Talk:Same-sex marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former featured articleSame-sex marriage is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
June 24, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
March 1, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
November 21, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

RfC: Is Same-Sex-Marriage legal nationwide in the United States?[edit]

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Two editors favour option 1 (Leave it as is), while three editors favour other options, of which option 3 (Add a footnote indicating that it remains illegal in American Samoa) has most support. This seems to constitute WP:NOCONSENSUS. (non-admin closure) Dionysodorus (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the timeline found under the History section, we indicate that same-sex-marriage is legal "[nationwide]" in the United States despite the fact that it remains illegal in the US Territory of American Samoa. What is the best way for us to address this without misleading readers, or unnecessarily complicating the table?

  1. Leave it as is.
  2. Remove "[nationwide]".
  3. Add a footnote indicating that it remains illegal in American Samoa.
  4. Remove "[nationwide]" and add a footnote.
  5. Other suggestion.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and input.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Leave it as is This would appear to depend on whether American Samoa is part of the "nation" of the United States. I'd say not. Note in particular that Samoans are generally not US citizens. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 4-Remove "[nationwide]" and add a footnote (or alternatively 2 or 3) - American Samoa is a United States Territory and forms part of the nation of the United States. While it is true that not all American Samoans are citizens at birth (most are American "nationals"), the territory is part of United States' territory and under its jurisdiction. The US Congress can make laws concerning the Territory and SCOTUS has jurisdiction to determine what laws apply to the territory and preform judicial review as it does over any other US State or Territory. The territory like any other (except Washington DC, in part) does not have voting representation in the US Congress and does not get to vote for President. Nonetheless, it is part of the United States. It seems factually incorrect and lazy for us to gloss over this detail.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 3 or 4 - The fact that same-sex marriage is illegal in American Samoa definitely needs to be mentioned. From a purely factual point of view, American Samoa is a US territory and as such, part of the US as a nation. For that reason, I view option 4 to be applicable. At the same time, from an encyclopedic point of view, I consider it acceptible to leave it as "nationwide", so long as a note is added to explain the situation around American Samoa, rather than having to list "Legal in all 50 states, District of Columbia, XYZ territories, etc", just to ommit American Samoa. I believe that the main goal of an encyclopedia would be to be factually correct and easily readable. For that reason, I view option 3 as also applicable. Goodposts (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Leave as is. There is a nationwide ruling thru SCOTUS, so it's 'nationwide'. We already have a footnote in the info box, so we don't need one here. This list is a summary. We leave out all sorts of details. E.g., SSM was legalized in California years before the date listed here. But we leave out such distracting details in the interest of brevity. Really, do we want a footnote that California legalized SSM, then overturned it, then reinstated it? Same with Bermuda? Same with Sonora? Same with the Caymans when that happens? If we're going give all the details for one polity, we need to do it for all of them. The table would be chock-full of footnotes. How does that help the reader?
I also don't understand Darryl's obsession with American Samoa. There are lots of places in the US where you can't get married. Navajo, for example. But evidently Injuns aren't real Americans, so they don't count. But American Samoans -- who do not want US law to apply to their country -- are somehow being abused. They could petition the US Congress to overturn the treaty that prevents them from being US citizens, but they don't want to! It would mean abrogating much of their local sovereignty if they did. (E.g., controlling immigration and preventing outsiders from buying up all the property.) So they'll stay the way they are for the time being, thank you very much. Similarly with Puerto Rico -- they could vote to become a state if they wanted to, but they don't. Where Darryl has a point is Guam, which should be a commonwealth except that the US Congress refuses to act on their wishes. But that has nothing to do with this article. And we don't need paternalistic protection of people who don't want to be protected. Regardless, whether Darryl is upset that American Samoans are being abused by an oppressive state is not reason to make a jumble of a summary table. All the details are in the main history article linked at the top of the section. — kwami (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't have an obsession with American Samoa. I have never been. What I do have a bit of an obsession with is creating an accurate encyclopedia. The truth is SSM is not legal nationwide in the US. We do a disservice to our readers to suggest otherwise. While some want to be able to say SSM is legal nationwide in the US for reasons of patriotism or due to some political or social agenda. It is not our job to appease such sentiments. Our job is to create an accurate encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
But the person we'd be appeasing is you, and your anger/agenda. It's a summary table. The details are in the main article linked at the top of the section. It would create a mess to add a footnote for every little detail in every country, which in the interests of accuracy, we would need to do if we wanted to make it more than a summary. As for 'nationwide', SCOTUS made a nationwide ruling. That's pretty simple. And American Samoa is its own nation, as Navajo is. If the UK passed a 'nationwide' law that didn't affect their colonies, we'd say 'nationwide' for the UK too, since the colonies aren't in the UK. Yeah, it's colonialism, which seems to be driving you on this, but that's the world we live in. And frankly, the fact that Mayotte voted to stay with France despite the Comoros screaming 'colonialism', or Puerto Rico with the US, is hardly an abusive situation, certainly not compared to West Papua or Chechnya or Xinjiang. All of which is beside the point.
