Talk:Civil union/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Uruguayan legislative power has approved the Civil Union Law (September, 2007). The map should be modified in order to showing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Could someone edit the map? Uruguayan civil unions were legalized this year (and Colombia only has some right, not civil unions).

Opposition to Civil Unions/Partnerships

Under the UK section it mentions nothing of opposition to Civil Unions. Furthurmore though it mentions the fact that many supposedly "feel it falls short of full equality", it has not mentioned the actual fact that many in the UK think it is too close to same-sex marriage and is in fact same-sex marriage in all but name. I also agree with the Neutrality section below. This article seems to hint that the straight people created civil unions to silence homosexuals.

As I remember it the UK Law passed with the support of all three main national political parties and the regional parties in Scotland and Wales. Only some of the parties in Northern Ireland opposed it. It is true that some Conservative banckbenchers in the House of Lords opposed the Bill but they were heavily defeated. There was no substantial opposition from any national newspaper that I recall. There were also no large demonstrations in the street. So where is the source for the "many in the UK think it is too close to same-sex marriage" view? Wilmot1 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


I'll admit I haven't read through this whole entry yet, but the opening doesn't sound very neuteral. It seems to be attempting to convey that Civil Unions are a horrible unequal thing used to make homosexuals shut up for a while. I'm sure many people would rebutt that idea.


Could someone who knows more about Danish law update the Denmark section to say whether or not it applies to French, German, and Canadian citizens, for example? Is it a requirement to be a CITIZEN of Denmark, or merely a RESIDENT? The current section looks somewhat out of date. --Bhuck 07:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comparison with marriage

I'm curious - are the registered partnerships exactly the same as marriage, or some kind of variation designed to bestow equivalent legal and economic benefits, or what? (Note: this question is without prejudice to the issue of should gays marry.) I'm interested in seeing some comparisons between marriage (in the traditional heterosexual sense) and any and all variants, such as Vermont's civil union law. --Ed Poor

In Quebec, they supposedly are, although I am not an expert; except that you must be 18 (not 16), there are special laws for filiation, and they can be dissolved by notary if both partners consent and there are no children. Information about this should go in the article. - user:Montrealais

The exact text of the Vermont law reads, in relevant part: "Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage." This includes laws about title, probate, adoption, insurance, civil causes of action, medical care, family leave, taxes, public benefits, and others. Further, if one of the parties to a civil union becomes a natural parent during the civil union, the parties share the same rights and responsibilities of married parents toward the child. Family court handles dissolutions in the same manner as divorce of married couples--the statement in the article to the contrary is mistaken, and I'll remove it. --LDC

In Germany, registered partnerships still have less rights than marriages, as explained in the article. The leftist government couldn't pass full equality (which they want) without the opposition. AxelBoldt

In France, the Civil Union, known as PACS (pacte civil de solidarité) is less than a marriage. For once, it's easier to break. It also gives some of the immediat benefits of marriage (fill common taxes, which saves money except perhaps in some very specific cases) only after 3 years. It's open to heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.

I don't feel enough pumped up to write a piece on it. David.Monniaux 22:55, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Do remember that marriage has its history as a religious display. Regardless of whether or not it is legally recognized, it is still by its very nature a religious act, not a legal one. A Civil Union, (at least in the USA), originally termed a Civil Partnership, has its roots in common law granted by constitutionally implied protections of civil liberties for all "humans". --Lostinlodos 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Full Faith and Credence

The article states:

A Vermont civil union is nearly identical to a legal marriage. It carries the same rights and responsibilities, granting partners next-of-kin rights and other protections that heterosexual married couples take for granted. However, despite the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution, civil unions are generally not recognized outside of the state of Vermont in the absence of specific legislation. Opponents of the law have supported the Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment in order to prevent obligatory recognition of same-sex couple in other jurisdictions.

The words despite the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution convey the sense that civil unions really ought to be recognized by other states: additional legislation should not be needed. This is a popular point of view, but it is POV -- not an obvious and undisputed fact -- and should this be attributed to an advocate.

Say rather that some advocates -- or, better, name some person or group -- ...assert the the Full Faith and Credence clause obliges all states to recognize civil unions of other states.

You see, there's a constitutional question involved, as well as two opposing public relations and legal strategies. One side says, make civil unions, and then a same-sex union or "marriage" in one state is valid nationwide. The other side says, let's pass a law that keeps our state from having to recognize those same-sex unions.

