Talk:Same-sex marriage

Colombia New Poll

A new poll conducted between November and December 2016 shows that support for same-sex marriage is 37% while 59% is against.[1]. So please update that information in your table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.18.52.36 (talk • contribs)

Taiwan same-sex marriage poll.

A recent poll conducted in november 2016 showed that 52% Taiwanese supported SSM:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2016/11/29/2003660214

Most polls show that a majority of Taiwanese support SSM:

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=2273290

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201506270005.aspx

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/11/30/nearly-two-thirds-of-taiwan-supports-marriage-equality-survey-finds/

nation states

If we're going to highlight the Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand, despite the fact that they're constituent countries within their kingdoms and SSM is not recognized throughout the kingdoms (well, it was in Denmark, but in 2017, not 2012), then we should highlight other constituent countries as well, such as the three of the four in the UK that have SSM. I can't think of any other states where this would be relevant, so it's just adding highlighting/flags to England, Wales, Scotland, Greenland & the Faroes. Either that, or move the highlighting/flag for Denmark to 2017 and remove the highlighting/flags from the Netherlands and New Zealand, since SSM is not legal throughout those polities any more than it is throughout the UK. Either way, we should treat all countries the same. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, no discussion here, but it seems that we're going for only top-level states. So Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand are out. — kwami (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the flags on constituent countries. I'd even prefer than any territory that is not incorporated into the parent state had a flag (a BOT or an unincorporated territory, for example). And yes, if we are only going with "top-level" states, Netherlands, Denmark and New Zealand are out Andrew1444 (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the flags too, personally. The problem with territories is that they could make the table too cluttered to read. We'd also need flag icons for all tribal govts in the US. Given that there are 400+ of them, that could become a distraction from highlighting the progress among major states. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Dont remove it all just because you didn't instantly got an answer. It's the Christmas / New year's week, there's less people around. The lack of answer within a day doesn't mean you have a consensus. I think it would be better to keep the flags for an obviously easier read of the chronology. If there's nitpicking over the extent of the legality within these countries, just add some notes. Don't remove content.--Aréat (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove any content. The countries are all still there. But SSM is not recognized by the Netherlands or New Zealand any more than it is by the UK. If the UK is not highlighted, because only 3/4 constituent contries recognize SSM, then the Netherlands (1/4 countries) and New Zealand (1/3 countries) shouldn't be either. Anyway, I tagged the problem so that readers will see there's a discussion. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The UK consists of 4 countries and some territories that belong to the whole of the UK (and they rely on the UK for defense). The same happens with Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten (but they rely on the Netherlands which is 1 country) and etc. If we're going to add flags for Greenland, Faroe Islands, England, Aruba, Wales, Scotland etc , then we'll need to add flags for the Mexican, the US, the Canadian or Brazilian states which is totally useless. It's ok if we leave it as it is. Very clear and easy for the average reader to understand it. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Xylo kai Gyali. It is very clear as is. If we have flags for constituent parts of countries then there is no reason why we wouldn't also include the flags of US and Mexcian states, Canadian provinces, British territories etc. Having a flag for England would be particularly odd as England doesn't even have its own government, unlike many states, provinces and territories. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And let's not forget that the laws passed in (for example) Greenland, Faroe Islands, British Overseas Territories etc. require royal assent by the respective countries. Whereas laws passed, for example, in Denmark, do not require royal assent by the Faroe islands or Greenland. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You're both confusing constituent countries with territories. Essentially, you're saying that England is the UK. The difference in that case is that the kingdom of England goes by a different name (the UK) than the country of England. But in the case of the Netherlands, Denmark, and New Zealand, the country and the kingdom/realm go by the same name. This may be confusing, but legally the situations are equivalent.

Also, British territories are not in the UK. If Northern Ireland were to recognize SSM, then it would be recognized throughout the UK even though the Caribbean territories did not. And those territories are different again than the states of the US and Mexico or the provinces of Canada.

If we highlight/flag the countries of Denmark and the Netherlands, rather than the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands, then we should also highlight/flag the country of England rather than the kingdom. And we should treat the other constituent countries within the kingdoms the same. If we only highlight/flag the UK (the kingdom of England), then we should only highlight/flag the kingdoms of the Netherlands and Demmark.

