Template talk:Same-sex unions

Portugal

Portugal has something called "União de facto" which juridically is very similar and hence translatable as registered partnership for same sex couples. The table was wrong--62.169.67.134 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey, USA

Last week a judge ruled that New Jersey has a long standing tradition of recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. Didn't read anything that the decision was being appealed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflack (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maryland, USA

The same-sex marriage in Maryland page says that there is unregistared domestic partnerships, but this table doesn't show it. Which is right?

California in flux

I edited the template to list California under the US states, but give the parenthetical '(in flux)'. I'm not really in love with that term, but cannot think of another that is better.

Some other editor changed it (in a bit of an edit war) to using a whole section of the box titled 'Recognized, currently repealed'. I really don't like the section because it gives this huge visual emphasis to California, more than most nations, the other states, etc. Moreover, the section title really gives less information than my parenthetical, not more.

The problem is that we really can't fully characterize the situation in few enough word to fit into a template section title or parenthetical. Nor is a template a place to put several sentences of description. A section title would need to be: 'Recognized for a few months, but repealed by voters, but repeal may not have followed constitutional procedures, but existing marriages are still acknowledged, unless the supreme court also nullifies them'. The right way to handle that is by mentioning CA as briefly as possible, but with a Wikilink that points to an article with the actual details. LotLE×talk 19:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..I would claim that the CA dispute on marriage is unique in the world and I think it could stand for a section a-parte, as I did it in a previous edit. OT: I'm sorry, I didnt mean to start an edit war, I hate it (especially when someone stubbornly keeps on posting Nepal in wrong sections..).

After all, CA is the beacon of the worldwide LGBT civil rights movement; all the world has been following the referendum closely. Therefore a special section is wiki-relevant.

My proposal is to insert another sub-section (wording to be agreed on, what about "formerly recognized, now disputed"?) but something that gives a summary of what is going on. "In-flux" is a bit too generic and seems to suggest that marriage is to be legalized rather than the other way round. At least, this is my sensation.Finedelledanze (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "beacon" is a bit overblown. The Netherlands or South Africa actually seem more important to me than this one US state (I live in CA even, but try to think globally). The thing I like about the overly generic "in flux" is precisely that it is too generic... readers need to follow the link to find the details, and are encouraged to do so. Any specific section title for CA is not-quite-accurate, and is a bit WP:RECENTist as well (obviously, the whole template is about something rapidly changing). E.g., the new lawsuit someone files tomorrow will change the appropriate section title in some manner, or the new court action. At some point in the near future we'll know more about what category actually applies to CA, at this point, it's mostly WP:CRYSTAL ball. LotLE×talk 21:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As a suggestion: let's try to get some other editors to opine before we change things further. I have an opinion, but I'm not totally opposed to your "Formerly recognized" section title either. LotLE×talk 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a "recognition disputed" section for situations like these when the issue comes into dispute in two or more places. But "status in flux" is OK for now, because the issue of where CA will be hinges on whether the state will recognize the marriages performed in the interim period. Like You Never Did See (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We have an IP that keeps removing CA. Until the CA SC says anything there are 18000 SSMs from California that are currently valid. It is improper to speculate that these marriages will be divorces until the ruling comes in Wikipedia:SPECULATION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. If Prop H8 stands but the marriages are not divorced, I would suppose California remain on the Same-Sex Marriage list noting that SSM has (temporarily) ended in California. Status in flux properly describes the situation at the moment Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with having "CA" listed under the section where MA, and CT are because they just aren't the same -- I don't see the problem, even after reading everything above, to put it in the "debated" section because that's what currently is happening. Whether the SC will overturn Prop 8 or not is irrelevant -- just how when IA had SSM for one day, it was listed at the top along with the other countries. However, I do not want to keep reverting things back so I will leave this as it is and just state that I disagree as the only thing that's "in-flux" is the actual recognition of existing marriages. In reality, Iowa should be in-flux too under the circumstance since one gay couple was legally married but it's unclear what will happen when the IA SC rules. I like that the title was changed to 'other jurisdictions' instead of 'foregin' as as soon as NY was in there, it really didn't flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflack (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nepal

Can someone confirm whether or not Nepal is indeed forced by the highest court to allow for same-sex marriages. Either way of course until this happens Nepal shouldn't show up in the top with the other countries like it had some time ago. KFlack ✉ 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

Can it be confirmed that Sweden will provide SSMs from 1 May 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.82.242 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not definite yet. Currently, the Alliance government has submitted a bill to Parliament which would legalise same-sex marriage. This bill has the support of all parliamentary parties except the Christian Democrats. It is expected to be voted upon in the coming weeks/months and, if approved, would enter into force on 1 May 2009. So, considering the degree of political support for this bill, it is almost certain that Sweden will have SSM by that time. However, Sweden should only be included in the template once the bill has been approved by Parliament.