The Wikipedia shouldn't endorse the strategy or legal POV of either side, but just report on how well each side is doing; and explain each side's legal arguments. --Uncle Ed 15:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


I'm not sure we've got Austria right here (I'm not sure Austria has civil unions). I can't find any information on civil unions in austria. Could someone check that Austria is listed correctly? Barnaby dawson 18:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Actually, same-sex partners have almost no recognition in Austria. This is a mistake both in this article and in the map at Image:Samesex_Map_Europe.png; the issue could be considered "under consideration", since the Social Democrats introduced a bill to parliament this year which would legalize civil unions, but it will not pass since the ruling Christian Democrats don't want to - quote - "introduce a 2nd degree marriage". (POV) Bigots. (/POV) Anyway, point is: No civil unions in Austria. I'll remove them from the template, but someone else'll have to do the map, I haven't quite figured out how to do that yet. Nightstallion 11:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not a question that civil unions are not extended _despite_ the full faith and credit clause. It is a staement of fact. Any contractual obligation that you might enter into is extended by that clause, if civil uinions are not that practice is presumptively unconstitutional. This staement should stand until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of this practice.

Civil Unions versus Marriages

Not sure about whether there is a more accurate article, whether this is the right place for it, or whether there should be an article of its own. I've noted from being involved in my own country that there are some often significant debates over whether a LGBT community should pursue Civil Unions (or similar) rather than full Marriage.

Just curious as to whether we think something should be added at all and where. --S.P.Daly 23:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

ChrisTW 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, I think this should top today's agenda. I've amended some of the Gay Marriage articles; "The framing of the debate around marriage in the United States may have been partly responsible for the defeat of a number of measures by sparking opposition from many conservative and religious groups. For example, in California, Schwarzenegger says he supports full legal protection for gay couples - but that the issue of gay marriage is best decided by the people or in the courts". Anyone familiar with social constructionism may share my view that this framing is a device guaranteed to raise the opposition of religious and conservative groups. The debate is about the legal rights of individuals who currently face discrimination by their governments, not about religious inclusion. Therefore, I believe it is important that discrimination is the central point of these articles, not religious inclusion.

anon: Some parts of this page are not neutral. Some people think that civil unions end anti-gay discrimination in states were gays cannot marry, some people think that civil unions cannot end anti-gay discrimination and that the only remedy to discrimination is to let gays marry. This page, at the time i write, does not report this... it communicates that civil unions end anti-gay discrimination. This is not neutral: it's wrong, unaccepptable.

ChrisTW 13:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC) If there is a debate, then the article should reflect it. Other contributions are requested.

ChrisTW 13:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Discrimination section has been reinserted to put the introduction of civil unions in their historical context. Whether Civil Unions END discrimination is indeed a matter of debate as not being able to Marry can be distinguished as religious discrimination.

Attacks in New Zealand?

Living in New Zealand, I can't remember "widespread attacks" during the Civil Union debate in our country. While this may be a matter of media reporting, I'd still like to know on what grounds the author of the New Zealand section asserts that there were widespread attacks. --S.P.Daly 23:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Nor can I. In any case I have moved most of it to the main article as I feel it is unnecessary. I'm sure most countries had protests of some kind but none of the others mention it and I feel it is unnecessary. The primary focus in this article should be about civil unions in these countries, when they were passed, under what bill, what they offer, differences between marriages etc as with the other countries. I have left one single statement about emotions although I personally think it should go Nil Einne 18:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
During the Enough is Enough rally in Wellington, there were many incidents of assault, and that night, people - presumed associated with the church - went looking for GLBT people in the city to beat up. One of my friends was one such unlucky chap. Mostly there were verbal attacks, and heated debate during this time. Enzedbrit 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Research?

Too many of the facts and figures in this article are not cited. - Davodd 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything in particular? Crumbsucker 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

ChrisTW 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Obvious unreferenced facts have been removed. Please list others here, or correct and remove them. This is an important article in an historic debate.

Some parts are not Neutral point of View, i edit/cancel them

Some parts of this page are not neutral. Some people think that civil unions end anti-gay discrimination in states were gays cannot marry, some people think that civil unions cannot end anti-gay discrimination and that the only remedy to discrimination is to let gays marry. This page, at the time i write, does not report this... it communicates that civil unions end anti-gay discrimination. This is not neutral: it's wrong, unaccepptable.

