Jump to content

Template talk:Same-sex unions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Cleanup of usages and links?

In *General* a template should be on the pages that it links to. I know there are exceptions, but this template seems to have a particularly large number of issues in that regard. There are 153 Wikipedia pages that this template is on that aren't links, and 13 that it links to that it doesn't appear on.

https://templatetransclusioncheck.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3ASame-sex+unions

Most of the pages in the first group (153) are pages about Same Sex Marriage in subnational entities that may have been linked from the template at one time, but no longer are, for example: Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Same-sex marriage in Manitoba, Same-sex marriage in Oaxaca and Same-sex marriage in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands . There are also others where the state of Marriage in the country is so low that they don't make the template such as Recognition of same-sex unions in Serbia.

The second group, where the template links to but aren't on the page are a more eclectic mix....

Surely this template is an over-arching navigation template for same-sex marriage articles in general? If I am on the SSM article about Serbia/Mali/Andorra or wherever, I would find this template useful. Jdcooper (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't believe so. That would be Template:Status of same-sex unions which isn't a sidebar. When one of these two should be used and when the other should be used, I'm not sure. I can take a look to see if that Template is OK for links vs. Inclusions.Naraht (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't say what I meant to say! I meant for countries that have same-sex marriage (or civil unions etc.). I really don't see the problem with this being on more articles than it links to. Jdcooper (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia

@Kwamikagami and Buidhe: The claim that Armenia offers minimal recognition doesn't seem quite right. We should have evidence before we make the claim. Due weight here is questionable. Same-sex marriages are not actually legal. That dubious information was reported in July 2017. It's been 5 years. That was never confirmed by the government. On 26 August 2019, the Minister of Justice Rustam Badasyan, actually refuted those dubious claims, stating that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriages. No case had so far occurred in practice. 212.97.4.68 (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if its been 5, 10, or 15 years is irrelevant. The MoJ confirmed that foreign marriages are recognized in Armenia- with no mention of gender. This article also makes it very clear that no same sex foreign marriage has been registered in Armenia to date. Therefore, your concern is already addressed in the notes. Archives908 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami and Kaleetan:

Do you have sources that anyone registered their foreign same-sex marriages in Armenia? Not just generic statements that they can be, but that the practice being used? I wouldn't be surprised, just think we should have RS's to back up our claims. I think it's misleading to include Armenia for "minimal recognition" if no-one's actually registered their foreign same-sex marriage. Zero evidence for same-sex couples being actually registered, means we shouldn't include Armenia. It's been 5 years with no evidence presented. It's time to remove Armenia from the "minimal recognition" list.

@Kwamikagami and Kaleetan: The situation is kind of similar to Romania. For a long time, we believed that Romania recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. However, we were wrong the whole time.
IP user- read the notes. Your concern is already addressed, the notes state that none have yet to be registered. Archives908 (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the situation is dubious. But that's why we have a big question mark on the map. It would be interesting to see what would happen if an Armenian citizen tried to register their spouse, but until that happens or the govt reverts itself, we're left with the last official statement. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is where we left off, for all those who seem to have forgotten. The consensus reached back in December 2021 was that we should defer to the last official statement made by the Ministry of Justice. Which is that the Government of Armenia recognizes foreign marriages, regardless of sex. Just because a foreign marriage of a same-sex couple has not yet been registered, it does not mean that the MoJ announcement is invalid. It is WP:CRYSTAL if we assume the MoJ has changed their stance to only registering opposite-sex foreign marriages. And that is precisely why we have notes explaining this peculiar case for Armenia. Yes- it is slightly vague and ambiguous. However, until more updated information/reliable sources become available- the last official statement is what we should defer too (at least for now). Archives908 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source, [1] foreign same-sex marriages are not recognized in Armenia.
@Kwamikagami, Robsalerno, Trystan, and Buidhe: What do you think? Dustssics (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 August 2019, the Minister of Justice Rustam Badasyan, stated that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriages. That is the last official statement made by the Ministry of Justice. Dustssics (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that source comes directly from the Ministry of Justice. According to Article 143 of the Armenian Family Code, it states that Armenia recognizes foreign marriages as long as they conform with the legality of the territory where they were celebrated, not excluding people of the same sex.[2] This has been confirmed by the last official statement from the MoJ on 3 July 2017, which states Marriage certificates registering the union between two people of the same sex abroad are valid in Armenia.[3] Archives908 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dustssics, where are you seeing that? I'm not finding anything that corresponds to your statements -- the name, the date, nothing apart from a ref to RA Family Code, Article 152, that "where foreign country norms in relation to family rights contradict the legal framework of Armenia, the legislation of the Republic of Armenia is applied", which they interpret as meaning foreign SSM will not be recognized. But they're not trained in Armenian constitutional law, so who knows? — kwami (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Dustssics' source is from 2009 and shouldn't be considered up to date. However, ILGA-Europe publishes an annual report tracking these issues every year and it has never once reported that Armenia offers any recognition whatsoever for same-sex couples, foreign or domestic. ILGA-E works with LGBT organizations on the ground in Armenia, so they would know what the actual legal situation is. https://rainbow-europe.org/#8620/0/0
I've been clear in the past. I do not think we should take this one dubious report that Armenia recognizes foreign same-sex marriages at face value, absent any actual examples of same-sex marriage recognition, and absent any corroboration by local LGBT groups. Armenia should be colored to reflect that same-sex marriage is banned by statute, there is no foreign recognition, and that none of this is in doubt. Robsalerno (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3.2. Same-sex partnerships/marriage