Also, this missing the reason we said 'nationwide' in the first place. The US first legalized SSM in 2004, so technically we could put the US in that year. We don't because we chose to list only the legalizing polity, which was Massachusetts. But since we list the US for 2004 and 2008 to 2015, it would be potentially confusing -- as well as inaccurate -- to simply say 'United States'. The 'nationwide' tells the reader why the US is being listed as a whole for the first time. If you want a legalistically accurate table without doing that, then Canada needs to move to 2003, the US to 2004, Mexico to 2010, Brazil to 2012, and the UK to 2014. Either that, or clog up the table with so many footnotes that no-one's going to bother to read them. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It may be a nationwide ruling, or it may not be. What is clear is it is not being applied nationwide. At some future date SCOTUS or some other court may find Obergefell v. Hodges applies in American Samoa. Until that day or until Congress passes legislation to the same effect, SSM is not legal [nationwide].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
I suppose that depends on what you mean by a "nation". Am.Samoa are their own country. The constitution doesn't apply there. They're allowed to have discriminatory land tenure laws, where you have to be ethnically Samoan to own land. That would be illegal under the 14th amendment. And that's why the govt of Am.Samoa has never pushed for a change of status -- imagine what would happen to the Samoans if rich Americans could go in and buy up all the land. It would be like native Hawaiians in Hawaii. So they're in this limbo, sort of in the US but not really. But again, why is AS such a big deal to you when the tribal nations are not? Just because they have to get on an airplane if they wish to marry? Your POV doesn't seem to be about accuracy but only about this one polity. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
One polity that happens to be part of the United States and doesn't have SSM. There are a lot of non-sequiturs and irrelevant facts in your explanation, but none of that changes that American Samoa is part of the US and SSM is not legal there, ergo it is not legal nationwide. I have already responded to your tribal nations question before. The difference is that members of those nations can be married to a same-sex partner in the state or Territory they live (with the exception of American Samoa). Furthermore, those marriages would be recognized by the federal government and the state or territorial governments where they live. The only thing is their tribal nation would not recognize their marriage. American Samoans cannot get married in their territory at all. It is not the same thing. I suspect SSM is not permitted in the Amish communities of the US either, but that isn't really an apples to apples comparison either, now is it?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
If you can't get married on the Navajo Nation, you can't get married on the Navajo Nation. Repeatedly claiming that only the polity you're concerned with is important just emphasizes your bias. I don't know if Am.Samoans can get married in Arizona or not, the way the Navajo can, but in any case that's not your argument. It doesn't matter to you if SSM is legal nation-wide or not, as long as it's legal in this single polity. We don't need to add footnotes for any of the others, just for this one special case. Catering to that would introduce bias into the article. We already note several times that SSM is not legal in Am.Samoa. It's not like we're hiding it, just that the table is a summary and doesn't go into all the details.