Parts of Australia and Italy

The situation in the states of Australia and in the regions of Italy is difficult: some states in Australia and some regions in Italy have a recogniton and some states in that both countries not.

Opening doesn't make sense

"A civil union is a legal partnership agreement between two persons. They are typically created for same-sex couples with the purpose of granting them benefits that are found in marriage." Shouldn't the 2nd sentence say either:

They are typically created by same-sex couples for the purpose of gaining the benefits that are found in marriage.


Legislation for civil unions is typically created for same-sex couples with the purpose of granting them benefits that are found in marriage.

Also, the 1st sentence should distinguish civil unions from business (etc) partnerships. How about: A civil union is a legal partnership agreement between two persons, akin to, but usually different from, marriage. Nurg 11:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

i've corrected the introduction

It had a lot of errors inside, including Belgium adoption laws.

Chile and Uruguay need articles

Check this, Uruguay will pass a law shortly, and Chile later this year. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Section unity in value

It seems that the contents of this page are not divided appropriately.

The contents of the page are divided into sections in a way that does not show unity in value of each section. Sections 2-9 should be put as subsections of section one, as the sections 2-9 discuss different jurisdictions allowing civil unions. Sections 2-9 are not directly related to Civil Unions as much as they are to section one's topic of juristictions allowing civil unions.

An alternative to putting sections 2-9 as subsections of section one would be creating an entirely new page called "jurisdictions allowing civil unions".

ONeill 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Italian regions

The votes that has been held on coppie di fatto unions in some Italian regions, are only votes to support a national law, and not to create regional laws. Therefore, the map on same-sex recognition in Europe is wrong. However, some municipallies and cities have adopted coppie-di fatto laws. See

Maybe the map to Italy will be wrong, because in italian parliament is now a bill for civil unions in Italy in 2007...Prodi is good for Italy.


I've just done some extensive reformatting and rewriting of the introductory section and the "jurisdictions" section. I think the intro material is more clear and concise now; and the countries in the jurisdiction section are now in chronological order, per region. With the sidebox, I'm not sure the jurisdiction section is really needed, but I took what was there and tried to put it in a more logical arrangement.

The European map was already there; I've added 3 more good ones that I knew where to find.

I have a feeling that a number of the remaining sections could use updating and expanding, but this is all I can do for today. Just wanted to make the beginning parts easier to read and follow. Textorus 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Civil union"

This seems to be too public-sector a term for the practice of gay marriage-under-another-name. Also, it reminds one a bit too much of the civil wars of history books - or of municipalities and counties named Union - or even of the onion. Furthermore, it is a five syllable term, whereas "marriage" is a three-syllable term. Why not call them "espousals" or "espousas"? ("Espousal" is one of those Scrabble-dictionary and/or thesaurus and/or literary words meaning "marriage", but hardly anyone seems to use it except to sound chic or like smart alecks or artsy, so it might serve as a useful term to distinguish the same-sex variety of tying the knot from the different-sex version. 00:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the violation of WP:NOT (a soapbox), but felt I had to get this out of my system. 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"same sex"?

Are all civil unions really "same sex" as the article's lead now says? I am pretty sure that civil unions are available to opposite-sex couples (in addition to marriage) in many areas. DanBDanD 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

