Talk:Same-sex marriage in Brazil

Rio de Janeiro

Some sources like this say that the judge ruled that civil unions should be automatically converted into marriage 15 days after being performed. Could anyone find the full text of the ruling? Ron 1987 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The text is here; it's one of those texts where google translate is not very helpful… (much talk about when a judge should be called; and the suggestion that that is not needed is somewhat vague…) L.tak (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Brazilian lawmaker Jean Wyllys' statement, judges will not be obliged to issue marriage licences for same-sex couples. See [1]. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting! The point is whether registries should be permitted to issue marriage licenses/register marriages of same sex couples. all other justica's general decided this was not necessary anymore (at least, unless there was a reason to that would also arise in a opposite-sex marriage). This State's Justica general leaves it unto the individual local judges, thus de facto creating mini local jurisdictions within the state; this seems (I am emphasizing "seems") a consistent explanation with the directive of the Justica… I hope we get some more sources on this! L.tak (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I just changed Rio to blue on the map. Reverse me if that was premature. — kwami (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why has Rio been removed from all the lists? It seemed like a solid case to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What about having Rio de Janeiro recognized as allowing same-sex marriage, but with an asterisk explaining that the particular license issued is left to individual judges? Either way, the civil union is automatically a marriage. Teammm ^talk
_email 16:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a good idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not legal for everyone if you're at the mercy of personal taste. Hekerui (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It should still be listed since the rights/benefits will be recognized by the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC) I think we should vote on whether or not to have it listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is good to make a statement in this article (including doubts and advantages….); but to wait with adding info in the template (as there it only list a full marriage equality…)… L.tak (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the ruling, 15 days after a same-sex couple enters into a civil union in Rio de Janeiro, they will be considered legally married without having to apply to a court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

According to this interpretation (corrected from by Acapa)as well as this one, everyone is free to i) apply for a marriage a the civil service registry, which will be forwarded to the local judge, which should decide within 15 days. ii) If the judge is positive the marriage can be performed (and in future it can be assumed without checking that this will be ok), but for those judges that do not approve (as Luiz Henrique Oliveira Marques, from the first court of rio), it's not possible. Note that this report is a correction on earlier, more enthusiastic reports by the same paper…. L.tak (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In some areas of the US, judges and notaries have been refusing to marry same sex couples and go unpunished, yet marriage is still considered legal in said jurisdictions. I just don't think the General Magistrate would make such a bold statement of the constitutionality of the issue while setting these kinds of limitations. I'd say include the state of Rio de Janeiro on the list with an asterisk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.33.110 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

True, but this case is different: the Justica explicitly makes a decree that allows district judges (thus in charge of a district; not just the "judge-of-the-day") to disallow marriage, thus giving certain locations (Rio de Janeiro city as an example) judicially-accepted way to say that there no same sex marriages take place... That is quite a bit different than a few "rogue" judges in the US... L.tak (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is equally untrue that same sex marriage is banned in Rio de Janeiro. Therefore, Wikipedia does not display accurate information by rejecting mention of the state. MKleid (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm really tired of this. IP users still add incorrect informations. Could someone ask admins to make this article semi-protected?. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure the disturbance is big enough. They should know by know that convincing users on this page based on arguments is the best way to go. If they keep edit warring I will ask for semi protection in 24 hours…. L.tak (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You might as well ask for it. Edit warring by IP users is going to continue until there is a resolution to this mess. MKleid (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to include Rio de Janeiro as a same-sex marriage state but include the word "(conditional)" as we do with California in the Template:SSM. Because same-sex marriages are legal in Rio, but as we have seen, some judges won't perform them and some will, but that doesn't change the fact that all those same-sex marriages performed in Rio are legal. --DrkFrdric (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but the in those districts where the judge doesn't approve, they are still not performed (also under the convenient cover of this new regulation), which renders RJ in the category "possible [and thus legal!] in some places within the state". That is not much different from those states wehre the Judica general had not spoken out, but the marriages are just being performed (see many examples in this article). I don't think this "decree" is enough to make RJ have a "conditional" status. If we are to add that, then it would be more appropriate to add Brazil as a whole with the text "conditional/regional" (and I don't think that is very helpful). (btw: in order to avoid repeating this; shall we (now the situation is solved for this page, move it to the template talk page?)L.tak (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The current map scheme does not accurately reflect the situation. Eligibility of same sex marriage in Brazil is growing in complexity, as it is in the United States. The same color category treats Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro under the same generic limitation, when clearly their situations are very different. MKleid (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

