Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 21

Vietnam?

The world map has Vietnam colored for Unregistered Cohabitation and the subsection for Vietnam has a citation supporting this, but neither the infobox nor Same-sex marriage in Vietnam list them as such. Just looking for some clarity. I think it's the infobox that needs to be updated, and the ciation added to the page for Vietnam. Thoughts? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure Vietnam counts, as I haven't found a good def of 'unregistered cohabitation'. They specifically allow weddings, but that might just count as decriminalization. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I imagine whoever colored it was going off of this statement and link from the subsection on Vietnam: "Although same-sex marriages are not permitted in Vietnam, the policy will decriminalize the relationship, habitual privileges such as household registry, property, child raising, and co-habitual partnerships are recognized.retrieved Oct 13, 2013"

Do property and adoption rights count as co-habitation? Or does Vietnam actually recognize co-habitation? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I added it to the map, and yes, I was going off statements like that. But it's a bit of OR. I don't know the answer. If s.o. who knows what they're talking about says it needs to be removed, I'll be fine with removing it, but I do think it's a notable event in such a sexually conservative country. I mean, imagine if this had happened in Saudi Arabia. Wouldn't we want some sort of notice on the map?

Also, child-raising, not necessarily adoption. (If there is, let me know, and I'll update the LGBT adoption map.)

But household registry: that sounds like de facto recognition to me. — kwami (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. It would be the first Asian country to recognize gay relationships in any form other than Israel's recognition of foreign marriages. I think there would be a lot more press that we wouldn't have to decipher and do OR for. Nepal is cued up for it, but they haven't actually recognized them yet. I think kwami's was right in that this was more of a decriminalization. I'm not an expert on this legal matter but I don't think our sources support the claim here. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Israel and the Nepali court recognize actual marriage. Whatever this thing in Vietnam is, it's far from that. Cohabitation is pretty low on the ladder to be attracting press attention. — kwami (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So are we in agreement to remove the coloring? I think the other world map that shows legal status is more appropriate to represent with "gray" color the decriminalization that is cited here. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Albania

I noticed that Albania was recently added to the same-sex union legislation page under the name "partnership", after reading the source that was given I'm wondering if this is rather marriage. As it stated meetings are currently being held to amend the family code to change the definition from "one man and one women" to "two persons/people" as well as another topic adressing gender identity. Since this is changing the only legal recognition for individuals that the country currently has, I would assume that they are debating legalizing same-sex marriage. Anyone care to clarify if I misunderstood something? Chase1493 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Source included in the article clearly says about articles 163 and 164 of the Family Code which regulates partnership, not marriage. See [1]. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I live in Albania... it is not about marriage, it is about legalizing civil partnerships for same-sex couples after an amendemnt to the Family Code proposed by the Ombudsman in collaboration with the Civil Society and supported by the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.154.18 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Civil Unions

Is there a way to add certain states back to the Civil Union column? Even though California New Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, their civil union (domestic partnership) laws are still intact. In New Jersey, the court mentioned that its ruling did not change the states CU law. In Illinois and Hawaii, CUs are available to both gay and straight couples and continue to be law. UCSDgrad2003 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It would make the map a lot messier (we'd need s.t. like stripes), and the point really is marriage, not CU. We only include CU to give an idea of states which might be amenable to passing SSM. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What about Caribbean islands?

Hello. I just saw the list of countries listed in the article as legalizing same-sex marriage. What I found today these infographics that also include 5 Caribbean islands. Why they aren't included? --Stalik (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, because they aren't countries, but are part of other countries. Saba is part of the Netherlands, while Saint Barthélemy, Guadaloupe, and Martinique are part of France. The northern part of Saint Martin is part of France, while the southern part, Sint Maarten, is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Sint Maarten does not allow SSM; only the Netherlands proper (including Saba) does.--Trystan (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"redefining Marriage"

Can someone please remove the introduction that says SSM is "redefining marriage"? SSM is a thing. It's an institution. "Marriage Equality" is a thing and is a term used as synonymous with SSM. "redefining marriage" is an act, not a thing, and is an argument against SSM that should be discussed in its proper place.UCSDgrad2003 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSDgrad2003 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't see why you've been ignored. It's not term that they use, it's a criticism, or "characterization". It was added by User:Pete unseth in this edit, and later editors merely cleaned it up, since experienced Wikipedians tend not to like outright reverting people for fear of appearing to own an article. Arguments for and against don't belong in the lede, and though you can argue that "marriage equality" is a for term, it's still a term that's actually used. Opponents of same-sex marriage are more prone to talking about "defending" "traditional marriage," which refers solely for heterosexual monogamy in the Western World, and to both heterosexual monogamy and polygyny in Muslim countries and Africa (but never to fraternal polyandry). However since "traditional marriage" does not refer to to same-sex marriage, it probably doesn't belong in the lede either.