According to the Family Code, marriages between the citizens of the Republic of Armenia and those of other countries, once legally in order, will be recognized. However, where foreign country norms in relation to family rights contradict the legal framework of Armenia, the legislation of the Republic of Armenia is applied. In short, this means that same-sex marriages recognized in Belgium or elsewhere will not be recognized in Armenia. Dustssics (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your interpretation is not a WP:RS. You need to provide a valid source from the Ministry of Justice retracting their earlier statement from 2017. Otherwise, the consensus from December 2021 should remain in place. Archives908 (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template implies that foreign marriages are available or recognized in Armenia. That's clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustssics (talkcontribs) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true- read the notes. Archives908 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does that support your claim that "On 26 August 2019, the Minister of Justice Rustam Badasyan, stated that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriages. That is the last official statement made by the Ministry of Justice." I expect that when you provide a ref for a claim, that the ref supports that claim. — kwami (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— kwami can you please ping or name who you are referring to when you respond, since there are multiple people in this conversation its hard to keep track. This is the last source that I found coming from the MoJ.[4] It confirms that Marriage certificates registering the union between two people of the same sex abroad are valid in Armenia. If you have found something else from 2019, please link it in your response. This source [5] does not cite anything from Minister Rustam Badasyan as far as I see. Archives908 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to Dustssics. Yeah, it's hard to see what lines up with what. — kwami (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would appear to be a RS, at least as of 2017. — kwami (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
haha all good :) thanks for the clarification! Archives908 (talk)

1. [6]

Use translator

2. [7] Dustssics (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read both these sources, Dustssics. Neither bring any validity to this discussion. The first article referrers to marriages taking place within Armenia, not foreign marriages. The second article, again, makes zero mention of foreign same sex marriage. As far as I can see, the 2017 MoJ statement is the last official announcement we have regarding foreign same-sex marriage. Archives908 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, the consensus reached in December 2021 should be maintained until additional information becomes available. Until then, the notes section provides readers with clarification of this ambiguous case. Archives908 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that WP:CRYSTAL if we assume Armenia "recognizes" foreign same-sex marriages? Dustssics (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Because we have a valid source. Archives908 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other sources except panarmenia.net? Dustssics (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage- but panarmenia is the most reliable out of the lot.[8][9][10] If you find any that contradict the source(s) we do have available, please share. Archives908 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it actually "recognized" in practice? Dustssics (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a same-sex couple would have to register first. That is why we have notes for Armenia, as this is a peculiar case. Archives908 (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a doubtful case. Well, anyway, we'll see what happens. Maybe something like in neighboring Georgia. Dustssics (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree- the best thing we can do for now is wait. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Adoption

Adoption may be seen as a right of marriage, so I added notes that in some countries with SSM, only opposite-sex couples are allowed to adopt, so they don't have complete marriage equality. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was reverted without discussion as "not relevant". Relevance: by law, "married couples" can jointly adopt, but same-sex married couples cannot, ergo in that situation they are not legally married couples. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico, listing the ones remaining in the Notes?

