Talk:Same-sex marriage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
December 30, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
June 24, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
March 1, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
November 21, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article
WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016.

Semi-protected edit request[edit]

In the lead paragraph, "34 countries that have a total population of more than 1 billion people" reads as if all 34 countries have over 1 billion people each. The obvious fix is to change "that have" to ", with". -- (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected contradiction[edit]

The article names two different counties as where Jack Baker and Michael McConnell got married. (Their article says they went to another county than the one where they lived to get a marriage license, but I don't think it makes it clear where the wedding actually took place.) Please fix it or add a {{contradict-self}} tag. -- (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal date[edit]

I don't understand why we put 29 November as the date for Nepal instead of 28 June. The couple tried it and were refused in one city office, then tried later in a different city whose office accepted it. There's no indication they wouldn't have gotten their marriage certificate early on at that second office, it's not like a legal decision was made in between. For example, if a woman was refused an abortion shortly after it was made legal, and initially got it refused at a clinic, then finally found a good one later on, we wouldn't use the date of that second attempt as the date abortion was legalised in that country. We would use the legal one. We should use 28 June for Nepal. What do you think? Aréat (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was confusion and legal uncertainty between those dates, and no-one getting married. Then, as the lead to Recognition of same-sex unions in Nepal states: "In the last week of November 2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs allowed local administration offices to begin registering same-sex marriages.". So there was a legal decision, or at least a decision to stop postponing a legal decision. Jdcooper (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the law needs a executive order to become effective, then yes the date should be the November one. But if legally the law doesn't need that executive order, but the Minister had to promulge one because the administration didn't applied the law as it should, then it should be the date in June (even if it wasn't technically possible because of the administration, it was by law), but we should of course explain it with details on the country's section and article. Martin m159 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What "law" are you talking about? Courts cannot make laws, it's the responsibility of the legislature. That's what India's Supreme Court said. It's just an interim order of a single judge bench and the full bench of the Supreme Court is yet to start a final hearing on the matter. It is possible that the interim order can be scrapped while passing the final verdict. Anyway, appealing to the courts is not the best way to get marriage equality. It violates the doctrine of separation of powers and could lead to unforeseeable consequences. Cyanmax (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says before the table, "Dates are when marriages between same-sex couples began to be officially certified,..." Exactly by that definition, 29 Nov is the correct date. As for "legal" legal, that has not happened yet. Court said "Denying marriage is unconstitutional, make the laws constitution compliant, and however long that takes, because people shouldn't be denied rights for any length of time, set up a different register to register non conventional marriages in the meantime". The government finally said, "yeah, ok", and began registering marriages but it's not clear when the laws will be passed, it's not clear if they are even trying. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Nepal, per discussion at that article and news sources that marriage is not yet enacted. One couple was able to register their marriage after direct intervention of the SC, but even then they had trouble finding a govt office that would file the paperwork. Other couples haven't been able to marry. AFICT, supporting legislation hasn't been introduced, so it's probably going to be a while, possibly years, before there is SSM in Nepal without individual court rulings. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another couple has now married in Nepal. That's at least three that have made the headlines now. Nepal should stay for now.
Minecraft69 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Provocative consideration: could we argue that the Pope's decision to change clergy regulation and authorise blessings of same-sex couples is equivalent to some light form of recognition (eg. unregistered cohabitation)? Clearly, we are talking about religious acts, sacraments. But the Vatican City is a theocratic state, has no form of marriage but religious marriage. One could argue that: blessings without specific lithurgy = unregistered cohabitation; similar lithurgy but distinct from marriage = civil unions; same lithurgy as opposite-sex marriage = same-sex marriage. Thoughts? Finedelledanze (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, no. There has never been any prohibition on giving blessings to prostitutes, thieves, murderers on death row, or rapists. This just brings same-sex couples into the same fold as other sinners whose right to be blessed, afaik, has never been challenged. That said, there are some regulations about who can receive various sacraments, such as the Eucharist, or holy orders that are more restrictive. I make no claim that my opinion matches that of the Vatican, or the DDF, and I bet plenty of bishops are boiling over the Pope's remarks. Mathglot (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent sock targeting this article[edit]

There is a persistent sock who has been targeting this article since at least February 2023. Their M.O. is to create new socks to make edits to this article that downplay the support of same-sex marriage.