YES. I debated that same question myself before I rewrote the article's lead paragraphs recently. But I found that it is a same-sex term (which conveniently avoids the dreaded "M" word, ha). This is not on my own authority, though: you can see 3 different dictionaries and their definition at [1]. However, some jurisdictions do offer domestic partnerships, with lesser status and benefits, to both kinds of couples; that's where the confusion comes in. --Textorus 01:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The Australian Capital Territory's proposal for civil unions would have applied equally to same-sex and opposite sex couples. The proposal was passed by the ACT's legislature however was overturned by the Federal Government. (see: Civil Unions Act 2006 ). I don't know about other jurisdictions. -- Adz|talk 05:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, the folks in the ACT didn't consult the dictionary. LOL. I suppose if and when that law does finally get passed, this article should so indicate; though of course, even in the ACT, it would still be a union expressly made to include same-sex couples in a marriage-like relationship. At the moment, in the U.S. and Canada civil unions are available only to same-sex couples, as far as I know. Other than the proposed law in the ACT, I'm not aware of any other countries using the term civil unions at this time.
But then there are domestic parterships, registered partnerships, civil partnerships, significant partnerships, reciprocral beneficiaries, stable unions, life partnerships, civil pacts, etc., etc., etc. Depending on the country, state, or city, some are marriage in everything but name; some are so lame they are hardly worth signing up for. Somebody ought to hold a World Naming Congress and get everybody to agree on consistent terminology here! But we don't have that yet. The times are a-changin' . . . but I think this article as currently stated is still correct at the moment.  :-) --Textorus 05:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Upon further research, let me correct myself. New Zealand, since April 2005, has also offered same-sex civil unions to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. (They didn't read the dictionary, either. Ha.) In fact, an opposite-sex married couple can even change their marriage to a civil union; though why anyone would want to is a mystery to me. So--I guess the definition in this article needs a little tweaking, after all. Darn it. I'll see what I can do with it. --Textorus 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems that while civil unions were legal in Quebec (before marriage was recognised) (see Civil unions in Quebec), the too applied to opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples. because it is a relatively new term only gradually being adopted, or 'invented' by different jurisdictions, I'd say that perhaps the dictionaries are getting a bit ahead of themselves by defining a term that is obviously still being defined by lawmakers. ... And why New Zealanders, or Canberrans, or Quebecois for that matter would want to consult U.S. dictionaries when developing terms for their laws, is a mystery to me. Even before you factor in language (the Quebecois speak French), legal and political terms often have slightly different meanings in different jurisdictions. -- Adz|talk 09:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just MAKING A DAMN JOKE, Adz. Lighten up. Sheesh! I've just worked 2 hours rewriting this effing definition. If you want to pick it apart and rewrite the article, you just go right ahead and be my guest, buddy. I'm done with it.  :-| --Textorus 09:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are also between Men and Women. I, a man, had a legal Civil Union to a women preformed. They exist and are more common then the article states. --Lostinlodos 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO SAME_SEX UNIONS IN PORTUGAL, MAP IS INCORRECT —Preceding unsigned comment added by BolinhasFofas (talkcontribs) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Revised definition

Okay, folks, see what you think of this version. The dictionaries will just have to catch up with Wikipedia now.  :-) --Textorus 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

US History is incorrect

In the USA, the premise of the civil union dates back to the early 1800s. NOT the 1980s-2000s, as the article indicates. I believe, but can't verify, that the same goes for England. They were adopted to allow owners of slaves to join legally with the intention of children. The earliest record I have found was in North Carolina, on public record in the State Archives Library, dated 1802. There are Texas records of a Mexican/Caucasian union being granted in the "Spanish Territory" or "Republic of Texas" in 1839 as well. In the US, the practice was of much debate during the "Civil War" but after the national liberation of blacks, became a way for whites and blacks to have inter-racial relations with many of the same protections of marriage. They were used in the 1970s in the US to help soldiers gain citizenship for the women they brought back with them from the Vietnam war. In most states, at the time, the bonding required in a civil union granted permanent residency status: a fast-track to guaranteed citizenship. Only in the last 10 years has the issue involved same-sex relations to any publicized degree in the US. This whole article seems to miss the more than 200 year history involved in this topic.--Lostinlodos 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Image of Mitterand and Kohl

What's this image doing in the France section of the article?

File:Mitterrand and Kohl in Verdun 1984.jpeg
François Mitterrand of France with Germany's Helmut Kohl in 1984. 'Civil pacts' under French law and 'life partnerships' under German law are available for samesex couples in their respective countries.

Although the caption makes the image sound like it has some connection to the text, really, it has nothing to do with the legal recognition of same-sex couples at all. It appears to be the leaders of France and Germany at some sort of commemoration ceremony (a war memorial?). I would suggest therefore that the image be removed and be replaced with one with some connection to same-sex marriage. (Maybe an image relating to the passage of the law in question?)--SJK 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

Is there any way we can include civil unions in South Africa today? The current article makes it look like they were superseded by same-sex marriage, but according to the Same-sex marriage in South Africa article, couples can still choose to enter a civil union (or a marriage). Carolynparrishfan 01:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Civil Unions in Argentina

I updated the information on Argentina. It has long been reported that the province of Rio Negro recognizes civil unions, but this is the not the case. The legislature in the province did indeed pass the legislation recognizing civil unions, but the office that records such unions never drew up the code, in effect never bringing the law into effect.

Revert incorrect edits

I just reverted 2 incorrect factual edits by an anonymous editor.

The New Jersey DP law is now limited to couples 62 and older; see Civil unions in New Jersey.

