Template talk:Same-sex unions

Estonia

I cannot find a ref that Estonia recognizes SSM performed abroad. The claim in our article that they do is ref'd to this article from 2017, but that's a single case, not a general right. Also, this article from 2018 says that such unions are in general not recognized. I have therefore removed Estonia from the SSM list (but left it in the CU list). — kwami (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

From the wikipage it appears that the recognition of foreign SSMs is far from automatic and some marriages are downgraded to cohabitation agreements. Estonia should be listed under 'civil unions'. When the Estonian Supreme Court or Estonian law states that 'EU SSM marriages are recognised as such', then we may apply an asterisk stating 'only if performed in other EU countries'. Agree? Finedelledanze (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

(Re. Armenia, it appears that there is such a ruling. But I can't find any indication that it's ever been taken advantage of, that there is even a single SS couple living as married in Armenia.)

Agreed. Being listed in the registry if you're already a resident doesn't seem to correlate to getting residency even if your spouse is a citizen. If you have to get a CU to be seen as a couple to get residency, even if you were already married abroad, then the 'recognition' of the marriage doesn't amount to what we imply by listing Estonia on this chart. So, I've removed Estonia. As for Armenia, indeed -- a couple sources about the ruling, but no evidence that it's actually been used. And the govt might balk if someone tried. But that's all OR and CRYSTAL. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I wrote to the Estonian Human Rights Centre to ask them if Estonia recognizes foreign SSM as marriage, or as equivalent to domestic CUs (kooselulepingu), as e.g. Italy does (except of course that Estonian domestic kooselulepingu have not been properly implemented). My specific wording was "I am not concerned about residency rights, which I think I understand, but whether a foreign same-sex marriage is legally treated as equivalent to domestic opposite-sex marriage in all other respects." I also asked a question per who can get married abroad, due to a ruling from 2009 that Estonian citizens did not qualify, but was told that currently an Estonian citizen can't get SSM'd abroad as a tourist, but can if they are a resident of the country. (As expected.) I can copy you on their response of February 24, 2019, if you have your WP email enabled.

There is no simple answer to your question, nor is there one right answer to this question. There is a lot of confusion around the topic due to missing implementation acts. ... these answers are provided based on some court rulings and since we are not a common law country, these practices can be changed by other rulings.
Estonia recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. There is no uniform approach, it recognizes some and in some contexts.
There have indeed been some cases when foreign concluded gay marriages have been entered into the national population register but there is no clear understanding if they have the same rights as married couples or as couples who have signed registered partnership contract.[1]
There is ongoing constitutional review at the Supreme Court of Estonia about the Aliens Act so as to grant residence permits to the same-sex partners of Estonian citizens. That ruling may change a lot in terms of residence permits. 

It sounds like there have been case-by-case recognition, as in Italy, and otherwise it's not clear if foreign rec is any more than in e.g. Italy. Since Italy is not listed as recognizing SSM, just as having CUs, I think the same treatment should be given to Estonia. Actually, they arguably don't really have CU's apart for those SSM they recognize from abroad. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell from our article and the few sources I can find, those aren't CU's in Estonia but registered cohab, and it any case haven't yet been implemented. So the only current recognition is of marriages conducted abroad. Those are recorded in the registry, but what does that mean to the couple? AFAICT, it's quite minimal, like Curacao or Romania. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruled that the law is in force. See [2]. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Armenia, again