I am now going to remove it the "redefining marriage bit." If anybody wants to contend that it's used in the same way that proponents use "marriage equality" and opponents use "traditional marriage," please find at least one reliable source which uses it consistently throughout. This source shouldn't need to refer to it by another term in order to make it clear that they're talking about same-sex marriage, since the implication is that "redefining marriage" is clear in itself. If anybody merely objects that we're being unfair to opponents by not giving them a catchy term, I will note that the term that opponents do use for same-sex marriage, when they don't use "same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage," is "gay 'marriage'", with scare quotes around "marriage." I could suggest we include this, if people feel it really necessary. —Quintucket (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gently: The article has given one view, "Legal recognition of same-sex marriage or the possibility to perform a same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as marriage equality or equal marriage, particularly by supporters". Giving a view held by those who hold a different positions, citing sources, seems very much within the tradition of Wikipedia. Some see the issue as a matter of equality, others base their case on a totally different paradigm, seeing a firm non-negotiable core to the definition of marriage. It is important to understand the different approaches to this topic. I reverted it, but not to start a war. Trying to gently refine an article on which many hold strong views. NPOV seems to not merely warrant, but require, my edit.Pete unseth (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully admit that same-sex marriage does redefine marriage; like most supporters of marriage equality I merely point out that we've already redefined marriage to exclude polygyny, child brides, and arranged marriages, all of which are common practice outside the west, and that within the west we've redefined it to be a union of two equals (a handful of conservative Christians still insist that a wife should be subservient to her husband). I'm pointing out that marriage equality is an actually used term, whereas your complaint is that the term is biased. Of course it is; that's the point. Chalk it up to good PR. And yes, the main complaint is that same-sex marriage interferes with God's unchanging definition of marriage (which of course ignores the polygynous marriages in the Bible), however the anti-SSM people have learned from interracial marriage, and rather than casting their opposition as a negative, as with complaints about "miscegenation," they use a positive term to refer to heterosexual monogamy: "traditional marriage." This was good PR for a long time, but it means that they don't really have their own term to apply to SSM. —Quintucket (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure you understand the meaning and intent of NPOV. It has never been about representing all sides to an issue equally, it has been about representing the sources accurately. And by including it in the paragraph on terminology and putting it in bold, you imply that the sources use "redefining marriage" as a term, rather than an argument. —Quintucket (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT, SSM is never called "redefining marriage". Rather, it's characterized as redefining marriage, which objectively it is. The opposite is frequently called "traditional marriage", so I don't see why we shouldn't include that: it's "marriage equality" vs "traditional marriage", wording which pretty much sums up the liberal–conservative divide, at least in the US. The fact that there are many other kinds of traditional arriage which people do not mean when opposing SSM is rather irrelevant, except as a point of rhetoric. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's not really relevant that many Muslims and Africans have been trying to apply the term to polygyny, since with a few exceptions (a handful of imams in France are the only ones I've heard of), it's not applied in countries where same-sex marriage is currently debated. As I noted in my edit, summary, it almost always means heterosexual monogamy in those countries. I once heard someone try to apply the term "marriage equality" to polyamory, on the grounds that it was a sexual orientation, but that's an equally fringe view. I'm fine with talking about "traditional marriage" in the article, but the article is about SSM, and unlike with interracial marriage complaints about "miscegenation" and "race-mixing," they haven't come up with their own scary term for SSM. They're trying to kill it by giving people the fuzzies about heterosexual monogamy, and that means that the closest they have to their own term is putting scare quotes around "marriage." And I'm fine with including that in the lede. —Quintucket (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed that plural responses both agree with my point (that marriage is being redefined), then also drag in so many other topics. I think that everybody, no matter their point of view, should see that legalizing same sex marriage fundamentally redefines marriage. I never mentioned polygamy, that's a red herring. I never mentioned submission, another red herring. What is fundamentally different here, is that regardless of religion, if any, it recognizes marriages that are not heterosexual. This fundamental change in view is a big issue. It deserves to be mentioned. AmicablyPete unseth (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll rise to the challenge (or do I mean I'll take the bait?) and say I don't think that "legalizing same-sex marriage fundamentally redefines marriage". Legalization makes absolutely no changes whatsoever to the institution of marriage (which it would have to do in order to fundamentally redefine it); like the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws, it simply makes participation in the insitution available to a group of people who were previously excluded from it.