At this point, Mexico has 5 states left without state-wide Marriage Equality: Durango, Guerrero, México (state), Tabasco, and Tamaulipas. At *some* point, I think it will be appropriate to have a note that looks like (All states except Tabasco) or something like that. Are we there now, or how many states should be left before we list them specifically in the Notes?Naraht (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could see how it looks now. Marriage for 40% of pop of Guerrero, per last estimate we have (haven't heard anything recently). — kwami (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. It's a manageable list to include, and is slightly simpler to update. As for stats within states, I think as long as we specify state-wide, that's enough detail I would say. Interested readers can always delve deeper if they wish. Jdcooper (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Made the change. Moved Mexico City to the front because otherwise it became unclear whether it was part of the except grouping or not. Removed the parts of Guerrero clause. Not sure it is the best phrasing, feel free to change to what you think is better. It is a *little* longer (2 more characters), but OTOH, gives information on *which* 5 states (and will be shorter than the original concept when Marriage Equality comes to one more state).Naraht (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kwamikagami Yeah, the nationwide recognition is the key thing and I agree should be first, though given nothing up in the main section about subnational parts, it might be expected. And from what I can tell, there is no possibility of the number of states not allowing increasing barring a *complete* shakeup of the Mexican Supreme Court.

Slovenia

Definitely confirmed. https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/politics/10254-slovenia-legalises-same-sex-marriage-adoptions . I have put in for a move of the current Recognition of same-sex unions in Slovenia to the current redirect Same-sex marriage in Slovenia. The redirect actually has a history, so it will be a technical move. We'll need a redirect in the other direction when we are done.Naraht (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra

The bill in Andorra has passed the legislature and does not come into effect for 6 months *AFTER* it is signed by one of the co-princes. Given that Bishop of Urgell is *not* going to sign this, it should not be added to the template until French President Macron signs the bill. Note, I think the chance of Macron *not* signing it is fairly small, but I think that it is non-zero, especially considering that the approved bill is not quite just "allow same sex marriage". (and there is no override for both princes refusing to sign, so even though the entire bill was approved unanimously, it doesn't matter ) Naraht (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, per CRYSTAL, we shouldn't add it until Macron signs off, then leave an asterisk until it takes effect.
There actually is an override if both princes refuse: Andorra could declare itself a republic and treat it as enacted law. About as likely as Macron refusing to sign. — kwami (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.Naraht (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chance of Macron not signing is zero, but that's not the point. IIRC, by long-standing practice we don't say that the law is passed until it has completed every part of the legislative process. Jdcooper (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jdcooper I agree that that is the point. The Note is less important.Naraht (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of same-sex marriage, civil unions, cohabitations, and/or differentiating between real marriage equality and non-quite-equal marriage equality.

I asked this on Help Desk, but I was referred to as here.

A couple of days go Andorra reformed its family law to define "matrimoni" (marriage) as either the (already existing) Roman Catholic canonical marriage or a new "casament" legal instrument that is said to be open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, and fully equal to Roman Catholic canonical marriage. Except, as I pointed out in the discussion pages of the article, the use of a different term for religious and secular "marriage" may point to the fact that indeed what Andorra just passed is a form of civil-unions law which just happens to be extremely similar to marriage. The page is being renamed to **Same-sex marriage in Andorra**, and the Same-sex union map that is often found in LGBT and Europe related articles will probably be changed to portray Andorra.

Likewise, the Slovenian high court recently declared limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples inconsistent with the equality clause in Slovenia's constitution, and "legalized same-sex marriage". The ruling is said to be immediately executive, but then the Parliament has to pass law to amend the family code, and it's not entirely impossibile IMHO that the Parliament may chose to go the path of further making already existing same-sex civil unions closer to opposite-sex marriage, while keeping the two things separate. The same-sex unions map of Europe has already been changed to portray Slovenia as a country with same-sex marriage. All the sources for this news seem to be copied from one single source (perhaps a press-release from the consititutional court itself).

A similar case happens with Italy where the same-sex civil-union law passed in 2016 is meant to create a legal device that is 80% equivalent to marriage, but is not marriage itself. Wikipedia correctly describe this case as a civil-union case.

So we are having a bit of inconsistencies here, both because of how the laws of each country are made, and/or because we assume that still in-fieri legislation is being finalized when editing.

1. How do we define Civil Union? Is there a need to differentiate Civil Unions in two grades, one for civil unions that are "almost" like marriage but not, and another grade for civil unions that are weaker in rights given?

2. How do we define Same-sex Marriage? Only as full Marriage Equality (same law, same terms, just the code is update to remove rules or wording that requires people to be of opposite sex) or for "parallel" legislations that may be in different law than where marriage is definied, or with suspicious wording that may point to same-sex and opposite-sex marriage to be different or meant to diverge over time?

3. Likewise, how do we define lesser forms of recognition of same-sex unions?

4. What are the watersheds?

5. What do we do for Andorra and Slovenia, until it's clear the legal status of same-sex "marriage" in those two countries? Touyats (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]