Guys, Armenia has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and is one of the most conservative countries in Europe for LGBT people. How could it possibly be listed under 'recognized abroad'? Again, registration of a foreign certificate does not mean recognition of rights. We only have one very poor source about the registration of marriage certificates. As long as further clarification is provided, Armenia should be under 'limited or partial recognition' IMHO, or not listed at all as this is probably a mistake of the Armenian ministry with no intention of legalising marriage. Finedelledanze (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The Armenia source I presented states: Armenia's Ministry of Justice declaring earlier this year that international marriage licenses, including for same-sex couples, are valid in Armenia. Then: It is time for Armenia to expend the same rights to its own citizens. This is as clear as it can be (note also that this is from an Armenian gay activist). As for Estonia, the source is also very clear, in that Estonia recognizes same-sex marriages performed abroad, but decides each case individually. So I do believe a note should be added. Maybe Assessed on a case-by-case basis? Grouping these two countries in the limited and partial recognition section is misleading. For starters because we have no evidence whatsoever that Armenia and Estonia treat gay couples married abroad differently than straight couples married abroad. Assuming they do simply because they're "conservative" is extremely deceptive. And secondly because they are grouped with countries such as Taiwan or Japan which simply recognize hospital visitation rights and certain property rights, which again is misleading.Panda2018 0 (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Panda, for Armenia we need to find direct sources (a law, a decree, an official statement from the Government, an explanation of a jurist), we have none of these, just a news website. Armenia has a constitutional same-sex marriage ban, which makes recognition of foreign same-sex marriage extremely unlikely from a legal point of view. For Estonia, several sources cited in the Estonia article explain that recognition happens on a case by case basis or it is limited to EU nationals: this is why recognition is limited (and add to this the notion that registration of a foreign marriage is not per se recognition of rights, just transcription of a foreign certificate to unknown domestic application - laws or courts need to indicate how domestic law should treat foreign contracts). Also Estonian civil unions are problematic because they lack implementation legislation, but there is evidence and wiki-consensus that they are regularly performed. Finedelledanze (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Both of these cases bother me, but we can only go by the sources we have. If they are inaccurate, please come up with other sources to indicate that. The fact that Armenia has a constitutional ban is irrelevant -- god knows how the law is interpreted. It could simply mean that SSM cannot be conducted in Armenia. We can't interpret the constitution ourselves, that would be OR.

On the other hand, both may 'recognize' SSM couple without accepting them as married, e.g. for residency rights as is the case in Romania. If that's the case, we'd presumably remove them from this table and change the coloring in the map from solid to striped. But it would be OR to do that without sources. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not trying to pass this off as a source, and I don't read Armenian anyway (I'm plugging into Google Translate, which is giving surprisingly coherent results), but the Armenian WP article states,

Հայաստանը, Էստոնիան և Իսրայելը չանաչում են նույնասեռ ամուսնությունները, որոնք կատարվել են այլ երկրներում։ Նույնասեռ ամուսնությունները օրենքով պատրաստվում են ճանաչել նաև Ավստրիան, Կոստա Ռիկան և Թայվանը։

Armenia, Estonia and Israel do not recognize homosexual marriages that have taken place in other countries. Similarly, homosexual marriages are also legally recognized by Austria, Costa Rica and Taiwan.

The article is clearly just a translation of some other wiki, but the 'not' seemed odd, especially give the following 'similarly'. Turns out that it was changed, without sources or even an edit summary, from,

Բացի այդ, Հայաստանը, Իսրայելը և Էստոնիան ճանաչում են նույնասեռ ամուսնությունները, որոնք օրինականացվել են այլ երկրներում։

In addition, Armenia, Israel and Estonia recognize homosexual marriages that have been legalized in other countries.

So, WP-hy would seem to be just like here, w people insisting on the 'truth' without providing any evidence. If anyone should be able to dig up evidence that the reports are inaccurate, it should be the people at WP-hy. I've also asked on the talk page for them to let us know. I do suspect that Armenia is more like Hong Kong than like Israel, but we do need sources. — kwami (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

followup - evidently no actual cases are known, so so far this is a theoretical point. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Japan [and Cambodia]

As Japan has no legal recongition of same sex partnerships. I removed it from the list. (certificates issued have no legal value)

--Paullb (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The registries are inscribed in local law, and provide certain limited legal rights, such as hospital visitation. Panda2018 0 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The registries are inscribed in local law but provide no legal benefits, they are purely symbolic. Shibuya City forces registrants to have a contractual relationship between the partners but that is not bestowed by Shibuya City but rather by the contract entered by the two parties. Hospitals are under no obligation to respect the certificates. The English language media often gets it wrong. Please do not put Japan back as there is no legal recognition of relationships

