than it is by the UK. If the UK is not highlighted, because only 3/4 constituent contries recognize SSM, then the Netherlands (1/4 countries) and New Zealand (1/3 countries) shouldn't be either. Anyway, I tagged the problem so that readers will see there's a discussion. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The UK consists of 4 countries and some territories that belong to the whole of the UK (and they rely on the UK for defense). The same happens with Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten (but they rely on the Netherlands which is 1 country) and etc. If we're going to add flags for Greenland, Faroe Islands, England, Aruba, Wales, Scotland etc , then we'll need to add flags for the Mexican, the US, the Canadian or Brazilian states which is totally useless. It's ok if we leave it as it is. Very clear and easy for the average reader to understand it. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Xylo kai Gyali. It is very clear as is. If we have flags for constituent parts of countries then there is no reason why we wouldn't also include the flags of US and Mexcian states, Canadian provinces, British territories etc. Having a flag for England would be particularly odd as England doesn't even have its own government, unlike many states, provinces and territories. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And let's not forget that the laws passed in (for example) Greenland, Faroe Islands, British Overseas Territories etc. require royal assent by the respective countries. Whereas laws passed, for example, in Denmark, do not require royal assent by the Faroe islands or Greenland. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You're both confusing constituent countries with territories. Essentially, you're saying that England is the UK. The difference in that case is that the kingdom of England goes by a different name (the UK) than the country of England. But in the case of the Netherlands, Denmark, and New Zealand, the country and the kingdom/realm go by the same name. This may be confusing, but legally the situations are equivalent.

Also, British territories are not in the UK. If Northern Ireland were to recognize SSM, then it would be recognized throughout the UK even though the Caribbean territories did not. And those territories are different again than the states of the US and Mexico or the provinces of Canada.

If we highlight/flag the countries of Denmark and the Netherlands, rather than the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands, then we should also highlight/flag the country of England rather than the kingdom. And we should treat the other constituent countries within the kingdoms the same. If we only highlight/flag the UK (the kingdom of England), then we should only highlight/flag the kingdoms of the Netherlands and Demmark.

In other words, we should either highlight UN states (e.g. the UK) or countries (e.g. England). We shouldn't mix and match depending on our personal preferences. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It's very confusing. I don't think the average reader can understand all these. Also, as I mentioned earlier, Denmark gives assent to the laws passed by Greenland and Faroe Islands, and not the other way around. The same with New Zealand and Cook Islands and Niue, the UK and its overseas territories etc.. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether people find it confusing is irrelevant. Our job is to explain things, not censor information because it may confuse people.

No, they're not the same. The overseas British territories are not in the UK. Once N.Ireland recs SSM (probably not too long now), all of the UK will rec SSM. We'd be correct as listing the UK as a nation recognizing SSM with a footnote explaining that that recognition does not apply to the territories. But Greenland and Aruba are just as much parts of the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands as N.Ireland is a part of the UK.

The Kingdom of Great Britain and N.Ireland consists of four countries: England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland. It also owns a bunch of territories that are not actually part of the UK, just owned by it.

The Kingdom of Denmark consists of three countries: The country of Denmark (Denmark proper AKA metropolitan Denmark), the Faroes (who declared independence after a referendum in the 50s, only to have it denied by the kingdom), and Greenland. Denmark itself does not approve laws in Greenland and the Faroes, the kingdom does. It only sounds like Denmark approves them because the kingdom goes by the same name. It is like the UK in the sense that it's the kingdom that approves some things for the countries, not England. Claiming that the kingdom has approved SSM when only Denmark has is like claiming the UK has approved SSM when only England has.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of four countries: The country of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. As with Denmark, the country of the Netherlands is not the kingdom. If the country approves SSM, that doesn't mean the kingdom has.

The Realm of NZ consists of three countries: The country of NZ, the Cook Islands and Niue. Tokelau is not a constituent country of the realm, but a territory governed by the realm,, it's equivalent to the overseas territories of the UK. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The "countries" of the UK are called that in name for historic diplomatic reasons only. They are legally what other states would call provinces. In fact Northern Ireland is commonly referred to as a province. To mark them out differently here from other provinces for the simple fact that some have a degree of autonomy on marriage law is somewhat confusing the situation, the UK is not a federation. The UK as a sovereign state has equal marriage laws, regardless of the laws in a particular province. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true, but suppose you're right. The UK as a sovereign state still doesn't have equal marriage law, only some of its provinces do. It's no different than the US before 2015. And since metropolitan Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand are not countries, only provinces, their flags should be removed.

Unless you consider England to be the UK (since the parliament of England is the parliament of the UK), in which case we should add the UK flag to England+Wales, but not highlight the province of Scotland, analogous to how we treat Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand.

Either way, we should treat all states the same. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. It's very confusing. So Netherlands was not the first country to legalise same-sex marriage? Well, that's a shock. Personally, I believe we should leave it as it is. After all, there's a description before the table that explains the situation. To me, Aruba, Greenland, Niue or whatever seem to have the same status as the British Overseas Territories with the UK. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Netherlands was the first country. It's a constituent country of the kingdom. But legally it's on par with England, which is also a country, not with the UK. (It dominates its kingdom to a greater extent than England dominates the UK, but that's a function of relative population, not of legal standing. Its parliament is the parliament of the kingdom, but again that's the same as the situation of England within the UK -- there is no English parliament.)