In other words, we should either highlight UN states (e.g. the UK) or countries (e.g. England). We shouldn't mix and match depending on our personal preferences. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It's very confusing. I don't think the average reader can understand all these. Also, as I mentioned earlier, Denmark gives assent to the laws passed by Greenland and Faroe Islands, and not the other way around. The same with New Zealand and Cook Islands and Niue, the UK and its overseas territories etc.. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether people find it confusing is irrelevant. Our job is to explain things, not censor information because it may confuse people.

No, they're not the same. The overseas British territories are not in the UK. Once N.Ireland recs SSM (probably not too long now), all of the UK will rec SSM. We'd be correct as listing the UK as a nation recognizing SSM with a footnote explaining that that recognition does not apply to the territories. But Greenland and Aruba are just as much parts of the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands as N.Ireland is a part of the UK.

The Kingdom of Great Britain and N.Ireland consists of four countries: England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland. It also owns a bunch of territories that are not actually part of the UK, just owned by it.

The Kingdom of Denmark consists of three countries: The country of Denmark (Denmark proper AKA metropolitan Denmark), the Faroes (who declared independence after a referendum in the 50s, only to have it denied by the kingdom), and Greenland. Denmark itself does not approve laws in Greenland and the Faroes, the kingdom does. It only sounds like Denmark approves them because the kingdom goes by the same name. It is like the UK in the sense that it's the kingdom that approves some things for the countries, not England. Claiming that the kingdom has approved SSM when only Denmark has is like claiming the UK has approved SSM when only England has.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands consists of four countries: The country of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. As with Denmark, the country of the Netherlands is not the kingdom. If the country approves SSM, that doesn't mean the kingdom has.

The Realm of NZ consists of three countries: The country of NZ, the Cook Islands and Niue. Tokelau is not a constituent country of the realm, but a territory governed by the realm,, it's equivalent to the overseas territories of the UK. — kwami (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The "countries" of the UK are called that in name for historic diplomatic reasons only. They are legally what other states would call provinces. In fact Northern Ireland is commonly referred to as a province. To mark them out differently here from other provinces for the simple fact that some have a degree of autonomy on marriage law is somewhat confusing the situation, the UK is not a federation. The UK as a sovereign state has equal marriage laws, regardless of the laws in a particular province. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true, but suppose you're right. The UK as a sovereign state still doesn't have equal marriage law, only some of its provinces do. It's no different than the US before 2015. And since metropolitan Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand are not countries, only provinces, their flags should be removed.

Unless you consider England to be the UK (since the parliament of England is the parliament of the UK), in which case we should add the UK flag to England+Wales, but not highlight the province of Scotland, analogous to how we treat Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand.

Either way, we should treat all states the same. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. It's very confusing. So Netherlands was not the first country to legalise same-sex marriage? Well, that's a shock. Personally, I believe we should leave it as it is. After all, there's a description before the table that explains the situation. To me, Aruba, Greenland, Niue or whatever seem to have the same status as the British Overseas Territories with the UK. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Netherlands was the first country. It's a constituent country of the kingdom. But legally it's on par with England, which is also a country, not with the UK. (It dominates its kingdom to a greater extent than England dominates the UK, but that's a function of relative population, not of legal standing. Its parliament is the parliament of the kingdom, but again that's the same as the situation of England within the UK -- there is no English parliament.)

"It seems to me" is not an argument -- legal status of states is not a matter of opinion. The overseas territories of the UK aren't even part of the UK, they're just owned by it -- their inhabitants aren't even citizens, except for the two that are claimed by other UN states. The four constituent countries of the Netherlands, however, are what define the Kingdom of the Netherlands, just as the four constituent countries of the UK define the UK.

Here are the states in question:

UN state	Constituent country
Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Irland	England
	Wales
	Scotland
	N. Ireland
Kingdom of the Netherlands	metropolitan Netherlands
	Aruba
	Curaçao
	Sint Maarten
Kingdom of Denmark	metropolitan Denmark
	Greenland
	Faroe Islands
Realm of New Zealand	metropolitan New Zealand
	Niue
	Cook Islands

The entities in the right column are all legally countries. If we are going to flag countries, then we need to flag all of them. If we're only going to flag UN states, then we should flag none of them.

Since the UN states in the left column will likely never recognize SSM, as they are leaving that decision to their constituent countries, and so will never appear in the Timeline table, I suggest we flag all countries that recognize SSM.