Finally, just a more general message: it would be great if people would stop including countries in the template on a speculative basis. I'm referring to countries like Hungary and Nepal. This template is already big and complex, if we include countries with "TBA" labels next to them it would just make it a lot harder to interpret. Ronline ✉ 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Format

The format looks terrible on the sidebar, I tried to fix it, but could not figure out what went wrong. It looks all scrunched up on the "same-sex marriage" page, while if you click on "same-sex marriage in Spain" or any of the other countries, it looks how it originally looked. Can anyone change the main page to look how it originally did? user:vicki:vickiloves08

reverted to former formatting (without the line-height coding).. it looked okay on my browser but guess it did not translate well to others. Maybe someone who has more experience with the formatting can tighten up the wasted space somehow. I am on 1024x768 resolution and this template takes up almost 3 screen lengths. Outsider80^(talk) 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope people do not mind that I am changing the title to "recognized, not performed" -- prior to, it had been something like "Foreign marriages recognized" which was semi-ok but when 'NY' was added, it didn't sound right. Although one can put 2-and-2 together and realize that we likely mean marriage only by noticing that the countries listed under 'other jurisdictions' aren't under the 1st list of countries that have SSM, it still makes it completely clearer, and looks better as it doesn't have the word 'jurisdiction' on its own line.

KFlack ✉ 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming

Recently, the U.S. state of Wyoming defeated a bill that would have amended its constitution to forbid recognition of same-sex couples married out of state. It does have a statute saying that all marriages performed in Wyoming must be between a man and a woman, but apparently Wyoming is "bound to recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other states." So why isn't Wyoming next to New York under 'Foreign marriages recognized'? Has this been discussed before? Wyoming doesn't have a Same-sex marriage in page! Noble Spear (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the law in Wyoming, but I find it somewhat difficult to believe that it recognises out-of-state same-sex marriages in the same way as New York State does. Furthermore, I fail to see how it can recognise civil unions when it doesn't even have an analogous state civil union scheme yet. It is an interesting issue, though; I think we need to look into it a bit more. UPDATE: Numerous online media sources are reporting that Wyoming now recognises out-of-state gay marriages: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Ronline ✉ 13:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Of those four sources Ronline provided, three are identically worded, and all of them are a case of sloppy reporting. I've just done some further research, and I am not finding any reliable sources that show that Wyoming has ever recognized any gay marriages or is about to do so. Notice the following excerpts from the Casper, Wyoming, newspaper (http://www.trib.com/articles/2009/02/06/legislature/news/doc498ce0d8953c3429025167.txt) in its article reporting the defeat of the "Defense of Marriage" resolution on Feb. 6, emphasis mine:

Wyoming law already stipulates that only marriages between a man and woman are valid, but the law also requires the state to recognize valid unions performed in other states. Two states – Massachusetts and Connecticut -- currently allow same-sex unions. Supporters of the resolution said it’s important for the Legislature to address the legal discrepancy before the courts are forced to weight in. They urged the House to send the issue to the voters, who are required to endorse constitutional amendments. . . .

Rep. Edward Buchanan, R-Torrington, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the resolution doesn’t preclude same-sex relationships, but it does draw a clear line about the state’s position on marriage. Without dealing with the legal discrepancy, he said, it’s possible that the state could be asked to recognize other unacceptable unions.

Clearly, what this article is saying is that the state of Wyoming has not yet officially recognized any gay marriages, despite the legal discrepancy, which would require a court ruling to resolve.

The fact that state law requires that out-of-state marriages be recognized is beside the point; all 50 states have some such law on the books. But DOMA explicitly exempted all states from being required to recognize same-sex marriages.