  • Saying scientific studies that support same-sex marriage are merely "claims" [1][2]
  • Commenting out the statement that "The most prominent supporters of same-sex marriage are the world's major medical and scientific communities etc..." [3][4].

Accounts involved are: User:Sotavino, User:Atquaman, User:Abisaku, User:SG413K, and most recently, User:Ratterbat.

I'm not sure how to stop these socks, other than reverting their edits and reporting them to WP:SPI each time a new one appears. Perhaps pending changes protection would work? Bennv123 (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the current sock account: User:Espanion. Bennv123 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can request protection at SPI, a reviewing admin may agree on the merit given the context. CMD (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eurobarometer's latest poll[edit]

the latest eurobarometer in december 2023 showed an increase in support for same-sex in EU countries. Please add this to the article: Springtime95 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2024[edit]

Faid17 (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I believe that Greece has already been added. Coulomb1 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greece to be added to the table with countries that legalised same sex marriage in the 2024 slot, besides Estonia.

Removing Nepal from the list[edit]

I'm going to remove Nepal from the list of countries that legalized same-sex marriage. I found updated maps and none of them include Nepal.





I was right all along, while some wikiusers contributed to the spread of disinformation, just like they did with Armenia in 2017. I don't need their apologies for calling me a "vandal" and trying to block me. Everybody makes mistakes, they just need to admit they're wrong. It doesn't matter how much you love Bangladesh, Nepal, Somalia, Armenia etc. Critical thinking and common sense always come first. Cyanmax (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural law arguments[edit]

Why are natural law arguments against same-sex marriage entirely excluded from the article? Where is Aquinas? The current article throws up strawman against thinkers that oppose it. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of prominent supporters/opposition sentence from the lead[edit]

The rationale for this removal is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH; we can't remove a longstanding part of the lead just because an editor personally feels otherwise. And per WP:LEADCITE, something like that in the lead can just summarize aspects of the body - it doesn't require sources for that. But I've added some sources from the body anyway. We can't frame it as an opinion (as the editor who removed it requested) because per WP:NPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice; an editor personally disliking a statement doesn't make it contested. More broadly, we need a sentence in the lead summarizing who the overall supporters and opponents of gay marriage are - note that it is cautiously worded ("most prominent" does not mean everyone.) We could tweak its wording a bit and find better sources, but I don't think we can remove it entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by pointing out the obvious. The present claim was never independently verifiable. We're not going to entertain that it is equivalent to referencing a specific event that was independently witnessed by 100 people at the same time.
I don't necessarily take issue with the political commentary being in the article assuming POV is expressed as an opinion, but I would disagree at this time that the framework of support and opposition needs to be in the lead. The circumstance in which a relationship is not considered to be the same as that of a husband and wife does not necessitate that one oppose the relationship. The circumstance in which a relationship is considered the same as that of a husband and wife does not mean it will be supported.
The simplistic notion of conflicting support/opposition is not reflecting from the multifaceted reality. We aren't talking about a certain declared conflict or a case with sides that are clearly conflicted.
Repurposing the sources was very helpful, as I was not previously aware of what you believe should be summarized. I would invite you to reconsider that the critical rationale still holds whether or not you happen to disagree with some specifics of common knowledge used for illustrative purpose.
The issue of forcibly redefining marriage in a way that is unrecognizable to millions is inherently complex, and as it stands the material in question cannot convey intelligible information on the issue in the intended form of the sentence. This is because the sentence is made as a rhetorical addition to the article. However many sources support a desired outcome for someone's preferred opinion, it should be worded as an opinion if you insist on keeping it. StuckMuck (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I was wondering if it might be worth removing the Native American territories, US states, and Mexican states, and British overseas territories from the main timeline. I think it clutters the timeline quite a bit, (especially now that every Mexican state has legalised it). I'm not that opposed to keeping them, but I would be interested to hear others views. The sheer number of Native American territories does seem to clutter the list a lot. Perhaps instead there could be a footnote or section that explains which British territories, and Native American settlements have not legalised same-sex marriage now that the vast majority have. We could also move the dates for non-sovereign countries somewhere else. What do others think? Jasp7676 (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loathe to tinker with it. I get what you mean but since sovereign states have a flag icon, it's very quick to visually identify states vs small entitites. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We once did what you suggest, but consensus was against it and we reverted. The short list is in the timeline article. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand law changes[edit]

