Talk:Same-sex union legislation

The King of Sweden

In the table, it said that Sweden's head of state had signed the various measures recognising same-sex relationships. This is obviously wrong, since under the Constitution of 1975, the King of Sweden is not the chief executive and thus does not sign any laws, nor does the Government sign any laws in his name. Thus, I replaced "Signed" with "n/a". In a previous edit, I replaced it with a hyphen, but in almost all other cases, that seems to mean that the head of state declined to sign and that the measure thus failed (unless the veto was overridden). Such is obviously not the case here. I don't know if there are other cases where a "Signed" status should be similarly replaced by "n/a". David ekstrand (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nepal.

The page states that Nepal in expected to adopt gender-neutral marriage in 2010. However same-sex marriage will only become legal after the new constitution in progmulgated in May 2011. Can someone please alter the page to indicate that Nepal will adopt same-sex marriage in May 2011 not 2010. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done but do you have any references ? Rctycoplay (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

Is there actual propossed legislation for same-sex marriage nationally in Mexico? The provided reference is pertaining to a Supreme Court case on whether or not it was legal for Mexico City to legalize same-sex marriage and will not likely impact the laws of Mexico as a nation directly. Also this table is not for judicial events, only legislative and possibly constitutional adoptions in the case of Nepal. 134.243.205.94 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Was it not about the entire country to legalize same sex marriage ? Rctycoplay (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe so. Mexico City legalized same sex marriage and the federal government is challenging the legallity of that decision. I supposse its always possible the Supreme Court could decide that same sex marriage is a national right but that would be incredibly speculative especially since no party in the case is asking the court for that. Either way its still judical and not legislative in nature. Now its possible something is in the works but that is not what the linked article indicated.134.243.205.94 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela

Why has it been removed from the first section? I'm pretty sure a common-law status bill passed it's first reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Colombia

I am a spanish speaker and in the citation says that the Constitutional Court WILL rule, despite of the negative concept of the procurator, the Court is independient and can rule what they consider valid. So, we have to wait a few more weeks to the decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.17.170 (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article's title seems to mislead but the article itself suggests the court has yet to rule and is expected to do so any moment now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.63.82.69 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I translated from Spanish to English and the title is something like "Court Fails", and it is wrong (the translator), that happened because in Spanish "To Rule" (judicial decision) and "To fail" are the same word (Fallar). That is curious, isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.5.178 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true. "La corte fallará" correctly (in that context) translates to "The court will rule". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.244.143 (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

interesting find

This article mentions that five mexican states have passed laws allowing gay weddings, is this accurate? what are the other four? [1] AshtonPayton (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg

On the national level Same-sex unions section, why is Luxembourg listed at 2011? I thought Gay marriage would be legalised this autumn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The bill was submitted to the parliament in August. Legislative process in Luxembourg is quite long. Legalization this autumn is unlikely. Ron 1987 23:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Crystal Ball

I always find this article interesting to read...looking further than the nations listed in this article, could anyone suggest which other countries are making progress towards marriage equality? Which of the nations mentionned have a realistic chance of enacting such legislation?

Cheers Orionsbelter (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel

It's the first time that I've read about this - but shouldn't we add it to the article, or at least mention it? http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=216326 Olliyeah (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No informations about that civil unions are open for same-sex couples. Apparently not. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

yeah u're right! I shoulda have read better :D Olliyeah (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Update Map: New York, Legal

Same-gender marriage is now legal in New York, map should reflect this. --Smart (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

The constitution of South Sudan says "Every person of marriageable age shall have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and to found a family according to their respective family laws, and no marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the man and woman intending to marry." This makes heterosexual marriage a constitutional right, but it does not forbid same-sex marriages. I didn't see any provision that explicitly prohibits same-sex marriages, so I think that South Sudan should be removed from the "Constitutional efforts to prohibit same-sex unions" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrater (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (The constitution of South Sudan can be found here.) - htonl (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. The constitution limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "every person has the right to a marry a person of the opposite sex" necessarily implies that the government can't allow same-sex marriages. The question is academic, of course; there's little prospect of South Sudan decriminalising sodomy any time soon, let alone allowing same-sex marriage. - htonl (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

the President has publicly stated there will be "no democracy and civil rights for gays, as there are no gays in South Sudan" --Smart (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Chile Aug 2011

Chilean President suggests legislation for SSM

The Chilean President has on 10/Aug/2011 suggested legislation to Congress. Please watch progress such as how they vote. --Smart (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Turkey

In the process of rewriting the Turkish constitution, the opposition party BDP, called for the liberalization of the marriage policies, which would include same sex marriage. The biggest opposition party in the Turkish parliament,CHP, supported the idea. The largest party in the parliament, the AKP, is against same sex marriage, all tough Premier Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the leader of the AKP, supported full equal rights for LGBT citizens in 2002. Same sex marriage will soon be discussed again by members of the parliament, since all political parties gather in committees to establish a new constitution.