And since New Jersey has civil unions, it is correct to refer to CU's in East Coast states, not merely New England.Textorus (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


There should be a section about criticism of civil unions. Many people feel that they are not marriage. Studies have shown that when your government doesn't view you as equal it can be damaging to families. There is probably enough information on this to create a whole new page. I'm new to this so I don't know how to cite or how to add new sections. Can someone look into this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Separate But Equal BIASED

Separate but equal alludes to the black segregation in the US, as the hyperlink over the word implies. However, since it is common knowledge that the attempt at separate but equal failed miserably and racism continued in despite, the criticism is mocked in its very existence. Add this to the fact that the sources noted for the phrase are merely the headlines of news articles from pro-gay-marriage writers, and we have a biased article. I will change it now.

I advise anyone who reverses my edit it to think twice about this absurd bias, despite personal views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The accusation of separate but equal, when it comes to civil unions, has been pretty common. I see no reason not to include it in the article. Moreover, I would argue that the comparison is not, in fact, absurd. The point has been made by many intelligent people, including some well-known historians. --Robertbayer (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Technically everybody has the same rights to marriage as anybody else, of course I'm not sure why you'd want to if you were gay because that would mean marrying someone of the opposite gender, I do however feel that gay couples should be able to gain all the same rights and privileges to each other akin to marriage. I wouldn't normally advocate separate but equal unless it comes into conflict with what words mean. Theofficeprankster (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no civil unions in Venezuela

I don't know where you guys get the source claiming there were civil unions in the state of Merida. First, the recognizition of same-sex couples or civil unions are still under discussion at the National Assembly. On the other hand the states in Venezuela cannot draft their own laws. Laws are made by the national assembly so had the civil unions been legalized it would have been countrywide and not in a specific state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

CalPERS and California Domestic Partnerships

These sources seem to imply that domestic partnerships can participate in CalPERS [[2]] [[3]] and this one seems to state directly that they do [[4]]. I removed from the article the statement that DPs don't have access to CalPERS benefits, because it was un-cited and appears to be false.Ragazz (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your change, as I believe you've misread the section you removed. This article didn't speak to CalPERS in general, merely the long-term care component of CalPERS, which is not the primary function of CalPERS. (It is certainly a significant one). See also the first paragraph of page 3 of this Congressional testimony: Thanks! --Joe Decker (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)



In Austria civil unions will be allowed in January 2010. (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


In Ireland a civil partnership bill was debated on 3th December 2009 in parliament. GLGermann (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Civil Union Australia

Updated this section as it omitted South Australia and New South Wales. As there was a better table in the LGBT_rights_in_Australia page, I thought this would be a better way to convey current legislation in Australia, than a list of bullet points. If and when Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland introduce legislation, these can be added more easily. PjThompso 09:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talkcontribs)

Lighten-up on the geo-elitism (better maps, please)

Way back in grammar school, I was an absolute killer when taking geography tests. If a fellow student wanted to cheat, they sat behind me. But the years have taken their usual toll on my map reading skills, and I sometimes have trouble finding Uraguay and Paraguay and telling which is which on an unmarked map. And I am sure I am not alone in this failing.

This is just a much-too-wordy way to ask if it would be too much trouble for Wiki to include state and country names on their maps. I'm referring specifically to the maps on the Civil Unions Wiki pages, which are shown next to a current status box. The maps are nicely color-coded, but without names. I'm far too old for more tests. Thanks. (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in article

United Kingdom:

'Aside from the manner in which couples register and the non-use of the word "marriage", civil partnerships and civil marriages give exactly the same legal rights'

This is not accurate. In the UK, a member of a civil partnership is not entitled to a corollary title when the other member is a peer or a knight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A gift from Polish Wikipedia


South America

North America

Australia and Oceania


-- (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

USA: federal recognition

An IP recently modified a sentence ( in which the new text stated that with the struck down of DOMA, now the federal government can recognize marriage-like unions. I believe this to be inaccurate. Can someone please elucidate what's the case there? Do the Feds recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships? Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Extremely biased article needs to be rewritten or renamed.

This page should be about what a civil union is and how they are defined and used around the world. It shouldn't be purely about same-sex unions but it should defiantly mention it We already have pages for sex marriage and one about same sex-unions in the united states. This page should probably be renamed Same Sex Civil unions.

Also I don't know if Wikipedia uses British English or American English as the proper spelling.

words like organizations or organisation and criticised or criticized depend on it.