BTW, you can get married in any Amish community in the US. Whether your family or church will accept it (not, for the latter) isn't a matter of law, and so irrelevant here. — kwami (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Here[1] the writer states that American Samoans can go to Hawaii and get married, return and their marriage won't be recognized. How exactly is that different from citizens of the Navajo Nation? — kwami (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Because American Samoa is a territory. It is not part of Hawaii. Navajo lands cover multiple states. In every one of them SSM is legal. It is an apples and cucumber comparison.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
By that argument (Navajo is in AZ and SSM is legal in AZ), Am.Samoa is in the US and SSM is legal in the US, so Am.Samoa is just as much a cucumber as Navajo is. They're both semi-sovereign countries which do not allow or recognize SSM. In both cases you can get married in another US polity. Why you're insisting on creating a fundamental distinction between them, why Am.Samoa should be vitally important when the hundreds of tribal nations are immaterial, is beyond me. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
So by your reasoning we should remove the "nationwide" designation because SSM remains illegal in American Samoa (a territory) AND in the Navajo Nation (an indigenous jurisdiction). I am not sure why you refer to either as a "country". Neither is an independent political state. American Samoa is a US Territory, and governs everyone that lives there (regardless of ethnicity or ancestry). The Navajo Nation is a self governing indigenous community that exists within the territory of several US States.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A country is not an independent political state. Yes, we could remove "nationwide". But then we'd need to move the US flag from 2015 to 2004, when the US first legalized SSM. I think people might object to that, especially when the only reason would be to pander to the obsession that you don't have with American Samoa. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep "nationwide" and just add another link to footnote e. Whether the Navajo Nation or American Samoa are "part of the nation" is a story that has so many asterisks, its asterisks have asterisks of their own, and the answer is always going to be "yes and no". GMGtalk 17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we can cross-link footnotes in templates, so that should work. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Increase article stability[edit]

A lot of edits are made to this page, including those removing content that was recently added. One area in particular frequently edited even though the facts may have not changed in a way that would normally warrant an edit is the legal aspects of gay marriage. I don't necessarily have a solution to this problem but I think it could be beneficial to discuss potential ways we could increase stability of this page especially in this area of legality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al1966zh (talkcontribs) 00:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should keep it with no flag, if we decide to keep the current format as with other countries like Denmark and the Netherlands. Taxydromeio (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest using the flags for England, Wales and Scotland, but using the Union Flag for Northern Ireland. The reasons are threefold: 1) the UK flag is the only legal flag for Northern Ireland as the Ulster Banner is linked to pro-UK sentiment. 2) the Parliament of the United Kingdom legislated on behalf of Northern Ireland in this matter. 3) Northern Ireland is the final constituent entity of the United Kingdom to legalize same-sex marriage. I would further add a note that with Northern Ireland the entirety of the United Kingdom now recognizes same-sex marriage. Andrew1444 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Then we should remove the flags for Greenland and Faroe Islands as well.. Taxydromeio (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Why don’t we remove the flags of Greenland and Faroe Islands as well? And why don’t we add United Kingdom as all the constituent countries of the UK have legalised it? Taxydromeio (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Flag Northern Ireland[edit]

For consistency, we should have a flag. The way I see it, we have two choices. If we use {{flagicon|Northern Ireland}}, we get the unofficial flag Northern Ireland. That may be inappropriate. The official flag is the Union Jack, so that would be our second choice. The other benefit to it is that, with the passage of SSM in NI, it's now legal across the UK. Thus the UK flag isn't inappropriate for suggesting the state of the UK as a whole. Anyway, I chose the UK flag, but I don't really care if we use the unofficial NI flag instead. If people insist on being anal about it, we could argue that the Taiwanese flag is equally inappropriate, because SSM isn't legal across the entire country, which Taipei insists is China, not Taiwan. But at some point we need to let idiots be idiots and move on. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We do not need a flag for consistency. You would like a flag. But WP:IRISH FLAGS suggests "no flag", omitting a flag altogether, is the correct approach here. I tend to think NI needs to figure things out and pick one (I also like flags). Until they do I choose to think of the Ulster BannerNorthern Ireland as their flag, but that is me. We have discussed this before and the consensus was "no flag", consistency be damned.