Paullb (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would it matter if they hold no legal weight? The certificates are valid and provide benefits (hospital visitation, housing) which the couple would not be enjoying had the city not implement these registries. To not show Japan is misleading and dishonest to the 400 or so couples who have their relationship recognized. Japan is listed under Limited or partial recognition. That is exactly where it should be. Panda2018 0 (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The certificates do not guarantee any benefits, hospitals are not bound to respect the certificates. These (349 as of Jan 1, 2019) couples have a piece of paper (and I'm sure I would got get one if I had that special person in my life) but the reality is papers are entirely symbolic. No jurisdiction anywhere in Japan has any legal recognition for same-sex partnership therefore Japan doesn't belong on this template at all because there isn't Limited or partial recognition there is zero recognition. I so wish it was different but this is the unfortunate truth of where we are. Hopefully the 13 couples filing suit can change that. Paullb (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"hospitals are not bound to respect the certificates." But what about those that do? Are we just going to ignore them? If the city did not issue said certificates, the couples would not be enjoying hospital visitation rights in any hospital. The rights provided by these certificates are therefore (very) limited, exactly why it should be listed under limited or partial recognition. Panda2018 0 (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"The rights provided by...", these certificates don't provide any rights. That's why Japan doesn't belong on the list. Rights are something conferred by law, which these certificates don't do.

Until there is (even a small amount) of legal recognition for same-sex unions in Japan, Japan should definitely stay off the list. Paullb (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

So no hospital visitation rights are provided at all? The certificates are thus absolutely meaningless? Panda2018 0 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan ariticle indicates that there are legal advantages provided by the registries includingfor Sapporo the ability to receive their partner's life insurance money. For Nakano, as a result of signing a partnership agreement, the couple receives "documentation recognizing a delegation agreement for medical treatment and nursing care, property management and other areas in which married couples share responsibility". So IMO, while all of these things *may* be able to be separately created, it does have some (relatively small) legal weight. So I support returning it to the list.Naraht (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sapporo City's website: （http://www.city.sapporo.jp/shimin/danjo/lgbt/seido.html ）[translating] "This certificate has no legal power", "The certificate is stored for 10 years"

Nakano　City's website (http://www.city.tokyo-nakano.lg.jp/dept/101500/d026072.html )[translating] "This certificate does not attribute any legal rights or obligations...but Nakano City is working to increase understanding in it's jurisdiction"

Both cities explicitly state they their certificates convey no rights or legal obligations. I'll update the Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan to reflect reality. If anyone can find a primary source (i.e. a city page) that conveys that the certificate itself (and not the contract that the parties seperately enter) provides even the smallest of legal rights I'm happy to alter my opinion and we can add Japan to the list, but each City states that it's certificates are not legally binding documents and so as there is no legal recognition, Japan can't be added to the list (however much I wish the would). (FYI about me: I work in diversity at a major Japanese company in Toyko and the English media regularly overstates these certificates. I regularly see "Marriage legalised in XYZ [Japanese] City" which is wholly inaccurate. Paullb (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This sounds very much like the situation in Cambodia. If we're going to have one, I think we need to have the other. I'm putting Japan back on the list. Of course, we could remove both if people think that's best, but I think that we should have some sort of agreed standard as to how much recognition we require to recognize limited recognition. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't unilaterally make changes that have been discussed on the talk page. I think Wikipedia should take the legal view of recognition. Are any rights conferred to the indivduals (couples) via the certificates. The unfortunate reality for Japan is that they do not. Consequently, there is zero (not limited recognition, but none) legal recognition and Japan can't be included on the table. As none of the currently in force partnership certificats confer any legal rights, I've reverted part of the changes you made that implied they did. Ibaraki has not released any details on their website to confirm that their certificate actually confers said rights. The English language media referernced is frequently inaccurate on this point. Once Ibaraki releases details we can revisit. I have reverted your addition of Japan to the template. Paullb (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how you call restoring Japan "unilateral" when you removed it despite no-one agreeing with you.

From our description of Cambodia, it sounds like things there are much like Japan. An LGBT group facilitates civil contracts, and a few communes accept them, though what they accept them for is unclear. But we list Cambodia.

