Template talk:Same-sex unions

New Mexico

I propose adding New Mexico under the United States heading with a footnote stating the counties in which same-sex marriages are performed (currently Bernalillo, Dona Ana, and Santa Fe counties). -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Things are changing on a daily basis
2. I've seen conflicting answers as to whether these marriages would still be valid if the cases that are going to the New Mexico Supreme court go against SSM
3. The Recognition of same-sex unions in New Mexico page is still iffy on the subject

So, for the moment, put me down as a 'no'.Naraht (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia can update on a more-than-daily basis; the New Mexico Supreme Court declined to hear a same-sex marriage suit and directed it to district court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs; and that page expressly states that same-sex marriages are being licensed in three counties, two of which have been compelled by two separate judicial rulings. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We have always been on the safe side with this; and for good reason. It is hard to identify the true value of these events and whatever cutoff we decide, there is going to be continuous edit warring over it. With Brazil we have taken the conservative approach that a jurisdiction should fully allow it and I think a jurisdiction to accept its own decisions (e.g. give legal effect to the marriages) is the absolute minimum... And that's still pending... L.tak (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should be safe, but unlike the questionable districts in Brazil, it's not up to individual judges, and unlike NW in 2004, to individual clerks. We have rulings in several counties now, and people are getting married. The only question is, IMO, do we color the state blue county by county, or do we stripe it. — kwami (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My question is 'who is recognizing SSM?'. Are the other counties and the state government recognizing SSM marriages performed in Dona Ana county? What about recognition of SSM performed in NY? And I think with striping, you are confusing the discussion here with the discussion at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg#New Mexico blue? which hopefully will come to a decision consistent with the one here.Naraht (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dona Ana County is the only real question for me, as the clerk there followed the lead of the Sandoval County clerk before him and the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, registrar of wills more recently and decided to begin issuing licenses on his own initiative. The court's actions in compelling Santa Fe and Bernalillo county clerks to follow suit suggests the Dona Ana County clerk's decision was legally sound, but that particular case has not yet been adjudicated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Six to Seven

The New Mexico entry was bumped from 6 to 7 on the basis of Grant County, but Grant County won't start issuing them until the second week of September. Should we change it to something like 6 counties/1 county† ? Or are we in a situation where if we formally discuss it, it will change to some other number by the time we get finished? :)Naraht (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mexico 2

I think it's probably time to review the situation in Mexico. 2 states or 5? — kwami (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The question becomes is this list those in which *a* legal same sex marriage has occured or one in which the person who grants marriage licenses will be kicked out on his/her can for saying no.Naraht (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been the latter — kwami (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly phrase it as "the person who grants marriage licenses will be kicked out on his/her can for saying no," because different jurisdictions have different consequences for government officials who fail to carry out their duties, and some jurisdictions make special arrangements for officials who have religious objections. I would say the criterion is, "Can a same-sex couple, that otherwise meets the legal requirements of marriage, go to the government office responsible for marriage licensing or registration, and reliably expect that their marriage will be licensed or registered in substantially the same way that an opposite-sex marriage would be, without having to go to extraordinary efforts such as lawsuits?" - htonl (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with hton; if not, we have to remove the Netherlands (where there are so called weigerambtenaren (refusing civil servants), which has been tolerated as long as marriage is possible in any municipality).... L.tak (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So, does Chihuahua count by that standard? — kwami (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, in Mexico's legal system a single decision for one couple doesn't set precedent that would apply to other couples, so each couple would have to go to court specially and get a similar order. If that understanding is correct, then no, Chihuahua doesn't meet the standard. - htonl (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I keep thinking that the number in Mexico's legal system is five for *each* state, I read something indicating how many court cases would have to reach the Mexican Supreme Court to actually get a Legal override to give SSM in all of Mexico.Naraht (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Guernsey

Guernsey recognizes UK civil partnerships for succession purposes. See sections 4 and 30 and paragraphs 7, 12, 13, 19 and 21 of the Schedule of the Inheritance (Guernsey) Law, 2011 which took effect on 2 April 2012. See also Private client law in Guernsey: overview (questions 37 and 38). Ron 1987 (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oregon

I agree that the Willamette Weekly Blog is not a good source, but I think that Same-sex marriage decision leaves Oregon in an ironic spot from the KATU TV station 2 website is.Naraht (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jalisco

Congress of Jalisco has approved civil unions. Can someone update the maps File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (North America).svg and File:World homosexuality laws.svg. I'd do it but I don't have .svg. Thanks. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. World map doesn't need to be done. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

San Marino

Back in June 2012, San Marino passed a law granting in practice an unregistered cohabitation for gay couples. Shouldn't San Marino therefore be included in unregistered cohabitation along with Australia, Croatia and Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.205.167 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2013