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Kwami, there should be a flag used for NI. Martin m159 (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Also see Template:Country data Northern Ireland#Other information and Northern Ireland flags issue. Northern. Ireland. Does. Not. Have. A. Flag. I would not object to the Union Flag being used if really thought necessary, but it didn't seem to be the case when it was discussed before. FDW777 (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hardly a consensus there. We use flags for countries in the table. Therefore we use a flag for NI. Otherwise we're saying NI is not a country. The problem is *which* flag. I don't care. We can use the Ulster banner. We can use a blank or filler flag. Doesn't matter. The point is that flags are used to signal countries, and NI is a country. — kwami (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the "NI is a country" claim is a whole other debate I don't think we want to get into. Our NI article says There is no generally accepted term to describe what Northern Ireland is: province, region, country or something else. These are the problems we get into when we try to put "countries" (or what some people like to call a country) on the same status as that of a politically/internationally recognized state (usually UN recognized). We have had similar issues when editors try to argue Greenland is a country (or even independent country, despite it falling under the jurisdiction of of Denmark), or editors arguing that American Samoa is not part of the United States despite it being under the jurisdiction of the United States, except in the specific circumstances it is part of the United States (based on shifting and inconsistent interpretations of American law, as opposed to what other political states and international organizations like the UN recognize it as). The wish of the English, Scots and Welsh and some Northern Irish to call their devolved jurisdiction a country despite its existence within another political state (the UK) should not be recognized by us in my view. Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. Should we add a Quebec flag too?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't be purposefully obtuse. If England, Wales and Scotland get flags, then so does Ireland. Those are the four components of the UK. Who cares what we call them. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not being obtuse at all. Why should England, Wales, Scotland, Greenland or the Faroe Islands get a flag as a "country" and not Quebec or Catalonia or the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands or Native American/Canadian jurisdictions (that claim to be nations)? Heck, England and Wales and Scotland are just "constituent countries" of the UK because they say they are. The Americans and Australians have full constituent States. Should we included them? Give them flags? Why not Canadian provinces? I am not being obtuse. I am pointing out the tangled mess we create when we start calling things "countries" and blurring that distinction between that and a politically/international recognized STATE. The easiest solution here might be to just remove flags from anything that is not a true STATE... ie no flag for England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, but one for the United Kingdom... no flag for Greenland but one for Denmark etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
That's an entirely different question than which flag to use for NI. If you want to change the decade-long consensus and remove the flags from the UK and Denmark, fine -- but start a new discussion.
(BTW, I suspect that the main reason is that there is no overarching decision for the UK, Denmark or New Zealand, the way there is for Canada, the US, Australia and Brazil, and presumably would be for India.) — kwami (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a bit like saying we can't have a blue link to NI because that's too close to green, and we can't have a red link because that's too close to orange. If the Ulster flag's good enough for soccer, it's good enough for here, though according to our article, the Union Jack is the legal flag of NI. But because ppl are all uptight about this, I put in a blank flag that doesn't signify anything, only marks "here is a country". Really, it hardly matters which flag we use. — kwami (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to use the Union Jack for England, Scotland and Wales as well. Then the NI flag issue would be irrelevant. We'd need to do the same thing for Denmark. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations covers the use of the Ulster Banner, as does Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, as does the template information I linked you which is specifically for the use of flag and flagicon templates. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS means it's highly unlikely there can be an agreement here to disregard Wikipedia-wide consensus on this. We use flags for countries in the table. Therefore we use a flag for NI. Since Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag, we don't need to use one at all. FDW777 (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know which flag to use, and will leave this debate to those more knowledgeable on the matter, but I really don't think using a black rectangle is a good idea. If the idea is to show a "blank state", it would be better to simply show nothing. Having what appear to be a black flag bring over attention to it, will make people wonder why it's there, and we're going to have constant changes from random visitor thinking they're correcting a bug or error by changing it.--Aréat (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a good solution. Union Jacks for all? That also solves the oddity of having two separate flags for England and Wales when there was a single law passed for England and Wales together. Two flags suggests two governments legalized SSM, which wasn't the case.
