Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Slovenia

Slovenia has indeed passed a bill on civil partnerships, but I don't believe it belongs on this page. As far as I understand, Slovenia already had a law enabling civil partnerships, and this bill was just to give civil partnerships more equal rights similar to marriage, after the fiasco last year? So there's no change in the recognition (in terms of categorisation) and this is a development best detailed on the specific Slovenia page? Jdcooper (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, all details should always go to the specific country page; the section on this page is just to have an overview of current legislative developments in each country. The Slovenian bill in process of being passed increases rights for same-sex couples, so it is relevant imho. It may however be good to have guidelines on what is worth including, as for example the bills in Austria, German and Hungary have virtually no chance of passing yet they are included on the page. Even more, in some of these cases the difference the legislation would remove is just the name ("partnership" to "marriage"), and actual rights are arguably more important than a name. SPQRobin (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, I would be happy to support that if there was consensus from other users on that point, but this page is after all about "Recognition" (ie. legal status). The table above groups together countries recognising civil unions which confer a wide range of different rights - to break down all the differences between them would make this overview very convoluted. The Austrian, German, Hungarian bills may be unlikely to pass but they at least propose to create a different class of recognition for relationships. Though as I said I would not oppose listing the proposed Slovenian legislation here if there is community consensus. It should go in the "government proposals" section though. Jdcooper (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Slovenian bill is likely to become law next week. National Council have 7 days (until 28.04) to veto the bill, which is unlikely. The constitution gives the same deadline (7 days after approval by the Assembly) for potential referendum petitions. Also unlikely as leader of the group which forced referendum on marriage last year, said that the bill is in 95% identical with their proposal. So, discussion about adding this specific measure seems pointless. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like I was wrong... The petition to force referendum was filed... Ron 1987 (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Belarusian and Lithuanian Constitutions do not have an actual wording banning same-sex marriage!

My conclusion is made after reviewing the changes in the Armenian Constitution.

Before changing constitutional change in Armenia, the Constitution (perceived by the Armenian lawmakers and the LGBT groups) did not have a definition of marriage. Article 35 of the (old) Constitution of The Republic of Armenia stated that: 'Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family according to their free will. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and divorce.' It was until the approval of the Constitutional Amendments in Armenia in December 2015, the wording was changed to explicitly ban same-sex marriage. Article 35 was replaced by Article 34 of the (current) constitution, which states that: 'Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry with EACH OTHER and found a family according to their free will.' Thus, the current Constitution is limiting the freedom of marriage to opposite sex.

Then, we look at the articles in the Constitution of Belarus and Lithuania. Article 32 of the Belarusian Constitution states that 'On reaching the age of consent a woman and a man shall have the right to enter into marriage on a voluntary basis and found a family.', while Article 38 of the Lithuanian Constitution states that 'Marriage shall be concluded upon the free mutual consent of man and woman.' Both articles in the current Belarusian and Lithuanian Constitution contained a similar meaning with Article 35 of the old Armenian Constitution. Based on the comparison of the content of these Constitutional Articles, if the actual effect of the Constitutional statements remains unknown and no court or Constitutional decision has been made, the Belarusian and Lithuanian Constitutions should NOT be perceived as having a ban on same-sex marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathankwanhc (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Slovenia does not allow same-sex marriage

The law, which was passed by the parliament in April 2016 and took effect on 24 February 2017, it's new, upgraded partnership act (the old one, much narrower in scope, was repealed). See information on the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities's website and other Slovenian sources [2], [3], [4]. See also [5], [6]. Marriage is still available to opposite-sex couples only. See article 3 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Estonia... civil unions? foreign marriages?

Just a question, but in the Estonia civil unions page it is written that the law is still waiting to enter in force, because parliament is not passing implementation rules.. I understand this like no civil union is being celebrated in Estonia right now. Can we still say that civil unions have been legal since 2016? I would move it like Faroe Islands to the section 'passed but not in force'. Similarly: individual cases of recognition of foreign marriages are different from general recognition (following a parliamentary vote or a supreme court ruling): is this the case for Estonia? thanks Finedelledanze (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Finedelledanze (talk • contribs) 15:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

apparently the estonian civil unions are not yet in effect, they can't be entered! Here is a legal explanation: Finedelledanze (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Opinion poll table