"It seems to me" is not an argument -- legal status of states is not a matter of opinion. The overseas territories of the UK aren't even part of the UK, they're just owned by it -- their inhabitants aren't even citizens, except for the two that are claimed by other UN states. The four constituent countries of the Netherlands, however, are what define the Kingdom of the Netherlands, just as the four constituent countries of the UK define the UK.

Here are the states in question:

UN state	Constituent country
Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Irland	England
	Wales
	Scotland
	N. Ireland
Kingdom of the Netherlands	metropolitan Netherlands
	Aruba
	Curaçao
	Sint Maarten
Kingdom of Denmark	metropolitan Denmark
	Greenland
	Faroe Islands
Realm of New Zealand	metropolitan New Zealand
	Niue
	Cook Islands

The entities in the right column are all legally countries. If we are going to flag countries, then we need to flag all of them. If we're only going to flag UN states, then we should flag none of them.

Since the UN states in the left column will likely never recognize SSM, as they are leaving that decision to their constituent countries, and so will never appear in the Timeline table, I suggest we flag all countries that recognize SSM.

AFAIK, these are the only UN states that are composed of constituent countries in this way. Since the Caribbean and Pacific countries are unlikely to rec SSM any time soon, flagging countries instead of UN states is not going to flood the table with flags. Currently we're talking about just five, and with N.Ireland probably rec'ing SSM in the next few years, six.

And what happens when N.Ireland recognizes SSM? At that point the entire UK will recognize SSM, but there will be no flag for it in the table, no country name will be highlighted. At a glance, it will be like the UK doesn't exist. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As said before, let's leave them with flags as before, named as they are (note that "metropolitan X" arent official names), with notes leading to a precision of these particularities. Same with the UK. The remaining question is about which flag to use for the latter. Either the Union Jack, as the note would explain that it is actually not exactly the whole UK even if the flag is used (it's truly the exception here), or the england, scottish and wales one. Otherwise, we would have to remove flags for all of them, or leave most of the UK without one, which I think most of us agree wouldn't be satisfying.--Aréat (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if they're not official names. If we don't capitalize 'metropolitan', we'd not be using the it as part of the name, any more than "metropolitan France" is a name. Another possibility would be "X proper". — kwami (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? Their name as constituent countries are Netherlands, Danemark and New Zealand. Let's use them and their flags. The note would be there to indicate it's not their respective kingdoms.--Aréat (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That could work. I don't really care which names we use, only that we aren't biased in our reporting: If we highlight sub-state countries, then we should do so for all states, not just when we judge the other constituent countries aren't important. That would be like not highlighting Malta because it's a small country and so not important. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the UK, when Northern Ireland legalizes SSM, it could appear like England, Wales and Scotland do (not highlighted or flags) and next to it we can add "United Kingdom [nationwide]", like with Brazil, Canada, or Mexico (when all states legalise it). Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. But we would need to do the same with Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand -- not highlight or use the flag until SSM is recognized nationwide (Denmark in 2017, no time soon for the others). — kwami (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and that would mean N.Ireland's recognition would be portrayed as the UK's recognition. But the UK will presumably never recognize SSM, not the way the US, Canada and Brazil did. (But that is probably the way Mexico will work out.) — kwami (talk)

I'm pretty sure most people here agree removing these flags wouldn't be satisfactory. What do you think should be used to show the UK's constituents countries? --Aréat (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You can find what my proposal would look like in the article history: Flags and highlighting for England, Wales and Scotland. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Does Northern Ireland have an "official flag" that wouldn't be politically contentious? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the Union Jack is normally used, as NI does not have an official flag of its own. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To explain what I meant, let's say Northern Ireland legalises SSM on 30/6/2018. It would appear on the table "Northern Ireland (30 June)",and then next to it "Template:Uk flag United Kingdom [nationwide] (30 June)". Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that it would incorrectly suggest that the UK recognized SSM. — kwami (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Then add to the table the legal entities that do perform SSM. England & Wales is a legal entity, Scotland is a legal entity. Similarly in the "Kingdom of Denmark", Denmark is a separate legal entity to Greenland or Faroe Islands. Isle of Man, Guernsey, Alderney, Bermuda, Pitcairn Islands, Falkland Islands, Ascension etc all perform SSM, but they are all separate legal entities, and are not part of the UK. The Netherlands should remain as the first legal entity that performed SSM. This debate is "created" by opponents to SSM. Does it matter if flags are there are not, yes flags are pretty but it is not essential. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah, but it will be true that same-sex marriage is recognised nationwide in the UK. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald's marriage status

Please comment at Talk:Glenn Greenwald#Partner vs Spouse, NOT here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If one wishes to be pedantic