On this page

Despite that I think that the implementation by the Corregador General is not complete enough (with the judicial test) to be added in the template, we have had it for several weeks on this page, as here we have the possibility to exactly describe what is the current situation. I therefore think it should be in and have reverted an IP-removal twice now… Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Marriage licenses in Brazil are issued in the name of the state. If a same sex couple can get a marriage license in the state of Rio de Janeiro without conditional approval by a judge in even one district, then it is a same sex marriage state, because the license isn't issued by the district. It is issued by the state. If you feel that the subtlety is encyclopedic information, then by all means add it. However, Wikipedia reports which states issue same sex marriage licenses, and it is completely untrue to exclude Rio as a same sex marriage state just because some districts do not issue the license automatically. I would also argue the same for Minas Gerais, because the city of Santa Rita do Sapucai now issues marriage licenses without judicial approval. However, that is not an edit war I'm willing to start. MKleid (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what the above poster says. It should be included in the template but maybe with an asterisk. I wouldn't add Minas Gerais yet since as far as I know there are no guidlines issued yet which apply to the whole state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.73.209 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider adding it in the template with a proviso (such as the "conditional" we use for California). Excluding it is equally incorrect as including it without any distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.82.202 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Too broad and nonspecific. California no longer marries same sex couples, while Rio de Janeiro does. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Blue rings

I think it is ok to add them for Rio de Janeiro, the place where that municipality in Minas Gerais is located and if it is still unclear, Paraíba. That is what we did for the world map when the situation in Alagoas and São Paulo was unclear from late 2011 to early 2013. Hekerui reverted it because those were individual judge decisions (that later became statewide), but now we don't have just a random decision but a statewide initiative to do so set by the Corregedoria Geral de Justiça. While it is true that we have neither marriage equality nor a complete legalization, I think this would please both Greeks and Trojans and serves the original purpose of the rings. Lguipontes (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You need better colors

The author needs to revisit the color scheme, because the two extremes are have extremely similar colors that render the same on some monitors. The extremes should be at opposite ends of the spectrum. It is also unclear what the difference is between unrecognized and not recognized.

For this map, I'd suggest the following colors: Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red.

Blue connotes safety. Green, Yellow, and Red have the same meaning as a traffic light: go ahead, be careful, and danger. Orange is commonly used for construction sites; it is between orange and red in meaning as well as on the spectrum. In this case, the shade of blue must be immediately discernible as blue to a person with normal vision. (Many people with normal vision cannot tell the difference between dark blue and black except in bright light.)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWC (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

To cut a long story short; the colour dark blue and black are too close in your opinion... I agree... I suggest solving that by changing the colour black to something else... what doesn't matter to me... Any ideas? otherwise I'll be implementing in a few days.... L.tak (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Santa Catarina and Paraíba

Could someone find the texts of the rulings. Source cited in the article say that the judges in Paraíba are not obliged to issue marriage licences for same-sex couples. See [2]. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed doubts about Paraiba; everything hinges on whether it is possible to marry everywhere in the state. It will be published on 30 April (which will be some hours) on that side of the Atlantic… L.tak (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Text of the ruling (PROVIMENTO CGJ N. 006/2013) was published (pages 4 and 5). Source above was updated. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I just found it too…. I am not sure, but I guess it is ok… (only paragraph 1 might be interpreted to give powers to the judge?). Article 9 and 10 seem to state it is truly "just" a a normal marriage. Any more opinions… L.tak (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Are we OK to leave this edit in, then? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ruling of Paraíba (page 4 and 5) This say nothing about judges aren't obliged to issue licences. It's clear case. Paucazorla (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Rio Grande Do Sul

According to this article, same-sex marriage was authorized in Rio Grande do Sul: http://www.databufpb.com.br/noticia-290-saiba-direito-tribunal-de-justica-do-rio-grande-do-sul-autoriza-casamento-civil-homoafetivo.html

Can somebody look into it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco76bor (talk • contribs) 01:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the judge ruled in favor of same sex marriage. The reasoning he gave is a broad interpretation of previous legal decisions. In a nutshell, since previous courts have attempted to recognize the rights of same sex couples in civil unions, there is really no reason why same sex couples should not able to actually marry. However, I do not know if the district judge has the authority to change the law for the entire state. We need more information about effective implementation before adding this state. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

CNJ approves resolution urging notary celebrating gay marriage nationwide in Brazil

CNJ approves resolution urging notary celebrating gay marriage nationwide

Does this mean that we can update the same-sex unions in Brazil page?