Not sure we want to do the same thing for Denmark. Although England, Wales, Scotland and NI are unambiguously members of the UK, and the Union Jack is specifically the flag of the UK, the Danish flag is ambiguous between the country of Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark that includes Greenland and the Faroes. Maybe best to leave those as they are? Same for New Zealand if/when the other member states appear in this table. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
We might also want to start thinking of how we'll handle Mexico. Other countries that legalized SSM piecemeal -- Canada, USA, Brazil -- all eventually had national rulings legalizing it across the country and forcing it on recalcitrant states, so there's a clear date of legalization. That won't necessarily happen with Mexico. What do we do if the final Mexican state gets SSM because a new governor tells the clerks to start issuing licenses? Does Mexico not get a flag? We've probably got a few years to think about it. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The simple solution to the flag issue is to remove the flags/bolding from all administrative divisions. Currently that applies to England and Wales, Scotland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, and Northern Ireland. The current set-up is clearly problematic, and is at any rate inconsistent.
As for Mexico, I don't think it needs a new entry (or have a Mexican flag against each bolded state), but perhaps it could be included in a square bracket clarification after the final entry. Whatever the case, we should simply follow whatever the agreement for Northern Ireland ends up being, given it was the final piece of the UK meal. CMD (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
So, what England, Wales, Scotland, Greenland, and Faroe Islands all have in common is a constituent country status. Are they sub-national entities? Sorta. But implying that they aren't countries isn't a good look for WP. That's my understanding of the issue anyway, and why status-quo is where it's at right now. TheSavageNorwegian 19:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it opens a huge can of worms. There are lots of independence movements, or semi-autonomous jurisdictions who claim to be special, independent or countries within a sovereign state. It is peculiar to me that we would allow this with England, Wales and Scotland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, but not for Quebec, Catalonia, indigenous first nations, Tibet, Crimea, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, Hong Kong, Macau etc. The easiest thing to do is to stick to sovereign states. Doing so, is also most consistent with our policy of writing for a world audience, and for this article itself. We should base these things on international recognition not domestic labels. It is odd that we have Faroe Islands with a flag (because they are a "country", in the timeline table) and as a dependent territory and sub-national entity in this one. Nevermind the project as a whole, we are not even being consistent in this article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed that it's a can of worms. It's also incorrect that England has any sort of status, and neither England nor Wales is on this list: the entity in question is England and Wales. It's not a good look for Wikipedia to be arbitrarily doling out supposed "status", and as proven by the many discussions here it's clearly the cause of a lot of strife. CMD (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, removed the flags from the UK. Left those for Denmark, the Netherlands and New Zealand. Those situations are different, and no-one's having a stroke about them taking flags. — kwami (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


I have pushed archiving back to every six months. The talk page is pretty sparse and it seems like some issues (ie. NI flags) seems to come up again shortly after sections are archived. If this page is getting messy, I encourage someone to reverse this change down the way.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

We’ll essentially mention what the reader first reads in the article (“same sex marriage is performed in the following countries”). Now what they read is that same-sex marriage is legal, for example in the UK and Denmark, but in the summary table they see Greenland and Faroe Islands but they don’t see anything about the UK.

We can’t expect them to know that Greenland and Faroe Islands are constituent countries of Denmark (but they have a flag like other UN countries), and that the UK and it’s countries is not included with any flag even though they’re constituent countries as well and the UK is a UN country. Taxydromeio (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should pander to ignorance. You may expect our audience to be functionally illiterate, but that's not our business. — kwami (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree. Having a flag for Greenland, Faroe Islands and for Aruba Curacao and Sint Maarten in the future will be unfair for the constituent countries of the UK (which is/ will not ever mentioned on the table based on that model). The Netherlands and New Zealand should again be mentioned as we mention them in the beginning of the article (but we don’t mention Greenland or Faroe Islands). I would suggest we keep the Netherlands (2001), Denmark (2012), New Zealand (2013), the United States nationwide (2015), and the United Kingdom (2020). That is less confusing to the reader, and is widely known that the Netherlands was the first to legalize same-sex marriage (at least in my country most people know that). Let us not confuse the readers. Taxydromeio (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion we should just remove the flags of Greenland and Faroe Islands. They’re not countries like the Netherlands or New Zealand. New Zealand is an independent state and Tokelau is a dependent territory and Niue and Cook Islands are associated states. As for the Netherlands, most of the Kingdom's affairs are administered by the Netherlands. Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are dependent on the Netherlands. Taxydromeio (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Flags of Denmark, Greenland, Faroe Islands, UK, Netherlands, New Zealand[edit]