Sure. Source? — kwami (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

-

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/san-marino-axes-medieval-law-let-gay-couples-live-together270612

This source can also be found on the page Same-sex union legislation under the table "National level", next to San Marino. Law passed in June 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.89.2 (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Illinois

Please do NOT include Illinois in the list until the Governor signs the bill (won't happen until towards the end of November 2013!). Even then include the + sign indicating it doesn't come into effect until June 2014!! Jono52795 (talk) 10:40, 6 November (AEDT)

Agreed. Quinn will sign it. The delay now, as far as I'm concerned is figuring out what day/time is available for a big public signing ceremony with everyone involved in getting it passed, etc. Theoretically, if Quinn doesn't sign it within 60 days, it becomes law without his signature, but that isn't going to happen, he spent political capital getting this passed, he wants a big celebration.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

November 20th at University of Illinois, Chicago.

Add a "Legislation imminent" section

Should we perhaps add a "Legislation imminent" (or something like that) section to list those jurisdictions where legislation is sufficiently close to enactment as to make it virtually certain - such as, as the moment, Illinois and Hawaii? It might stem the tide of people coming to add them to the template. Thoughts? - htonl (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the problem you wish to solve; but I am afraid we would just move the battle field to what is imminent and what is not; and that is a lot less of a bright line than the ones developed until now… L.tak (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

True, I suppose; people would want to start adding jurisdictions even earlier in the legislative process. Ah well. I have left hidden comments in the template to deter people from prematurely adding IL or HI. - htonl (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We do have a "Government has intention and ability to legalize" category on File:World marriage-equality laws.svg. If we'd add such a section here, Scotland and Luxembourg would qualify as well, but I agree with L.tak's concerns. It is possible though to define inclusion criteria: e.g. it needs to be currently going through the legislative process, with a high likelihood of passing (in parliamentary systems it is clearer: it would need to be supported by the government). SPQRobin (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with an "imminent" section, with strict specifiers:

• A bill must be already forthcoming.
• A working majority of legislators must have explicitly already indicated support, or all substantive votes on the matter must have been won.
• There is no chance of any veto by the executive.
• In the case of judicial review, there is no chance of the ruling being overturned.

In practice, this would have pushed the UK into the imminent section in June (once the Dear amendment had been defeated) or July rather than the time of royal assent, California to the time SCOTUS handed down the ruling, Illinois to the time Quinn scheduled the signing ceremony. It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to state that, at those exact times, marriage had already been de facto legalised. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii

Should it be removed from the Civil Union section?Naraht (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think not. Hawaii is still keeping its civil union law and the relationship recognition entitlements scheme from 1997. It's a pretty unique situation in fact, both opposite-sex and same-sex couples now have the choice of 3 different relationship recognition schemes under state law (marriage, civil union, relationship benefits scheme). Only Illinois (once it's new law goes into effect) will also keep civil unions open for gays and straights. It might be wise to add this to Hawaii/Illinois' SSM articles and even include a section titled 'impact of SSM on civil unions' for this article. Source: Slate: Civil unions and same-sex marriage Jono52795 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Several other states have kept civil union schemes alongside marriage, and in every case we have removed them from the civil union section when they are added to the marriage section. - htonl (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the pedantic in me says that if a state retains its civil union law, it should be listed as such under the 'Legal recognition of same-sex relationships' title. After all, if it's an active and accessible part of the law (even after SSM is legalised), shouldn't the template reflect that? If it's common practice on wiki to remove a state from the civil union list once it legalises SSM yet keeps it's civil union law, I'd be inclined to mount an argument against that practice...purely on the grounds of maintaining an accurate reflection of the law. Regardless, not a huge deal though. Jono52795 (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, technically we should lists all states with such laws. Do people still get CU's? Are there maybe advantages in some cases? — kwami (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

State-by-State listing is unpractical

Let's consider a case where SSM is allowed by more than 30 but not all the US states, let's suppose at the same time more than 10 mexican states performs SSM, plus some Australian States, and there is a possibility of state-by-state recognition in Germany, don't you think that would make the template really hard to read and visualize if the current configuration remain?, I suggest something like mentioning all countries with laws or judicial sentencies allowing SSM and using a warning at the top of the template indicating that for further details countries' SSM page shall be consulted, in that case just United States, Mexico or Australia would be listed (supresing the : and state listing), but with some asterisc for the warning of not fully nationwide perform but details to be consulted in each country page (not in the template). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.101.122 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that state-by-state would be impractical under a certain set of conditions that do not yet exist. Luckily, should those conditions arise, we can adjust the template at that time; we need not commit to that format now. Should the time come, there are different ways of summarizing, and we're already using one: saying "7 tribes" in the US rather than listing the tribes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a resource to determine for which countries a sub-national piece can have a different law on who can get married and for which countries there is only marriage law at the National level? For example, the United States goes in the first category and San Marino (and Israel?) in the second.Naraht (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

in Germany, family law which includes marriage law is a federal issue laid down in part four of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), the 16 states of Germany are not entitled to pass own laws on marriage ... and I think, it is similar in Switzerland and Austria 155.245.69.178 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Missouri

Missouri does not recognize SSM. This isn't Oregon. All they've done is reduce the paperwork when filing state taxes, but you are explicitly not recognized as married for the purposes of of those taxes. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide the "refs" you are referring to...? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You provided the ref. I'll have to track it down. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Missouri recognizes SSM for tax purposes. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not state recognition of marriage.