  1. ^ Civil Union Act, 2006
  2. ^ a b Chapitre Ier : Du pacte civil de solidarité
  3. ^ a b Reprise d'entreprise Ile de La Réunion – se préparer aux enjeux de la reprise d'entreprise > Le Pacs
  4. ^ LEY 5/2003, de 6 de marzo, para la regulación de las parejas de hecho en la Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias
  5. ^ Reglamento regulador del Registro de Uniones de Hecho
  7. ^ En 5 años, sólo 10 parejas gays pasaron por el Registro Civil
  8. ^ Same-sex couples legal in BA
  9. ^ Cordoba: aprueban la union civil entre homosexuales en Villa Carlos Paz
  10. ^ Río Cuarto: aprueban la unión civil de parejas gays
  11. ^ Ley Nş 18.246 UNIÓN CONCUBINARIA
  12. ^ Voters in Ecuador Approve Constitution
  13. ^ Decision C-029 of 2009
  14. ^ Brazil supreme court recognizes same-sex civil unions
  15. ^ Katittarneq / inooqatigiittut nalunaarsorsimasut
  16. ^ Law Reform (2000) Act
  17. ^ Civil Unions
  18. ^ Family Law in Manitoba
  19. ^ Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, SA 2002
  20. ^ New York City Takes Historic Step on Domestic Partnership
  21. ^ AB 26
  23. ^ An Act To Promote the Financial Security of Maine's Families and Children
  24. ^ New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act
  25. ^ Protecting individuals in domestic partnerships by granting certain rights and benefits.
  26. ^ HB 437
  27. ^ HOUSE BILL 09-1260
  28. ^ Domestic Partnerships in Nevada
  29. ^ Relationships Act 2003
  30. ^ Civil Partnerships Act 2008
  31. ^ Relationships Act 2008
  32. ^ Relationships Register Act 2010
  33. ^ Civil Partnerships Act 2011
  34. ^ Civil Union Act 2004
  35. ^ a b c LOI n° 2009-594 du 27 mai 2009 pour le développement économique des outre-mer
  36. ^ Lov om registreret partnerskab
  37. ^ LOV 1991-07-04 nr 47: Lov om ekteskap [ekteskapsloven.]
  38. ^ Omvandla registrerat partnerskap till äktenskap
  39. ^ Lög um staðfesta samvist
  40. ^ Trouwen, samenlevingscontract en geregistreerd partnerschap
  41. ^ LLEI 10/1998, de 15 de juliol, d'unions estables de parella (DOGC núm. 2687, de 23.07.1998)
  44. ^ Ley 5/2012, de 15 de octubre, de Uniones de Hecho Formalizadas de la Comunitat Valenciana
  45. ^ Registro de Parejas Estables
  47. ^ LEY 4/2002, de 23 de mayo, de Parejas Estables
  48. ^ LEY 5/2002, de 16 de diciembre, de Parejas de Hecho
  49. ^ Ley 5/2003, de 20 de marzo, de Parejas de Hecho de la Comunidad Autónoma de Extremadura
  50. ^ Ley 2/2003, de 7 de mayo, reguladora de las parejas de hecho
  51. ^ Ley de la C.A. de Cantabria 1/2005, de 16 de mayo, de parejas de hecho de la Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria
  52. ^ Cohabitation légale
  53. ^ Gesetz über die Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft (Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz – LPartG)
  54. ^ Valtioneuvoston asetus rekisteröidystä parisuhteesta
  55. ^ Déclarer un partenariat (PACS)
  56. ^
  57. ^ [5]
  58. ^ Civil Partnership Act 2004
  59. ^ Uzavření registrovaného partnerství
  60. ^ UKAZ o razglasitvi Zakona o registraciji istospolne partnerske skupnosti (ZRIPS)
  61. ^ Bundesgesetz über die eingetragene Partnerschaft gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare (Partnerschaftsgesetz, PartG)
  62. ^ loi sur le partenariat (PACS genevois)
  63. ^ Gay couples fight for equal rights
  64. ^ Partenariat enregistré (PACS)
  65. ^ 2009. évi XXIX. törvény a bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolatról, az ezzel összefüggő, valamint az élettársi viszony igazolásának megkönnyítéséhez szükséges egyes törvények módosításáról1 A bejegyzett élettársi kapcsolat létrejötte
  66. ^ Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz – EPG
  67. ^ Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010
  68. ^ Aufenthaltsbewilligung für Lebenspartner
  70. ^ Civil Partnership (Jersey) Law 2012