Why it can't be edited? There is a new Pew Research poll for several Central and Eastern European countries: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/05/09154356/Central-and-Eastern-Europe-Topline_FINAL-FOR-PUBLICATION.pdf

--Emir234 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The question asked in those polls is "Do you favor or oppose the Orthodox Church’s current position of refusing to perform same-sex marriages?" which is not the same as asking "Do you favor or oppose same-sex marriage?". I could be in favour of same-sex marriage generally but agree that the Orthodox Church is not obliged to perform them.. Jdcooper (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

There is an explicit question on legal gay marriage on the page 28. And in the general article on same-sex marriage those results have already been included in the opinion poll table. --Emir234 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, sorry, I missed that. I will add them now. Jdcooper (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Armenia

It recognises foreign marriages so update the table accordingly, please Baronedimare (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Opinion poll - UK

The opinion poll number for the UK is incredibly misleading. Gay marriage support among Anglicans alone last year was found to be in the majority and numerous polls beforehand put gay marriage support at above 60/70%. Even in Northern Ireland gay marriage support is at 68%.

That same report which highlights the UK's staggering low level of 48% puts support in France at 41% and in the Netherlands at only 64%. Do we have any more recent polls which paint an accurate picture? BenBezuidenhout (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

From the UK-specific article: "The 2015 Eurobarometer found that 71% of Britons agreed that same-sex marriage should be allowed throughout Europe, while 24% were against." But this poll is older than the one currently cited on this article. I think part of the problem is that we automatically take the most recent poll as the figure to be used here, even though the methodology clearly varies between pollsters, and the fluctuation of poll figures over time is interesting and warrants inclusion. At the same time, if that is the approach we use, we can't really cherry pick figures to make them seem higher. Thats's why a prose explanation is best, but such a section could easily run to the length of a standalone article, and such things are perhaps better dealt with on the specific country pages. In short, I don't know what the answer is.. Jdcooper (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't the Swiss proposal form same-sex marriage have parliamentary majority?

The Swiss initiative is listed under proposals without parliamentary majority, but it then says that it was supported by the parliament 118-71, which would constitute a clear majority. Is there any particular reason why it is not listed under the section of proposal with parliamentary majority?--Matthias Thalmann (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Swiss process is slow, and it has been in that section for years, from back when it wasn't clear it would get majority support. The sections are also not mutually exclusive: it's a proposal from a certain political party, thus not government-backed per se, but it does have a parliamentary majority. It can be moved to the other section imho. SPQRobin (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Georgia Constitutional Ban

This edit war is ridiculous. Georgia's Parliament legally passed into law the new constitution that bans same-sex marriage and it was signed by the President on Oct 20. It comes into force following the next scheduled Presidential elections, next year. (source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-georgia-president-constitution/georgian-president-reluctantly-signs-new-constitution-into-law-idUSKBN1CP20O?il=0)

Therefore, Georgia properly belongs in the list of countries that ban same-sex marriage, effective 2018.

The anonymous person who keeps erasing that is not citing any contradictory sources. There was an article that explained that the provisions relating to how Parliament is elected is phased in over the next two scheduled elections, in 2020 and 2024. That is where the confusion lies. Even if, as he seems to believe, the entire new constitution is suspended until 2024 or some later date, the fact that the new constitution has been passed into law is enough reason to place Georgia in the list of countries with a constitutional ban, with a blank effective date. This is, essentially, what's been done with countries that passed marriage laws that were not yet in effect (Malta, Germany, Finland in this year).

Please return Georgia to the proper place on the list, or re-undo his deletion of my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsalerno (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Georgia definitely should be listed in "Constitutional ban on marriage" part of the table. Yes, it is not yet into force, but we added laws which were not yet in effect in the past. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Jersey

According to this article Jersey legalized same sex marriage.Grsd (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

ECJ ruling, 5.6.18

The ECJ has ruled that EU member states must recognise same-sex marriages performed in other EU member states, at least in terms of spousal residence rights. Does this change how the countries are listed on this article?

• Gillet, Kit (5 June 2018). "Same-sex marriages are backed in E.U. immigration ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
• "Same-sex spouses have EU residence rights, top court rules". BBC News. 5 June 2018. Retrieved 7 June 2018.