Poland 2012

Civil Union bills have not been rejected. Parliamentary committee only delivered an opinion stated that two bills submitted by SLD and RP are unconstitutional based on a very high affinity for marriage. These bills still go through the legislative process, although it is already known that they would rather not be adopted. Besides, PO has its own bill. On 10 July 2012 PO will decide on further work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.185.74 (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

San Marino

san marino passed a act about same sex civil union only inmigration rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.55.2.30 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam

I believe Vietnam should be included, since there is a lot of discussion presently over proposals to introduce a marriage equality bill in Spring 2013. --Smart (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Flags

Why do we need to load up the tables with flags? It's visually distracting. 70.253.93.37 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The flags are not distracting. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

agree with Ron! Olliyeah (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Also agree with Ron. Flags are not distraction, on the contrary, it is much easier (at least to me) to find specific country in large tables by looking at flags.--В и к и T 13:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I find them useful for navigating the table myself. There are a variety of uses of flag icons that are warned against in WP:FLAG, but this doesn't seem to hit any of the problem usages, and does fall within on of the categories of usages that are considered likely acceptable. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of ambivalent on this question, as I generally feel that flagicons are used too much, and indeed I removed flagicons from the section headers in same-sex marriage. But in that case the removal was required by MOS:HEAD and the icons didn't make the article any easier to navigate. In this case I feel that the flags make it considerably easier to find particular items in the lists. And, considering the use of flags across Wikipedia, long tables seem to be one of the situations where flags are most frequently used. - htonl (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My feelings are similar to what I think User:Htonl is expressing, that they're generally used too much, but I'm willing to consider each case individually. I just feel that they get put in there because someone can, and so they do. Anyway, so I've just looked at the article, and here's what I came away with:

• Generally, these flag icons are helpful, because in the chronology, several countries appear multiple times. I often think the flag icons add nothing, but this allows me to look back at the big picture and see the trends of a country's involvement with legislation on the topic.
• However, as soon as I got to the table on subnational units, I reverted to my whole distaste. Two columns of flags made it seem to heavy-handed, and I didn't care for it at all. An emotional response? Yes, admittedly so. But that's where I am. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that subnational flags are different, because they're not nearly as well-known. At least that's my impression - that while most people can recognise a bunch of national flags, they're unlikely to recognize many subnational flags, even from their own country. - htonl (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All the tables are now sortable. So, there's no point to using flags the way HuskyHuskie described. Aside from this, the article is way too long. All the flagicons (hundreds?) contribute greatly to this problem. 70.253.87.253 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I clearly did a poor job of explaining myself; the sortability has nothing to do with my point. I'm saying that (I find) the icons lend a small amount of added value when viewing the entire table in chronological order, before sorting. Sorting actually destroys what I'm talking about. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Small amount of added value" versus a hugely bloated article that exceeds Wikipedia size guidelines by a large amount. 70.253.87.253 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Flags are only useful, if everyone knows every flag, otherwise they serve no purpose. Simple prose with a link satisfies the encyclopedic need.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has to know every flag for them to serve a purpose? I don't follow that at all. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless a person knows what country each flag represents, then they are without purpose. Tell me what these flags are, without looking them up: , , , . Its just color that has no meaning to the reader.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that the flags should all go. Whatever benefit those with better computers derive from them is far overshadowed by the long time it takes for those of us with older computers to load the page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

All I see is a bunch of noise. Flags are only to be used for things which represent a country, and this doesn't. From WP:FLAG:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams.

— kwami (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a visual person, so I see value to the flags in moderation. I think flags at the state/province level are just too much detail and too distracting.

@ JOJ Hutton - Firefox shows the names of the countries in a bubble when I point to the flags. I thought most current browsers had that capability by default, but I could be wrong. – MrX 02:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep the flags...I can quickly search USA entries by easily finding the flag, rather than text...all the text looks the same. CTF83! 02:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't know that many flags, hasn't this issue come up many times already? They seem to be clutter rather than helping. Insomesia (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the current format with flags along side the names of the nations. It serves a kind of aesthetic purpose, especially for us visual people. Without the flags, then this list would be really boring to be honest. I think anyone would be proud to see their country's flag added to the list - something that words alone can't achieve. However, I would certainly think that we could create a collapsible list split up by decade because it seems like it is going to grow out of control eventually. (Tigerghost (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