AFAIK, these are the only UN states that are composed of constituent countries in this way. Since the Caribbean and Pacific countries are unlikely to rec SSM any time soon, flagging countries instead of UN states is not going to flood the table with flags. Currently we're talking about just five, and with N.Ireland probably rec'ing SSM in the next few years, six.

And what happens when N.Ireland recognizes SSM? At that point the entire UK will recognize SSM, but there will be no flag for it in the table, no country name will be highlighted. At a glance, it will be like the UK doesn't exist. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As said before, let's leave them with flags as before, named as they are (note that "metropolitan X" arent official names), with notes leading to a precision of these particularities. Same with the UK. The remaining question is about which flag to use for the latter. Either the Union Jack, as the note would explain that it is actually not exactly the whole UK even if the flag is used (it's truly the exception here), or the england, scottish and wales one. Otherwise, we would have to remove flags for all of them, or leave most of the UK without one, which I think most of us agree wouldn't be satisfying.--Aréat (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if they're not official names. If we don't capitalize 'metropolitan', we'd not be using the it as part of the name, any more than "metropolitan France" is a name. Another possibility would be "X proper". — kwami (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? Their name as constituent countries are Netherlands, Danemark and New Zealand. Let's use them and their flags. The note would be there to indicate it's not their respective kingdoms.--Aréat (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That could work. I don't really care which names we use, only that we aren't biased in our reporting: If we highlight sub-state countries, then we should do so for all states, not just when we judge the other constituent countries aren't important. That would be like not highlighting Malta because it's a small country and so not important. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the UK, when Northern Ireland legalizes SSM, it could appear like England, Wales and Scotland do (not highlighted or flags) and next to it we can add "United Kingdom [nationwide]", like with Brazil, Canada, or Mexico (when all states legalise it). Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. But we would need to do the same with Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand -- not highlight or use the flag until SSM is recognized nationwide (Denmark in 2017, no time soon for the others). — kwami (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and that would mean N.Ireland's recognition would be portrayed as the UK's recognition. But the UK will presumably never recognize SSM, not the way the US, Canada and Brazil did. (But that is probably the way Mexico will work out.) — kwami (talk)

I'm pretty sure most people here agree removing these flags wouldn't be satisfactory. What do you think should be used to show the UK's constituents countries? --Aréat (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You can find what my proposal would look like in the article history: Flags and highlighting for England, Wales and Scotland. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Does Northern Ireland have an "official flag" that wouldn't be politically contentious? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the Union Jack is normally used, as NI does not have an official flag of its own. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To explain what I meant, let's say Northern Ireland legalises SSM on 30/6/2018. It would appear on the table "Northern Ireland (30 June)",and then next to it "Template:Uk flag United Kingdom [nationwide] (30 June)". Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that it would incorrectly suggest that the UK recognized SSM. — kwami (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Then add to the table the legal entities that do perform SSM. England & Wales is a legal entity, Scotland is a legal entity. Similarly in the "Kingdom of Denmark", Denmark is a separate legal entity to Greenland or Faroe Islands. Isle of Man, Guernsey, Alderney, Bermuda, Pitcairn Islands, Falkland Islands, Ascension etc all perform SSM, but they are all separate legal entities, and are not part of the UK. The Netherlands should remain as the first legal entity that performed SSM. This debate is "created" by opponents to SSM. Does it matter if flags are there are not, yes flags are pretty but it is not essential. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah, but it will be true that same-sex marriage is recognised nationwide in the UK. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, debate's petered out and there seems to be consensus for keeping the flags and highlighting for countries like the Netherlands. No criterion given for treating the countries in the UK and Denmark differently than others. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy of ILGA data