We list states in the EU, and cities in China, where the only legal consequence is that your foreign spouse can get a residency permit, but you have no rights as a married couple otherwise. For people already living there, there's nothing at all. Is some hospitals allowing you to make medical decisions, or getting public housing together in Japan any more minimal than that? — kwami (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

From this, it sounds like local institutions in Cambodia may accept the certificates if they like, but there's no legal requirement for them to do so. Sounds like local institutions in Japan that may choose to accept the certificates without any legal requirement to do so. — kwami (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on Cambodia but if there isn't any legal recognition there either it should be removed too. If you live in Cambodia, then I encourage you to maket he appropriate decision for that country. I live and work in the LGBT space here in Tokyo and the reality in Japan is that while some institutions may choose to recognise them, no rights are passed. In fact, as noted above municipalities specifically state the the certificates have no legal weight. Even worse, some (most of the ones I checked) throw away the record of issueance of the certificate after 10 years. Additionally, a partership certificate does not entitle a partner to a residency permit either. With no legal recognition on any level of government, Japan has no business being on the template. There is a bill in the Diet (which with an LDP government is unlikely to go anywhere) and a courtcase ongoing, it is looking a bit better for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullb (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Poland

Hi Sorry but the law and constitution specefically without doubt ban same sex marriages and uses man wome The law was not striken down by the suoreme or constitutional court of the country The statuoary ban still exist and as u know u doubt that the right conservative parliament and goverment will never change the law nor accept itvesides the same marriage was not recognised so

Is it wise to assume as many did like in marriages ban or recongnition in europe or european union pages that poland no longer still has a constitutional marriage ban I think it does have and will have it So editing wrongly other pages on that is wrong? Should we revert them to point that poland still has the ban it dasnt striken down or changed u know What do u think?

Thank u AdamPrideTN (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a court in Poland did rule that there was no constitutional SSM ban in Poland. Like you, I expect that the government will now move to reinstate the ban, but until they do I guess we can leave them off the list. It's easy enough to add them back if that does happen, but until then we can't assume (see WP:CRYSTAL) Jdcooper (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

AFAICT, there is no need to reinstate the ban. They didn't determine that the ban was unconstitutional, just that SSM was not banned by the constitution. The leg is free to provide for SSM or ban it as they see fit, with no need to amend the constitution. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Recognized"

Under "Marriage", we have "performed" and "recognized". Israel, Mexico and theoretically Armenia recognize out-of-state marriage as marriage, so it makes sense to have them under "Marriage". Estonia, Aruba, Italy, Switzerland etc. etc. also recognize out-of-state marriage, but do not treat them as marriages. To me, it does not make sense to include them under "marriage", but under the category they treat them as. After all, this is about people's rights, and the higher in the chart a state is, the more rights it accords. St Maartin does not give you the rights than Israel or even Italy does, so IMO it should not be above them in the chart. Also, if we're not going to restrict "recognized" under "marriage" to mean treatment as marriage, what is the cut-off? Romania and Lithuania "recognize" out-of-state marriage, so if we're going to do that, shouldn't both the CU and 'limited rec' sections simply be merged into the "recognition" section? What other non-arbitrary cut-off is there? — kwami (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"Recognized" section should stay as it is. Do you have any proof that Aruba does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in the metropolitan Netherlands as marriages? Recognition of such marriages was established by the court ruling years before the island enacted registered partnership law. And no, unequal treatment is not a proof, as we are talking about the designation of "marriage" itself. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Our own article says they do not. If they do, then of course they should be in this section, but then our article should be corrected. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The article says no such thing. Same-sex marriages have been recognized since 2007, and Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have been listed under "Recognized" ever since. Like Ron 1987 said, partnerships were established long after the SC ruling. To suddenly claim that these marriages are registered partnerships is absurd and certainly unsourced. Panda2018 0 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