National pride is wholly irrelevant, as is the level of boredom you have with looking at a table or the "aesthetics" of the table. The article already is out of control. Look at its size. Look at the preservation of historical information in tables that has been superceded by more recent information. 70.253.65.251 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep the flags, it looks better, but I'm American so what do I know? :) --Smart (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tigerghost: 70.253.65.251 is correct; although I lean towards keeping the flags, "pride" is not an acceptable reason for including them, and keeping you from getting bored is just as poor a reason. Would you be more engaged by multi-colored text?HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami|kwami: When I see a long list of countries, with several of them repeated, that's when I see "noise", and the flags help me see the patterns more clearly of evolving legislation more easily.HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: Actually, I do know the flags of about 170 countries on sight, as well as those of the subnational units of the UK, US, and Canada. But I will acknowledge that I'm a bit of an outlier.HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, most likely since I have voiced opposition to flags in articles. I tend to be of the same opinion as HuskyHuskie on this. In moderation, it would be useful however this feels overwhelming. I believe the most informative graphic is the map of the world at the top. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed legislation

What's the criteria for determining whether legislation has been "proposed"? Something as tenuous as an opposition political party saying that it has plans to introduce legislation at some point in the future? 70.253.65.251 (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. I'd bet a small sum that your hypothetical example has, in fact, been the basis for at least one entry, which is absurd. What standard would you propose? HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Slovakia is that hypothetical. I'd do away with the "proposed" category entirely because it's a slippery slope to crystal balling the future. I bet that someone in every country in the world has "proposed" legislation about same-sex relationships. 70.253.65.251 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, the cases, such as Slovakia, should not be included in the table until the legislation is introduced/submitted. The case when the legislation is proposed by the government is different thing (at least to me). Ron 1987 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe all countries that have articles from legit news organizations should be included. Malta shouldn't be included because the party proposing marriage equality has no seats in government. However, countries in which the opposition party/parties support marriage equality should be included. --Smart (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

collapsible tables?

Maybe the tables needs to be made collapsible. It works in Template:Same-sex unions. Is this technically possible? Ron 1987 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Date section in the tables

Removing Date section from the table and replacing it by two sections Month and Year is complete nonsense and is not helpful. It's a big exaggeration. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case I agree entirely with Ron. Separate "Year" and "Month" columns make sorting more complicated because, to get a full sort on the date, you have to sort by month first and then by year. A single date column with {{dts}} used correctly is much more functional. And there is no reason why anyone would ever sort by month alone without year. In any case, the date is a single concept and it should be represented in a single column. - htonl (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Please leave the date in a single-column, it's more usable for soring, and takes up slightly less room. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the single column date is more usable. The IP made the change in good faith, but generally, major formatting changes like this should be discussed on the talk page before they are made. – MrX 22:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive and disruptive ownership of this article by Ron 1987

So long as Ron 1987 is allowed to exercise ownership of this article and edit war to preserve his status, there is no hope for this article. No one apparently is interested in shortening its length to comply with Wikipedia policy (which adding the extra month column went a long way towards). No one is interested in fixing the vast myriad of other problems, which Ron 1987 is absolutely intent on preserving despite previous blocks of his account for edit warring. So, this article has been a complete waste of my time and is a huge discredit to Wikipedia. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Article size doesn't take priority over the value of article content, and the previous section of this talk page demonstrates that it's not just Ron who thinks the separate month column was a bad idea. Anyway, WP:TOOLONG says that readable prose size is the more important consideration, not wiki markup size. But, if you want to propose a split to shorten the article, that might well be a good idea. I'd suggest at least moving the list of court cases into another article, since they're not really "legislation". - htonl (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving the list of court cases into another article is a good idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

More obstructionism by Ron 1987: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_legislation_around_the_world&diff=511854333&oldid=511854048 70.253.91.210 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A genuine content disagreement is not "obstructionism". The fact that you see it as such suggests that maybe you have a bit of a WP:OWN problem yourself. - htonl (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Obstructionism is virtually instantaneous and complete reversion of every change I make to the article that Ron 1987 doesn't like, with no attempt at compromise and screaming "NO CONSENSUS" in his edit summary, and then his strenuous attempts to canvass support for his reversions by leaving messages on numerous editor talk pages. Obstructionism is also characterized by the extremist and incivil language he has used on this talk page. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Obstructionism is also 5 complete reversions by Ron 1987 in this article in just the last 27 hours. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm letting go of this particular discussion because Ron can defend his actions himself if I want to. But, as regards the canvassing accusation, I will state that I received two messages from him on my talk page requesting my input on this article's talk page. This did not affect in any way my input to this discussion; this article has long been on my watchlist and I posted exactly what, and exactly when, I would have posted had I not received his messages. You, 70.253.91.210, have also requested input from editors on their talk pages: [2], [3], [4]. - htonl (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You're an administrator. Maybe you should block him for WP:3RR violations. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator here. I am an administrator on Wikisource. - htonl (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Failed bills in Denmark and Czech Republic