I don't think the ILGA data in the support table are accurate at all. Malaysia's 30% support is beyond unrealistic, in a country where all other polls suggest acceptance of homosexuality is below 10%. The same goes for all the other Arab countries, where there's no way support is that high. Also, sources for several European countries to national surveys that are definitely more accurate and features a much smaller proportion of "don't know/no idea". I think Pew Research Center receipts are much more accurate, at least for Europe. Greece's 56% of approval includes civil unions, by the way. 95.237.80.61 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with you. I think survey from ILGA was an online poll and that is why results were high in some countries (because richer and more educated people have access to internet). Especially true for countries like Ghana. Regarding Greece, the survey is from Focus Bari and it is about marriage not civil union. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya percentages seem unrealistically high. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So does Malaysia. I can't imagine that many people support SSM. The Chinese community, maybe, but certainly not the conservative Bumi and Indian populaitons. Andrew1444 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine 30% for Sudan, Pakistan, Malaysia and just 43% for Italy or 64% for the Netherlands.. it doesn't make sense Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Same here. This look very dubious, and put question on the whole table of poll's sample and methodology. They should be removed, in my opinion. --Aréat (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Italy's support is at 56% (40% opposed) according to a recent trustworthy national poll. IMO the fact that ILGA's numbers are from an online poll should invalidate its accuracy and thus its use as a reliable source for the actual public opinion. In most specific articles about "LGBT rights in ____" there are better opinion polls, I reckon. I'll change the numbers where I can--as for the countries we only have ILGA data for, I think the best choice would be to remove them, but I'll wait for some more consensus. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 09:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you're right on that! And nice name! Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

So, shall we remove it? --Aréat (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a resounding yes from me. Those ILGA data for Muslim-majority countries are far from accurate. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, 30% for Pakistan is absurdly high. Isseubnida (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 15:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

First map description

The color key of the first map of the page doesn't fit anymore following unilateral changes. See the wikimedia discussion here : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg --Aréat (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if the updates to the key are reverted, they will no longer agree with the updated map. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

According to sources [2], [3] same-sex marriage is legal there since 2014, but no exact date was given. 3 June date is pure speculation and original research. SSM is allowed in Akrotiri and Dhekelia due to Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014. SGSSI, unlike Akrotiri and Dhekelia, is not a military base. PS: SGSSI have the commissioner, who is authorized to make laws. Here is list of local laws. Ron 1987 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a mystery. The sources in question are reliable, in the sense that there is no better authority to answer the question 'Is SSM legal in SGSSI and if so from when?' than the UK Government, which administers the territory, however they are primary sources and could in theory violate WP:NOTRS. Studying the 2014 Gazette from the list of local laws you provide makes no mention of marriage, but I don't think there's anything else to do but rely on the UK Govt and territory govt website overviews, which simply say "legal from 2014". Jono52795 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's strange for another reason; SGSSIs Marriage Ordinance was directly inherited from the Falkland Islands (Chapter 43 of The Laws of the Falkland Islands) when it ceased to be administered by that territory in 1985. There have only been minor changes to the Marriage Ordinance in SGSSI regarding things like the duties of the registrar. So if a new bill was required to be passed by the Falkland Islands legislature last year to legalise SSM ([4]) then I don't see how SSM would be legal in SGSSI in 2014 without a new ordinance from the SGSSI commissioner to that effect. There has been no such ordinance to my knowledge. There is no legislature for SGSSI so the law must be changed by the commissioner.

Sadly I can't find any reliable source that gives a definitive answer. I did find this blog post from someone claiming to have contacted the registrar general (the post is jointly held with that of the Falklands registrar, as is the role of Commissioner) which says they stated SSM is not legal in SGSSI; [5]

I would also point out that there is a new ordinance currently in consultation called "Application of English Law to SGSSI" ([6] and the accompanying policy document where same-sex marriage is specified [7]) and the draft ordinance specifically excludes law relating to same-sex marriage (and marriage law in general) as being among the laws to be applied to the territory. Although this doesn't necessarily mean same-sex marriage is not possible under local law it does mean that marriage is still dependent on the state of local law. It is not the case that English law regarding same-sex marriage automatically took effect in SGSSI in 2014. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

SGSSI commissioner document from 29 Sept 2015 refers to "both people" getting married rather than man and woman. May be a clue that same sex marriage was indeed legal by 2015, but nothing conclusive in the document. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The law has always had gender-neutral language though referring only to "both parties", see the Marriage Ordinance on the 8th page of the PDF [8]. Having said that after researching a bit more I think I've now convinced myself that same-sex couples might be able to get married according to the ordinance as it stands!

I now see why the Falklands needed a new marriage bill as they fundamentally altered marriage validity requirements in a 1996 ordinance and gutted much of the above Marriage Ordinance. On the other hand as SGSSI left the territory before this the old Marriage Ordinance validity requirements were retained which simply required compatibility with English law for a marriage to be valid. It may not be necessary to import specific language regarding same-sex marriage. This would imply same-sex marriages were possible from the moment the law changed in England.