To quote the ruling itself: "Article 40 of the Statute entails that a deed drawn up by an official, such as a marriage certificate, in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba has the same legal force and effects in all parts of the Kingdom. The Kingdom counts as one jurisdiction on this point. That is why the Aruban court must accept the legal force of this Dutch marriage certificate." Panda2018 0 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Then why do we say "partially recognized by Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten"? From what you just said, it sounds like they're fully recognized. Similarly, in the lead of the article we say, "they don't have to give same-sex marriages the same legal effect as opposite-sex marriages", directly contradicting what you just quoted. We even have a section "Non-equal treatment of married couples", where we summarize a court statment that such marriages do not have the same legally force as opposite-sex marriages. So, did we get it wrong in the article and footnote here? Has the ruling you cited overridden the ruling our article and fn ref? — kwami (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW, the claim that moving the islands to 'limited recognition' is "ludicrous" because they have more rights thn the residency-only rec of Romania etc is silly -- we could just as easily compare them to Israel, Cambodia, the Caymans and Taiwan, all of which are in that category and all of which would seem to offer rights that Romania etc do not. The table is crudely divided, but it seems obvious to me that a country should not appear under 'marriage' if it does not allow marriage (counting recognition of out-of-state marriage), and if Aruba et al. do allow marriage, then yes, they belong at the top under 'marriage', but we need a good 2ary ref and then we need to reword the footnote and correct the article. If they do not allow marriage -- if they register it and file it away and don't act on it, as our article currently implies -- then they don't belong under 'marriage'. Their recognition should be listed in the section appropriate for the actual rights conferred. Northern Ireland and Italy also recognize out-of-state marriage. The CU's in Italy were partly designed for just that, and the CU's of Ireland are partly intended to accommodate SSM from elsewhere in the UK. Since that's similar to how our article describes Aruba, then if the article is correct and we include Aruba, we need to include N.Ireland, Italy et al. And if we include Curacao and St Maarten, which apparently don't even confer the rights of CU's, then we need to include Romania, Latvia and the rest. Either that or clarify in their article how Curacao and St Maarten confer all the rights of marriage. — kwami (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

According to this interesting article right here, "the recognition of the marriage certificate also means the recognition of the legal consequences of said certificate". This seems to be pursuant to a 2008 court ruling in Willemstad (which isn't mentioned on our WP article). It does seem like our article might need some updating. Jedi Friend (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if they did recognize fully. But that article's from over a decade ago! Are we that out of date, or was the matter never settled? I've written all 3 govts for clarification. We'll see if they get back to me. [A wedding-planning site said they'd get back to me. No govt response as of Fri 4/19.]

Anyway, it seems to me that from such rulings, we should simply list the islands as we do Mexican states, that they rec SSM performed in the kingdom, without qualification. But we need to confirm that this is de facto the case and not just de jure. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, this is from the LGBT org in Curacao.

Traditionally as a married couple you are able to register as a married couple at the civil registry if you are married by law. We only do not perform the wedding (civil union) yet. When the marriage equality bill is introduced you will have to reaffirm your status under Curacao laws.

When I asked for what rights you get (taxes, adoption, inheritance, medical decisions, etc.) by registering as a married couple,

It is more like a registered partnership..still no rights granted. Until they introduce the equality bill [only] then you will have the rights you mentioned as a married couple regarding taxes, adoption etc.

When I asked for clarification (translation problem of 'until' with or without a negative),

You have no rights. You can register as a married couple but you have no rights (taxes etc). You cannot get married legally in Curacao yet. When they introduce the marriage bill you will have rights like (adoption,taxes etc) under the Curacao law.

So it sounds like Curacao only recognizes you marriage in the literal sense, the way the US might recognize a plural marriage conducted where it's legal, but without according it the status of a marriage. This is more like Romania 'recognizing' a SSM conducted in the EU. I'll move Curacao to the 'minimal rights' list (though I don't know if there's even that). Presumably Aruba would recognize them as the local equivalent, a civil union, so that's already covered. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That cannot be true. Gay and lesbian couples do enjoy rights when registering their Dutch marriage in ACS, such as health insurance.

http://www.curacao-law.com/2008/08/07/dutch-same-sex-couples-have-the-same-rights-as-dutch-caribbean-couples/

That's a decade old. If it were true then and since, why do our articles still say rights are not equal? Something's very wrong here. It would be nice to have recent RS's as to what's actually going on. — kwami (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

balanced...

Well, getting another nation to have SSM is *one* way to balance to columns. :)Naraht (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2019

Add Bulgaria to the countries recognizing same-sex marriage. 98.202.22.21 (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)