There are some people who are being very pedantic. OK ... France is shown in the table, but SSM is also legal in French Polynesia, Wallis & Futuna, New Caledonia, St Pierre & Miquelon and the French Southern & Antarctic Territories. These are not overseas departments of France. Should they be listed separately? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

They all follow French law, so they shouldn't be listed separately. Isseubnida (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Same sex marriage got legalized in these parts of France by the same law on the same day, it didn't went through a different legislative process. Do remember that they vote for the president, national assembly and Senate and have the french nationality, don't mistake them for fully devolved entities. They just have some autonomy which vary from one to the other.--Aréat (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The best comparisons are perhaps the Northern Territory in Australia or the Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories in Canada. They are fully integrated into the larger state; they have defined autonomy to cope with their distance from mainland France and their insularity. Andrew1444 (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Central and South American legislation

Unless its not a good idea, I have decided to start adding Central and South American nation-states that will most likely be affected by the Inter-American ruling. Let me know what you think. thanks Earth1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth1000 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We should not include these countries, unless intention to comply with the ruling is expressed. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As of 14 January 2018, that would mean Costa Rica (per government) and Peru (per judiciary) correct? Andrew1444 (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The governments of Costa Rica and Panama, as well as the judiciary of Peru, have stated that they would adhere to the ruling. That is enough for them to be included on the timeline. Andrew1444 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy of ILGA data

I don't think the ILGA data in the support table are accurate at all. Malaysia's 30% support is beyond unrealistic, in a country where all other polls suggest acceptance of homosexuality is below 10%. The same goes for all the other Arab countries, where there's no way support is that high. Also, sources for several European countries to national surveys that are definitely more accurate and features a much smaller proportion of "don't know/no idea". I think Pew Research Center receipts are much more accurate, at least for Europe. Greece's 56% of approval includes civil unions, by the way. 95.237.80.61 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with you. I think survey from ILGA was an online poll and that is why results were high in some countries (because richer and more educated people have access to internet). Especially true for countries like Ghana. Regarding Greece, the survey is from Focus Bari and it is about marriage not civil union. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya percentages seem unrealistically high. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So does Malaysia. I can't imagine that many people support SSM. The Chinese community, maybe, but certainly not the conservative Bumi and Indian populaitons. Andrew1444 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine 30% for Sudan, Pakistan, Malaysia and just 43% for Italy or 64% for the Netherlands.. it doesn't make sense Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Same here. This look very dubious, and put question on the whole table of poll's sample and methodology. They should be removed, in my opinion. --Aréat (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Italy's support is at 56% (40% opposed) according to a recent trustworthy national poll. IMO the fact that ILGA's numbers are from an online poll should invalidate its accuracy and thus its use as a reliable source for the actual public opinion. In most specific articles about "LGBT rights in ____" there are better opinion polls, I reckon. I'll change the numbers where I can--as for the countries we only have ILGA data for, I think the best choice would be to remove them, but I'll wait for some more consensus. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 09:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you're right on that! And nice name! Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

First map description

The color key of the first map of the page doesn't fit anymore following unilateral changes. See the wikimedia discussion here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg --Aréat (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica

On 20 January, same-sex couple will marry before the notary, but it will not have legal effect until registration in the Civil Registry. The notary will have eight days to sent request for the registration. It's not clear whether the Registry will agree to do that. See [2], [3]. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Bulgaria, Poland, Serbia, Japan

What about legal recognition of unregistered same-sex couples in Bulgaria, Poland, Serbia or Japan? Isn't it the same situation as in the case of San Marino which is included on the list?

Bulgaria, Poland: LawsAndFamilies Database Launched | Europe. Progress across Europe Same-sex marriages or registered partnerships are now legal in 21 of the 28 member states of the EU... And also in Poland and Bulgaria, same-sex couples are beginning to get some legal recognition. http://www.sexualorientationlaw.eu/155-lawsandfamilies-database-launched-europe

additionally Poland: Landmark decision of the Supreme Court regarding rights of same-sex partners in criminal law http://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/3773-poland-landmark-decision-of-the-supreme-court-regarding-rights-of-same-sex-partners-in-criminal-law-pdf-101-kb

Serbia: In 1997, Serbia-Montenegro allowed artificial insemination treatment for women in a same-sex relationship. http://www.gaylawnet.com/laws/rs.htm LGBT world legal wrap up survey (p. 6) http://accept-romania.ro/images/stories/world_legal_wrap_up_survey__november2006.pdf

According to information from the prison and correctional facility “Zabela” management, this institution does allow visits from same-sex partners. BEING LGBTI IN EASTERN EUROPE: SERBIA COUNTRY REPORT (p. 17-19) h ttps://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjWzeaog-XYAhUIDiwKHXXADs84ChAWCCYwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rs.undp.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fserbia%2FPublications%2520and%2520reports%2FEnglish%2FBLEE%2520SERBIA%2520report_web%2520version.eng.pdf%3Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw1OPvfKufvx55VylWt09sqq

Japan: Japan to allow its citizens same-sex marriage - with foreign partners http://www.fridae.asia/gay-news/2009/03/31/2249.japan-to-allow-its-citizens-same-sex-marriage-with-foreign-partners