Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 194.70.34.202 (talk) at 11:20, 6 June 2013 (→‎Mention of voting on MPs pages: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

geographic scope

If legalized, where would it be legal? All UK territories? Just the British Isles? — kwami (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British government's marriage legislation will cover England an Wales only. Scottish goverment also will introduce marriage legislation. If both approved, same-sex marriage will be legal on British Isles, except Northern Ireland. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, British Isles is a fairly loose term that can be used to include the Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. In addition to the exception of Northern Ireland, the laws won't apply to the Republic of Ireland and are unlikely to apply to the Channel Islands or Isle of Man. Road Wizard (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the parliamentary vote will be UK-wide, it would make more sense for the map for England and Wales MP support to cover the whole of the UK 86.181.1.145 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a wider map is needed, with the data from the C4EM page. Climatophile (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if Parliament legalises equal marriage in England and Wales, who will do it in Northern Ireland. The Civil Partnership Act extends to Northern Ireland, and that was by act of the UK Parliament. Does the NI Ireland Assembly control same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland or is this reserved to the UK Parliament? If it is controlled by the UK Parliament, why are they only bothering to legalise it in England and Wales? 2001:630:E4:42FE:FFFF:FC36:567C:B729 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility for marriage in NI lies with the Assembly. The UK Parliament has responsibility for E&W marriage only. (Though if it really, really wanted to, it could remove NI and Scotland's responsibility and legislate for all. It wouldn't do that.) Climatophile (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil Partnership Act was enaced in 2004, at a time when the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended. Presumably this is why Westminster felt it was able to legislate for NI? - htonl (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Coalition for Marriage and Coalition for Equal Marriage be merged here into the support and oppose sections of the England section. I feel that if you remove the advertising sections for both articles you can quiet easily summerise both campaigns into one or two paragraphs thus strenghing the proposed merge sections. Additonally the Equal marraige one seems overly focused on a comment from the Marriage lot and the fact the Nick Clegg supports them. There is not a lot in both articles and only one or two paragraphs worth keeping and merging into this article. GAtechnical (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. Not only is the only media attention for the C4M negative lately, but also that both are notable enough for their own articles. I oppose this very strongly for those reasons. They should not be merged for the sole reason of having a similar name as they stand for the opposites. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's getting negative responses in the media and have similar names are not valid reasons to oppose a merge. GAtechnical (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:Notability. We don't always merge something based on it being similar. I propose asking this on Wikiproject LGBT studies also since that's the main project for the article and you can get a bigger audience for this. I would consider it controversial. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both the C4M and C4EM are notable per WP:GNG. There are other organisations that are both for and against same-sex marriage in the UK (gay rights groups like Stonewall, on one side; the various churches and Christian groups on the other). Merging C4M and C4EM into the article suggests that they are the only involved in the debate. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again to Jenova and Tom, notability is not inherent. Jenova again talk nothing of substance "we don't alway merge something based on it being similar." What!? We don't have to have separate articles just because it's two sides to one debate. Tom, have you read any of the three articles. The other groups you mention are not talked about at all and is most certainly why in the oppose/support section it should be merged and other organisations if there is any independent sources should be added. You can't really add them to the C4M etc as that would be taking it off topic technically. GAtechnical (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could use your same argument to merge opposites in any instance GAtechnical because it is vague. Please read WP:Notability and as others have suggested WP:GNG since you are looking at an example of WP:Snow otherwise. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a strong opinion on this proposal either way, but the decision needs lead to a clear policy on similar articles about campaigns for and against same-sex marriage. There are at least two other campaigns for same-sex marriage in the UK that are at least as notable, if not more notable than these campaigns. Equal Marriage - the campaign in Scotland (also the UK's first campaign for same-sex marriage) and Equal Love the first campaign for same-sex marriage in England and Wales. Neither of these campaigns currently have a page, so either they should all be merged or all be allowed. To allow some but reject others makes no sense. 94.173.13.236 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.13.236 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The actions or inactions of others to create an article on something do not factor into merging other notable articles together to create a bigger article. If the articles are individually notable then merging is unnecessary and harmful to wikipedia. There are 4 million+ articles because we don't merge similar individually notable articles. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my point. Currently GAtechnical is rejecting some articles about same-sex marriage campaigns in the UK on the basis that all articles relating to same-sex marriage in the UK should be merged. My point was that either a decision needs to be made that all articles are merged, or all articles (of note) should be published. It is wrong to reject some noteworthy articles but allow others for no good reason. Thanks. 94.173.13.236 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm going to make a comment here. This is not a deletion request so therefore GNG does not come into it. The oppose by Teamm and Tom shoud be ignored, for not being valid reasons. It's a merge request on the bases of logic e.g. two sides to one argument; never about whether they are notable. 94.173.13.236 you are more than welcome to resubmit but in future please refrain from comments like above. I don't want to be seen or painted as a racist or anything else like that. Additionally I'd appreciate it if you kept you're comments to yourself as I do not want to get into a "war" or "fight" and be unfairly attacked. GAtechnical (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
don't merge The articles have sufficient content to stand on their own, and merging here would inevitably lead to removal of interesting and verifiable information; furthermore the subject matters of the articles are sufficiently separate to have individual articles. L.tak (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading map error.