Now they allowed same sex marriage 2001:FB1:E7:6E3D:7529:7E7:D2E3:41DD (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. The proposal was merely approved by the lower house of the parliament. It still requires approval from the upper house and the royal assent also, and it will become law only after its publication in the official gazette. --Miwako Sato (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same sex marriage[edit]

Maito Kismar R G10 Arroyo 3/29/24 2001:4456:C70:1800:B851:D4ED:F98F:3043 (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion[edit]

Found relatively new public opinion polls in some Balkan countries. Don't know if it's reliable enough though (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please provide changes to be made in XY format; it is currently unclear what you want changed. Irltoad (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for extra opinions[edit]

Extra opinions with expertise on the subject are required in a discussion at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel#The Nature of Legality. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024[edit]

Please add this section under 'Studies'

The overall effects of legal access to same-sex marriage have been summarized by Badgett and co-authors. [1] The review found that sexual minority individuals took-up legal marriage when it became available to them (but at lower rates than different-sex couples). There is instead no evidence that same-sex marriage legalization affected different-sex marriages. On the health side, same-sex marriage legalization increased health insurance coverage for individuals in same-sex couples in the US, and it led to improvements in sexual health among men who have sex with men, while there is mixed evidence on mental health effects among sexual minorities. In addition, the study found mixed evidence on a range of downstream social outcomes such as attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people and employment choices of sexual minorities. Ds1289 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that specific to the US? — kwami (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @Ds1289: Your account is now autoconfirmed. RudolfRed (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Badgett, M.V. Lee; Carpenter, Christopher S.; Lee, Maxine J.; Sansone, Dario (2024). "A review of the effects of legal access to same-sex marriage". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. doi:10.1002/pam.22587.

Kosovo: SSM or CUs?[edit]

@Cyanmax: this article uses the term 'marriage'. I didn't want to make the claim here without confirmation. — kwami (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the German media, in his speech in Berlin he referred to civil partnerships, not SSM [5] Akerbeltz (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that article also says "only 20% of Kosovars support same-sex unions" when that's actually the support for marriage. — kwami (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<shrugs> I don't know. All I can imagine is that when you ask this question in parts of the world, people aren't necessarily aware of the difference. It's like people in Hong Kong conflating 'England' with the 'UK' I guess, they're mostly confused when I patiently try to explain that I live in Scotland, not England. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Again[edit]

I am seeing many local reports coming from Nepal about all individual districts now force to register ssm certificates instead of each individual district deciding to do it or not [6] [7] .--Allancalderini12 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allancalderini12: I'm finding even the English difficult to understand. The key statement seems to be, "all the local registration authorities have been requested to issue a certificate after keeping a temporary record of marriage in a separate registration book."
Does that mean they used to keep a temp record in a different book (as originally ordered, pending the final verdict of the SC case), and that now they should issue a normal certificate as they would to any other couple -- that is, marriage equality -- or does it mean that they should issue a certificate after making a temporary record in a separate book -- that is, marriage inequality? — kwami (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Nepali version, the key statement appears to be, "छुट्टै दर्ता किताबमा विवाहको अस्थायी अभिलेख राखी प्रमाणपत्र जारी गर्न सबै स्थानीय पञ्जीकाधिकारीहरुलाई अनुरोध गरिएको छ।" Not that I read Nepali, but that appears to suggest marriages are still unequal. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Akerbeltz:, regardless of whether the registration is 'temporary' or not, or what registry book it's recorded in, if the govt has issued a circular to all local governments to issue marriage certificates, that would appear to address our concern that SSM might not be generally available, at least for the time being. Should Nepal be changed to blue on the map and restored to 'marriage' in the info box? If the SC surprises us and reverses the temporary ruling, we can of course always remove it. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: huh? why are you asking me? ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You responded above, so I thought you might be keeping track.
I went ahead and made the change, as I thought it made sense (and answered the objections we had earlier), but it's not clear-cut so I thought it would be good to have more opinions. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: did you mean to pint Allancalderini12 by any chance, who started the Nepal Again thread? :) Akerbeltz (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Churches that support[edit]

With the United Methodist church accepting SSM, I came here thinking we probably have a list, but I can't find one. We have various articles on religion and SSM, but I'm thinking this article should include a list that allow their clergy to perform SSM, like we do for countries. Or would it be too difficult to create something coherent? — kwami (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]