Here:[1]

"According to Nixon’s office, the decision will not open state-level exemptions, deductions, or credits to same-sex couples, but it will prevent them from having to file their taxes differently at the state level than they do at the national level."

and here:[2]

"The executive order doesn’t allow gay and lesbian couples with a marriage certificate to take advantage of state tax breaks already available to straight couples."

So all this means is a bit less paperwork. Now, maybe it's a foot in the door – Nixon favors SSM – but it would violate CRYSTAL to for us to assume this is going anywhere against the vehement opposition of the legislature. This is an entirely different situation than Oregon, where the court mandated that out-of-state marriages be recognized as marriages by the state of Oregon. — kwami (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said that it was full recognition of marriage. It still is some form of recognition however. --Prcc27 (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

But adding it to the table implies that it's actual recognition of marriage, as in other states which recognize marriage. It clearly is not. We've been using the cat to mean, "you can't get married here, but if you are married, then you're married here too." In Oregon, married SS couples are married. In MO they are not. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In Missouri SSM is recognized for tax purposes. In Michigan SSM is not recognized. --Prcc27 (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with kwami. Jurisdictions should only be listed here as recognizing 'foreign' same-sex marriage if they recognize those marriages fully, not just for limited purposes. For the same reason, Guernsey should not be listed. - htonl (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case we should also remove Sint Maarten, Curacao and Aruba… (they have to register them, but are not required to give them the same effect as traditional marriages)… I have no opinion on what to post, but note that there is a strong difference between Guernsey and Missouri: Missouri merely allows a certain form to be used and thus accepts the fact that such marriages exist in the US… There seems to be no material effect at all… 10:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)L.tak (talk)

I didn't know that. I just assumed that recognition in those islands meant that if I got married in the NL and moved there, I'd still be married. If that's not the case, then I'd agree that they should be removed or at least clarified. And certainly from the map: The whole idea of the map is to show where you can be married, or sort-of married. — kwami (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the Dutch Wikipedia, the legal case that established this recognition (Oduber-Lamers/Aruba) requires that a marriage license (or any other license) granted in the Kingdom of the Netherlands have the same legal force and effects in all parts of the Kingdom. SPQRobin (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We say s.t. very different. Maybe we should clear up that article first, and then change back the map if it turns out to be justified? — kwami (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be nuanced and the nlwp and enwp articles don't differ that much (though the enwp article's lead isn't quite accurate/nuanced afaics). Maybe someone with more knowledge about this can explain this, but it seems the general idea is that they have to recognise SSM licenses but they can still treat them differently. It don't see a reason to suddenly remove them from the map. Anyway, it is usually not really clear to what extent they are treated equally, and at what point we should list them as "recognition only" jurisdictions. SPQRobin (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because you aren't legally considered married in Missouri doesn't mean that the state of Missouri doesn't recognize that the marriages are valid in some way or form. If the state of Missouri doesn't recognize that the marriages are valid then why would they let same sex couples file joint tax returns..? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't base our edits on speculation. AFAICT, this is simply a matter of simplifying paperwork. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Extra Footnote?

"For inheritance and other succession purposes respecting interests in property; if performed in the United Kingdom" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcc27 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Footnote markers

Why are there two different types of footnote markers, both numbers and the dagger? It seems that the dagger should be changed to a nubmer for consistency. 22:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.13.119 (talk)

The dagger is a generic note that potentially applies to all countries. The numbers are country-specific. The difference makes SSM status easier to track. — kwami (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory

Very unique situation developing. The date of effect is now official, December 7 (2013). High Court (most powerful court in the land) will decide if the law is legal under complex Australian state/federal laws on December 12. Could result in a 'California style result where SSM is legal for a brief time only. Should an asterisk/small note be placed next to ACT on the table for the period between Dec 7-12? Source: Same-sex marriages to come after High Court reserves decision Jono52795 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Brazil

For several months, Brazil has been shown as allowing SSM nationwide. Yet today there was an article in the news about a mass wedding to celebrate Rio's first SSM (http://news.yahoo.com/couples-tie-knot-en-masse-rio-39-first-025551850.html). Is or has the information on Brazil been incorrect? Is an asterisk needed?

50.135.209.86 (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)