Neither the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/your_community/1111.htm) nor Freedom to Marry (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/wyoming.php#reports) show that Wyoming has ever recognized a same-sex relationship of any kind. Therefore, I'm reverting the template to remove Wyoming from the box of states that recognize gay marriage. Textorus (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see, I knew that couldn't be right. Aww, for a little while I thought Wyoming was more Liberal than California XD --Occono (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

auto archiving

I'm adding auto archiving for threads stale 45+ days with a minimum of 5 threads to remain so the page doesn't empty. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Iceland

Since Iceland has a gay Prime Minister, has Iceland made SSM legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but it has had registered partnerships since 1996, which in Iceland means that the whole body of law that has to do with marriage and married couples applies to partners in a registered partnership—including joint adoption and blessings from the state church. Noble Spear (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Spain and South Africa

Spain recognized unregistered cohabitation since 1994. 12 Autonomous Communities implemented civil unions.

South Africa recognized unregistered cohabitation since 1999. Registered unions are recognized since 2006.

Canada - Alberta

Alberta recognized same-sex unions as "Adult interdependent relationship" since 2003

I think the key issue here is whether we should permit "double/multiple inclusion" in the template, or whether countries should only be listed once based on the "highest" level of rights they offer. So, essentially, there are two models that we can follow:

1) List countries only once. If a country has same-sex marriage, it would only be listed in the SSM section, even if it also offers civil unions and unregistered cohabitation to same-sex couples

2) List countries in all relevant sections. If a country has same-sex marriage and, say, unregistered cohabitation, it would be listed in both sections.

Personally, I am in favour of the first proposal. It would clutter the template to list countries so many times. The vast majority of jurisdictions which offer same-sex marriage also have provisions for civil unions and unregistered cohabitation. Furthermore, many countries with formal civil union schemes will also offer some rights to same-sex (and opposite-sex) cohabitating couples, and would thus need to be listed under "Unregistered cohabitation". If we're going to accept the addition of Alberta, Spain and South Africa, we also have to accept the addition of every other jurisdiction which offers some rights to cohabitating, unmarried same-sex couples. This would include every state in Canada, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom at the very least. It is also my understanding that Norway, Denmark and New Zealand provide some recognition to people in de facto relationships, be they same-sex or opposite-sex. Thus, the "unregisted cohabitation" section of the template would grow from 9 jurisdictions to at least 18 and probably more than 20. To me, this is needless clutter for a template that is already too large. Ronline ✉ 06:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungary

What is the situation in Hungary after the Consitutional Court ruling on a registered partnership law that was due to come into effect 1.1.2009. What is the outcome of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the Court prevented the entire law from coming into force on January 1, 2009, even though it did not object to the principle of providing same-sex couples with equal rights. The rationale behind the decision was that it was unconsistutional to provide opposite-sex couples with an institution that offers almost identical rights to marriage, considering that they already have the right to get married.

In response to the ruling, the Hungarian Government has proposed a new law which provides registered partnerships only for same-sex couples, similar to the British model. This law will soon be presented to the Parliament and, if it passes, it should come into force either later this year or in early 2010. Since 1996, Hungary already has a limited form of unregistered cohabitation for same-sex couples which remains in force. Ronline ✉ 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the latest in the US

Have more states of the US provided domestic partnerships, civil unions or marriage yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.178.34 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How far back do you want to go? The past year, month? If any states provide either of those things, they will be listed on this template, and sister articles like Same-sex unions in the United States. Looking ahead, civil unions in hawaii, and marriage in maine and rhode island are in the works. SultrySuzie (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The latest US state to provide recognition to same-sex couples was Maryland, in mid-2008. A bill establishing domestic partnerships in New Mexico recently failed to pass; similarly, a bill providing some rights to same-sex couples in Utah failed to get out of the Committee stage. In Hawaii, a civil union bill is stalling in the Senate (though the state already provides a limited form of domestic partnership). So, on the whole, not much progress has been made in the past few months. Nonetheless, as SultrySuzie points out, same-sex marriage bills have been submitted in Maine and Rhode Island. Similarly, there are proposals for marriage in New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York. Ronline ✉ 03:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

California Should Stay Removed

I removed California on the grounds that while it still recognizes the said 18,000+ SSMs — new ones cannot be carried out — as is the case with Iowa — which legally recognizes one SSM, but new ones cannot be formed. If California is listed, there is no reason that Iowa shouldn't, and therefore California is best removed from the list and placed under Recognition granted; SSM debated for the time being. As Iowa is under Recognition debated. The same applies to Greece, which could also be listed as a same-sex marriage is legally still recognized in the nation as well. After the CA supreme court makes their ruling, then we can decide where to place it. vickiloves08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.150.22 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Region Disputed section?

Does anyone think we should have a disputed section so we won't have to fret over where to place countries such as Greece and states such as Iowa and California? I think this could come in handy — but what are your thoughts? vickiloves08