Jdcooper (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

EU flags

Someone recently added a column of EU flags into the table on this page. As well as being ugly and making the table look busier, I don't see the need for this extra column. However, the user who reverted my removal of the column wrote that "It's actually usefull since it shows how being part of an international body can improve LGBT rights." I'm still not convinced that this is the true purpose of wikipedia, but if other editors agree I can live with it. However, there has to be a less visually offensive way of presenting this information, if it is deemed to be so critical.. either by a footnote or a * note. Jdcooper (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any point at all with keeping the EU flags. That table has nothing to do with EU law or EU membership. We shouldn't try to establish some kind of relationship that doesn't really exist. One could equally well also add the flags of UN, NATO, OECD, OSCE etc if we should point out each and every membership that the different countries and territories hold in various international organizations. That would be absurd. --Glentamara (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I support adding them. First of all because all member states of the European Union are required to recognise a certain degree of rights to LGBT people, as opposed to, for example, NATO. Second of all, even tho the European Union is not like the United States of America, it's not either like the UN, in terms of what being part of it means. The EU is not an international organization like all the others.--Baronedimare (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps for those countries (if any) which recognise foreign same-sex marriages/partnerships because they are members of the EU, a note can be added to that effect. But for countries which have granted rights over and above the EU requirement (which is most of them) it doesn’t seem relevant to highlight that they’re EU members. (The fact that EU membership requires recognition of foreign marriages is mentioned in the section on the EU, and in the associated map, but not in the table in question. The existence of that section/map already seems to highlight the ‘benefits’ of EU membership, and cluttering up the table doesn’t seem to improve that; a simple cross-reference for the few countries to which this applies would be sufficient, not an entire column.) aaltotoukka (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary table - updating populations and percentages

When moving a country from one section to another of the table, one has to recalculate population sums and percentages. Is anybody aware of any formula that automatically does the math? Thank you. Finedelledanze (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the 2 totals are correct (or when), it's simple division, but currently the 496,500,102 (66.43% of the European population) + 420,239,531 (49.3% of the European population) adds up to 115.73%. Someone needs to sum up the countries, for subtotals and totals. When moving from one section to another simply lower the (sub)total by that amount and add to the others, but do not forget to recalculate the (total) percentages. comp.arch (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JTorre23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Went is Northern Ireland listed as a dependency when it is a constituent country of to the UK? 150.143.137.134 (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 Slovenia ruling

I’m afraid the ruling of Slovenian constitutional court does not legalize same sex marriage, only temporarily. Ski Ian parliament may choose to go the Italian way, aka create a parallel law for same sex couples similar, but not fully equal to “traditional” marriage. I.e. six months from now we may not end up with gender neutral marriage but something diffrent. I believe this should be noted in the article. Touyats (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Latvia

Information on the ruling that allowed same-sex couples to register their partnerships through court is scant and it is not clear what rights are available to same-sex couples. 1) Do similar partnerships exist for opposite-sex couples? If so, what rights do they confer? 2) By registering through courts, what rights do same-sex couples get? Is there a public registry that can produce partnership certificates to third parties? Based on the above, we could clarify if Latvia is providing limited rights more similar to cohabitation rights or broader protection akin to civil unions. Civil unions usually require/imply a public registry to produce legal effects with third parties. Finedelledanze (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The ruling has been very clear. As of August, at least four couples were able to register their families with the government through the courts. These are all same-sex couples, obviously, because the remedy to the courts is not necessary for heterosexual couples. The Courts ruled that the institutions and administration will apply the constitution directly, meaning that same-sex couples having been grant public recognition of their relationship, will be granted many of the benefits of marriage. Exactly what benefits have yet to be circumscribed by law or by the courts. However, the minimum criteria here, that there is a public recognition and registry of the relationship is quite obviously met by the facts on the ground in Latvia already. See Recognition of same-sex unions in Latvia and the sources cited there. Robsalerno (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. IMO this provides Latvian same-sex couples with a limited and unclear set of rights - possibility of registering as a family, but then what? I would err on the side of caution and list Latvia with Poland and Slovakia in the group of countries providing domestic partnerships with limited rights: these are also the result of court action and make same-sex couples eligible for the few explicit protections granted to families and next of kin under the constitution and national civil and penal codes. When Latvia's parliament passes the civil union bill or courts provide specific guidelines (eg. same-sex couples should have the same rights of married opposite-sex couples in determined areas), then I suggest that we can move Latvia to the 'civil unions group'. Meanwhile I'd revert to the old map and table without Latvia in this group (and, of course, with the correct percentages). Finedelledanze (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)