Ultimately though I think only an Freedom of Information request to the government is going to resolve this. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A literal reading of SGSSI Marriage Ordinance would infer that SSM became legal in the territory at the time English law was changed to allow it. That would give credence to the original sources saying SSM has been legal “since 2014”. Why else would the new draft ordinance specifically exclude SSM? But I’m not a lawyer, and cannot be sure of this. What we couple do is simply state the territory’s ordinance (Sect. 3; Valid Marriages) on the Recognition of same-sex unions in the British Overseas Territories page and leave it inferred that consequently SSM is legal as a result of the English law change in 2014.

But your right User:ChiZeroOne, only an FOI request or a case of a same-sex couple applying to marry in SGSSI will assure us. Terrific research on your part though. Jono52795 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the problem may be related to the fact that the territory has no permanent population and no local govt to worry about such things. The commissioner doesn't even live there. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

IACHR and Latin America in the timeline vs on the map

A user is engaging in an edit war to prevent the map from reflecting the timeline re. Costa Rica, Panama and Peru. Also being reverted is the color showing which states are signatories to the IACHR, whose ruling in favor of SSM potentially applies to those states. (This could potentially happen in the EU as well, so it's worth thinking about how we would want to handle that.)

One user is claiming consensus to not update the IACHR states based on three or four of the people commenting there, but of course those are just the few who have been motivated by recent events to go to Commons and debate it, not the presumably much larger number here on WP who are fine with the article & map as it is. Anyway, if you think the map and timeline should be kept in sync, you might want to comment there. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As explained in details by several users on the wikimedia talkpage, same sex marriage hasn't currently been made legal in Costa Rica, Panama and Peru. That's why we shouldn't use the gold color yet, as it is for legalisation which aren't immediately effective - but legalisation nonetheless. As for the light gold color, it's used for same sex partnership. You changed it to portray the Interamerican court ruling. Several users on wikimedia were against both of these important changes, so it was changed back to how it was.--Aréat (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well,I already stated that I prefer the 'old' map... but I will state it at this page again if that's what you want... My opinion is that the changes made the map less clear, the light gold color had already a meaning and the gold color for Panama, Costa Rica and Peru is (in my opinion) not correct. Sander000 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The light gold color was not being used, so it was free for something else. Though of course we could change it.

And no, dark gold does not mean legal. SSM has not been legalized in Taiwan, for example. (There is a difference that the court set a date at which it will be legal if the legislature does not preempt it, but it's possible a civil-union law would do that.) In Costa Rica, Panama and Peru, the govt/courts have said that the ruling is binding or that they will abide by the ruling, which is what we've long used the color for.

— kwami (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Panama should be added to the timeline and the template (which Taiwan should be added to as well). First of all, a court legalizing same-sex marriage, an executive order legalizing same-sex marriage, and a legislature legalizing same-sex marriage all have the same legal effect. For example, same-sex marriage was legalized in West Virginia through executive order even though the ban was still on the books. I'm not sure about Costa Rica however.. The Superior Council of Notaries said they won't perform same-sex marriages until the law is actually changed. Prcc27 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's typical, though -- when a govt announces they're going to abide by a ruling, the implication is that they need to formalize it. I think we've used gold for that elsewhere. The ruling should be binding on CR, since they're the ones who brought the case before the court.

Are we clear whether or not civil unions would satisfy the court ruling in Taiwan? I don't know the basis for someone here saying it would. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

But people in the executive branch announcing their support for abiding by the ruling is no guarantee that the legislative branch will follow through. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Besides, there's presidential and legislative elections in Costa Rica next week. They could switch the decision of the previous government. Although unlikely considering the current polls, we can't rule it out entirely.--Aréat (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to formalize the implication that gold means a date has been set for legalization? The current wording of the key, "Marriage legalized", is inaccurate -- it's not been legalized in Taiwan, for example. We could change it to "Date set for legalization". That would account for us not including Nepal despite the court order there. That would also explain the difference in color -- if it were legalized, it should be some shade of blue. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not, indeed. But what is your source for a Nepal court order on same sex marriage? As far as I know from the page there was only a committee that was tasked with writting a report on the matter when the constitution was in work, and it advised the constituant assembly to legalise. But there was no court order, and the lawmakers eventually decided not to include SSM in the constitution, which has already been finished three years ago.--Aréat (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I remember, at the time WP described it as a Supreme Court order. That's why it warranted the gold color. But maybe our reporting was wrong? — kwami (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It seem so. Look up the current, updated page. ;) --Aréat (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Weasel words corrected