There is some confusion with the table. I don’t think most readers will understand or even notice England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland etc but they will notice Greenland and Faroe Islands with the flag, even though all of them are constituent countries. I would suggest we removed the flags of Greenland and Faroe Islands altogether, as well as the bold letters, as we have Denmark mentioned. For the UK, after Northern Ireland, we could mention the United Kingdom but without the reference [nationwide] as it didn’t legalize it nationwide with one law. We could do the same in the future with Mexico after its last state’s legalisation. For the Netherlands we could keep the flag and add a note that same-sex marriage is not legal in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. The same with New Zealand. What do you think? Taxydromeio (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, as suggested above, that all those flags and bolding should be removed. As for the Netherlands, I don't think we need to mention exceptions, as we do not for example mention Indian Reservations or American Samoa next to the United States listing. CMD (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind adding a flag for the UK after the date of legalization in NI (and similarly with Mexico), but I oppose removing the flags from New Zealand and the Netherlands, which to be consistent is what we'd have to do if we remove the flags from Greenland and the Faroes, since SSM is not legal in either the Netherlands or NZ, any more than it was legal in the UK when it was passed in England and Wales. And do we really want to move the date of legalization in Denmark to 2017, which again, to be consistent with the UK, is what we'd have to do if we use the flag for the kingdom rather than for the country? The situation of the UK is not very similar to that of Denmark, Netherlands or NZ. I think this idiocy over Northern Ireland is getting out of hand. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing the flag from the Faroes/Greenland would not mean we would have to remove the flags from NZ and the Netherlands. Their political relationships, and their treatment in reliable sources, is very different to that of the United Kingdom. Otherwise, as I noted above, the United States would have to have its flag removed. 2015 alone contains six entries from places ruled by the United States, and within the United States, after the United States entry. CMD (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, different from the UK, but not very different from each other. SSM is not legal in the Netherlands and NZ the way it is in the US or Denmark (and now the UK), so of course we'd have to remove the Dutch and NZ flags. Which IMO would be stupid. And if we don't, then we can't remove the Danish flags either. If we provide flags for, say, UN states plus special cases like Taiwan, then NZ and the Netherlands wouldn't get flags because SSM is not legal at the UN-state level. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
How is same-sex marriage legal in the United States in a way that it is not in the Netherlands? CMD (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
It is legal in the US, with the exception of many federal Tribes (and even there you get all the federal benefits). It's not legal in 3/4 of the Netherlands. — kwami (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
3/4 of the Netherlands does not seem to be a reasonable way to describe what is almost a rounding error in terms of the country's population and land, especially given the 'remaining 1/4' acts in the capacity of the entire state, supplies all but 3 members of the state government, and whose leader automatically and simultaneously leads the government of the state. In regards to same-sex marriage specifically, marriages that take place in the Netherlands proper are recognised on the islands (although they don't necessarily get marriage benefits from the islands, probably similar to the situation in US Tribes). CMD (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We don’t we simply keep the old format? England Scotland and wales can get their respective flags, and keep the Northern Ireland with no flag. We say how Greenland and Faroe Islands must get flag, but we don’t enforce the same for the constituent countries of the UK. Taxydromeio (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I know you don't mean it this way, but to me that would look rather bigoted, as if the Irish didn't warrant recognition -- we only recognize real nations. — kwami (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Because "constituent countries" is not an actual status in the UK, it's just a vague term of convenience. At any rate, neither England nor Wales has competency in this area, with both following legislation made in the UK Parliament. CMD (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Re. the later, that's why I prefer the UK flag. But the UK is arguably closer to the situation of the provinces of the US and Canada. I'm not competent to judge how similar it is. — kwami (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

So do you agree to delete the flags of Greenland and Faroe Islands or to add again England and Wales and Scotland? Taxydromeio (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Given neither England nor Wales has their own legislation for this, removing seems the best option. I am open to Kwami's idea of putting the UK flag after NI, to note that it covered the whole country. We can then replicate this with Mexico when relevant. CMD (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree too. That’s probably the best solution for both the United Kingdom and Mexico (in the future). Should we move to the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxydromeio (talkcontribs) 09:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)