All bills voted by parliament should be included here, passed or not. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Although maybe the article should be renamed to reflect what this article really contained; failed bills aren't really "legislation" either, they are proposed legislation. In any case, the rationale that it is "already covered in 'LGBT marriage in X'" is illogical, since that applies to literally everything listed in this article. - htonl (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You might not like it, but your opinion does not mean that my proposal is "illogical." In fact, it's perfectly logical under all relevant circumstances, which includes the fact that this article is severely bloated and the fact that Wikipedia is not a repository for every fact that exists in the world and the fact that information included in one article of Wikipedia should not be included in others without good reason. This article should include passed legislation only plus legislation that failed if nothing has happened since. But to include a useless list of failed legislation that was superseded by passed legislation is just bad writing. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally make this decision that certain items should be removed when clearly there is no consensus for the change. This article is not, in fact, particularly long as Wikipedia articles go and I see no reason to describe it as "bloated". And even if it is, then a more appropriate solution would be a split, not just deleting chunks of content. Speaking of which, I've mad a split proposal one section down from here. - htonl (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral changes is what being bold is all about. And no content is being deleted. The content being removed from this summary article already exists in more detailed articles. I'd appreciate your not mischaracterizing my actions in the future. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Being bold is only the first step. Reverting and discussion are the steps that follow. And yes, you can boldly make unilateral changes, but when it becomes apparent that they are disputed by other editors, you can't carry on repeatedly making them while the discussion is going on. All the content in the article already exists in the country-specific articles, but that doesn't mean we should simply blank the whole article. I am sorry if the use of the word "delete" suggested to you that I was implying that the content was not present anywhere else in Wikipedia; that was not my meaning. - htonl (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Who, pray tell, suggested blanking the whole article? Your argument is a red herring and yet another misrepresentation of my position. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No-one has suggested blanking the article. I have drawn your rationale - that material that is contained in other articles can be deleted from this article - to its logical conclusion; all material in this article is (or should be) also contained in the "LGBT rights in X" or "Same-sex marriage in X" articles. But let's drop that line of argument, as it seems to be leading to confusion.

Fundamentally, what needs justification is why failed bills in countries that have since had successful bills should be removed. If you are looking for an article that shows only the current situation and most recent legislation, you can look at Status of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, this article is not, in fact, particularly large: the markup size is fairly big because of table markup and a large number of references; but the displayed article is not unusually long. Anyway, I have proposed below a split/rename of this article that would hopefully solve both the size problem and the scope problem; what are your thoughts on that idea? - htonl (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You actually have perverted my rationale to reach a conclusion that no one wants. As a graduate math student, I'm surprised you would that kind of error in argument. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is nothing more than an essay. It's not even as authoritative as a guideline. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy, and it has become clear that there is no consensus for the removal of those items. - htonl (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

I propose that this article should be divided into three separate lists:

• List of same-sex marriage bills: dealing with all attempts to legalise SSM through legislation, whether successful or not.
• List of same-sex marriage court cases: what is currently the "Court challenges to enable same-sex unions" section.
• List of constitutional bans on same-sex marriage: what is currently the "Constitutional efforts to prohibit same-sex unions" section.

This would hopefully resolve the problems with the scope and length of this article. (It will not, of course, settle the flag dispute...) - htonl (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I think List of same-sex union bills, List of same-sex union court cases and List of constitutional bans on same-sex union would be more appropriate. It's not just about same-sex marriage but also other types of unions. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, that seems sensible, although the the third should probably be "List of constitutional bans on same-sex unions". - htonl (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have formally requested comment about this article in the following respects: (1) the article is too long; (2) the article includes hundreds of visually distracting flag icons that greatly increase the bloat of the article; (3) the article unnecessarily repeats superseded and purely historical information that is well discussed in other articles; (4) the article has numerous faults and shortcomings that need to be addressed, including, among other things, dead links, grammar errors, and ambiguities. This RFC is in part necessary because certain editors are highly resistant to changing and improving this article and immediately revert changes they do not like. Refer to prior discussions on this talk page. Thank you. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I object strenuously to the non-neutral tone of this RfC statement, and I request that a non-involved editor read the discussion above and provide a neutral statement describing the dispute. I would also ask those commenting on this RfC to consider the proposal for a split which I have made in the section above. - htonl (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)