The article mentioned "an American Scientific Association" when it could have just said which association, i.e. The American Anthropological Association. The citation listed showed which association(no. 21) so I took out the weasel words and put in who actually said it. Phrases like this are little better than saying, "They've done studies that show...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.252.73.98 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand's opinion polling

New Zealand does not exist in the latest version of opinion polling. Could anyone fix it up? Khhmel (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica and Panama

There seem to be an ongoing edit war on whether these two countries, and maybe Peru, should be in the "legalised, but date to be determined" section. I thought a discussion on it already existed, but apparently not, so here we go : neither countries have passed legislation legalising it, and the south american court ruling isn't effective yet, as proven by the same sex marriage attempt in Codta Rica which resulted in the couple being told they would have to wait for a law. English speaking sources states the ruling as being binding, yet spanish speaking sources state it as consultiva, or advisory. Last but not least, the ongoing Costa Rican general election, 2018 had the conservative, evangelist, anti gay marriage candidate taking the first place to the second round and polling high. He stated that he would definitively not uphold this ruling, going as far as to leave the court entirely if needed. Maybe he will be elected, maybe he won't, maybe the parliament will decide otherwise, but to write that a Costa Rican legalisation is a sure thing, already done and only waiting for a date, is a clear example of CRYSTALBALL right now, in my opinion. We should wait for a more decisive vote. Cordially--Aréat (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Local legislation is not required. The ruling is irreversible, except obliviously if the countries leave the jurisdiction of the Court, though that is almost impossible, as it would require a constitutional amendment in Costa Rica (not sure about Panama, though) and the Costa Rican Parliament possesses a "petition of concern" similar to Northern Ireland. The Costa Rican Constitution explicitly states that international laws and rulings take precedence over local laws and are fully binding. The governments of both countries have already announced compliance with the ruling, and instructed several departments to abide by the ruling, with the intent to legalise same-sex marriage. The Council of Notaries stated that no same-sex marriage can be performed until new legislation or a Court ruling is in place. This has already happened. The IACHR, a court, has already ruled. Not to mention, the Supreme Electoral Court (also a court) has also announced it will implement the decision. The Council of Notaries is simply being very stubborn. As for Peru, it shouldn't be included on the timetable yet, because the Government hasn't issued a statement regarding the issue. Only a few lawmakers and judges have stated that the Government should abide by the decision. Jedi Friend (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as new informations. I suggest taking this to Talk:Same-sex marriage in Costa Rica. To be simply put, the court ruling is advisory, as per the very same spanish speaking source you wanted to add : it didn't instantly made same sex marriage legal in these countries. There is still a further step, a law or local court ruling, necessary for it to become legal. Do notice that the statement by the Council of Notaries happened after the South american court ruling, so the situation in Costa Rica is still one of same sex marriage not legaly possible.

So, a further step is needed. Months after the ruling, most of the south american countries it advised to legalise didn't even made an official statement. This so called legalisation could very well stay frozen this way for years for all we know. If Fabricio Alvarado is elected in Costa Rica, he could very well do the same. We don't know. That's why I think it's Crystallball. If the Supreme Electoral Court of Costa Rica announced it will make a favorable ruling, very well. When it do so, we will indicate it as legalised. --Aréat (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just looked up the Costa rican constitution (https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Costa_Rica_2011.pdf?lang=en) and on page 48 it state that a reform of the constitution require a two-third majority of the members of the legislative assembly, meaning 38 votes. If you consider the information in the table given on the spanish page of the recent election (link above), then the parties of candidates that expressed they wouldn't implement Same sex marriage obtained a total of 46 seats. Maybe I don't have all informations, but it doesn't seem this impossible for Costa Rica to go against the Court's ruling if the population decide to in the voting urns. At the very least, we should wait and see what will result of these elections, unless a decisive national court ruling is made in the meantime.--Aréat (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"If the Supreme Electoral Court of Costa Rica announced it will make a favorable ruling, very well. When it does so, we will indicate it as legalised." It already did! It did so just a few days after the ruling. See: https://www.nacion.com/el-pais/gobierno/registro-civil-solo-espera-notificacion-del/2FTLNLISQRCBTEBAMQ6MXYBLQM/story/?rel=none&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook. It stated it will implement the ruling once the Executive Branch notifies it, which it did on 12 January.