There are at least two errors in the map of how MPs voted in the Second reading of the same sex marriage bill in the House of Commons. Stephen Hammond (MP foe Wimbledon) and Daniel Kawczynski (MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham) are listed as Conservative MPs who voted against. In reality both of them voted in favour. This has already been discussed in the talk page to image but no action has been taken and I cannot edit other users images. This has also been discussed in the talk page to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill article. A full list of how MPs voted in the second reading can be found on the BBC News site. (Tk420 (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Article breakup

I think the article should be broken up into: Same-sex marriage in Scotland, Same-sex marriage in England and Wales, and Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland since there isn't one marriage law for all of the UK. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to be bold and start work on it, this article will be kept as an overview, and for Northern Ireland as I have no idea what is going n there. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it's a good I dee and per Bold, revert, discuss have reverted twice for now (so Same-sex marriage in England and Wales is a redirect to this page). In view of the links between these subjects (the England and Wales law is actually a UK-law, also with provisions regarding recognition of Scottish law), I think it would also be good to have it apart… L.tak (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brrr, and I have been reverted again… Me-, please discuss this further and see if you can get consensus before going on… L.tak (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine for now, but as soon as one of them legalises SSM then it should be split into a separate article. So if Scotland legalises first then start a Same-sex marriage in Scotland, but until then it is fine as there is no difference at the moment. CH7i5 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

Why is there no section in this article for Northern Ireland? There was a vote at the start of the year supported by Sinn Fein but it was rejected. Also recently there have been pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage protects in Belfast. Is this relevent enough to merit being put in? CH7i5 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of voting on MPs pages

May I ask an editor why the way that different MPs have voted on this (usually those who opposed the 2nd reading in the Commons) is often mentioned on their Wikipedia page? In some cases, their voting on other issues is not mentioned at all. For example, Richard Drax's page lacks much content yet the section which has his "parliamentary career" is summed up in his opposition to the Marriage Bill. Likewise, John Glen has a section of his page dedicated to his vote against this bill (even though it is only one sentence). The user contributions of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.153.104.163 for instance show that some users are editing politicians pages often noting their vote against this bill, even if there is no other record of their voting on any other issue on their page (or perhaps anything else about their political life). Is this some attempt at a witch hunt by singling out this issue over others? (I know this may not be the best place to post this topic, but it is a central location - to debate it on each MPs talk page would not be practical, neither would bringing it up on the general talk page for MPs in the United Kingdom. Thoughts would be helpful. 194.70.34.202 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=558587670"