Indeed, an amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority (38 votes), something opponents of the ruling do not currently have. PAC and the Broad Front, which support same-sex marriage, have 11 seats. The National Liberation Party and the Social Christian Unity Party, whose candidates both announced their willingness to respect the decision, have 17 and 9 seats, so 26. The National Liberation Party (4 seats) also stated that IACHR rulings are always binding and they will respect that. The two parties, completely opposed, are the National Restoration Party and the Social Christian Republican Party, which together have 16 seats. Two other parties that oppose the ruling lost all their seats (the Renewal Party and the Christian Democratic Alliance).

Also, I would like to point out that this is not the first time the IACHR has ruled in such a way. In 2012, it ruled that bans on IVF violated privacy rights. Evangelical parties, opposed to the ruling, successfully rejected bills to get rid of the ban, still written in Costa Rican law. The President then issued an executive decree, which was later invalided by a local court because it wasn't passed in a law. However (in 2016), the IACHR ruled that presidential and governmental decrees are adequate and sufficient in abiding by its decisions. IVF was then fully legalised in Costa Rica, despite no law being passed. (See:http://globalbioethics.org/gbi_old/2016/03/new-court-ruling-challenges-ivf-ban-in-costa-rica/) The Government of Costa Rica has already issued a decree stating the decision will be implemented. (12 January). Additionally, in the Governemnt's view, the decision of the IACHR does not require legislation. (See: https://www.ameliarueda.com/nota/estado-debe-acatar-lo-que-senala-corte-sin-estar-supeditado-a-plazos-en-asa) Jedi Friend (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, those are new informations! Thanks for providing them, as well as the insight into the political parties opinions on the ruling. Again, I strongly suggest you add all these sourced infos to the article on same sex marriage in Costa Rica. Once the changes are made there, it will naturally be added here. What would be the definitive date for the legalisation, though, the national court ruling? Surely we can't use the IACHR ruling's date. If Peru for example finally implement it in two years, or another mentioned country in ten, we wouldn't be adding here that it was legalised in 2018. What do you think?--Aréat (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add them to the Costa Rica article. As for your question. Honestly, I don't know when the ruling will fully be enforced in all these countries (in my opinion, for Costa Rica it will probably be this year, though that is simply my estimation and nothing else). I agree with you that we shouldn't use the date of IACHR ruling as the legalisation date nor do I believe that we should use the date of the Electoral Court decision. Maybe we should wait until a same-sex couple successfully marries in Costa Rica to state that same-sex marriage has been legalised or maybe until the Council of Notaries finally relents. But until then, I believe Costa Rica and Panama should be added to timetable under TBD. Jedi Friend (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not completely sure with Panama but it looks like the supreme court of Panama will abide by the ICH ruling as the adverse opinion against ssm has just been retreat by the magistrate who wrote it and he said he will take in consideration the ICH ruling. We just dont know when they will issue the opinion which it nows look to be favorable for the lgbt community. http://laestrella.com.pa/panama/politica/decision-sobre-matrimonio-ponderara-opinion-cidh/24048856

Btw should we add this info in the Venezuelan same sex marriage page? It looks like there supreme court will issue a 6-1 decision in favorable of ssm, they are trying to convince the last justice but looks that a favorable ruling is certain.https://alnavio.com/mvc/amp/noticia/12738/?__twitter_impression=true --Allancalderini12 (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have a new sourced information as relevant as this one, of course, please add it! I didn't knew it was looking so favorable in Venezuela.--Aréat (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia and Japan should be added to the table

Poland, Bulgaria and Serbia as well as Japan should be added to the table on "Legal status of same-sex unions" under "Unregistered cohabitation" as all of those countries give some legal recognition for its unregistered cohabiting same-sex couples. Japan recognised same-sex relationships for immigration purposes only, exactly the same as San Marino which is added to the table based on only this one legal effect. However Poland, Bulgaria and Serbia give more than one legal effects.