If I understand the dispute, what's at stake here isn't whether or not the phrase "redefining marriage" should be included in the article—of course it should—but rather its placement and wording, which to some readers may appear to put it on an equal, parallel footing to the phrase "marriage equality". They're not parallel, since one refers to an event or circumstance and the other refers to a change (supposedly) preceding or accompanying that event or circumstance. (The phrase "traditional marriage" would be roughly parallel to the phrase "marriage equality", since each is commonly used to describe the opposite of the other.) I don't think the "characterized as" wording would be a problem if it didn't immediately follow the sentence it does. Maybe it could be moved elsewhere. It doesn't really belong where it is anyway, since the lede is only supposed to summarize what follows and not make stand-alone claims. Rivertorch (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well... marriage, as many other institutions, has never existed in a 'pure' form anyway and has been and continues to be under constant change. If you think of racial segregation in the US, changes to age of marriage consent (which still differ across the planet), differences to divorce implications (islamic divorce, the question of a 'guilty party' vs a simple declaration of the marriage having broken down...) - one would soon end up in a very hairy debate about what kind of a change constitutes a 'redefinition' and what doesn't. To a white supremacist, ending racial segregation is as much of a massive redefiniton as gay marriage equality is to the Wesborogh Church (or whatever they call themselves). I don't think we should or indeed can measure what constitues a redefinition and what doesn't objectively. 17:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Map Update Request

Can someone please update the maps in the lead and at #Same-sex marriage around the world to reflect the federal judge's ruling in Utah today allowing same-sex marriage in that state? I honestly have no idea how to do it myself. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Did it myself. Hope it's okay. States' shapes aren't perfect. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What about Nepal?

The Nepalese supreme court decreed in favour in 2008, but the situation is still very obscure. Have any couples tried getting married lately, and with what result? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.58.1 (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

They decreed that it must be the law, and it was put into the new constitution, but the constitution didn't pass because of disagreements over districting. So Nepal is currently without a constitution and thus without a SSM law. Presumably when they do finally get a new constitution they'll have SSM. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

Scotland just legalised same sex marriage on the 4th of February. The dates and the lists need to be amended to show this. Ryanjhague (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to the timeline, the date we list is the date when the law comes into force (i.e. sometime later this year) not the date when it was passed. - htonl (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

First sentence

What's with the changes to the first few sentences? Quite frankly, they are much more muddled. Why does bisexual and asexual people being able to marry matter here? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014

Scotland, February 4, 2014 24.52.133.222 (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please read the answer to the request immediately above this. - Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Scotland

Forgive me if I am being irritatingly ignorant of UK law here, but why are England and Wales listed, and not Scotland? Does today's vote in Scottish Parliament still need to be cleared by UK Parliament before it's formally considered a law, or what? --SchutteGod (not signed in) 75.83.117.142 (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A bill does not become an Act of Parliament, and thus law, in the United Kingdom without first receiving Royal Assent. Once it does, which is a formality, then Scotland can be added. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Civil Union in Mexico

Since 2013, it is also legal in Colima, Jalisco and Campeche. Section abaout Civil Union in Mexico just say Mexico City and Coahuila. Maps are too old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.62.158 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Any sources? I'd be happy to add those with proper citation. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

'Same-sex marriage recognized when performed in certain other jurisdictions' (specifically, México City) is a higher priority than the civil unions you can get in Colima etc. 86.26.180.101 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky addition (and OK/UT complaint)

{{Edit semi-protected||answered=yes} It is now recognized but not performed in Kentucky. Odd that this isn't on here when the stayed decisions in Oklahoma are misleadingly on the map. Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/12/federal-judge-strikes-down-ban-gay-marriage-other-states/5421509/ RegisteredReader0 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

NO.

SSMs are NOT yet recognized in Kentucky. The judge will hold a hearing and decide whether to issue an order and what the effective date will be. So far we just have a decision telling us what he thinks. For sources see LGBT rights in Kentucky#Lawsuit. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

YES.

Is there any indication it won't happen? It's at least as valid as OK's "intention" to recognize. That was my entire point. RegisteredReader0 (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your point was not clear. You say "on the map" when you mean in the footnotes to the map. Nor do I understand where you see the word "intention" related to OK. Leaving this as is for now is consistent with how this KY issue is being handled elsewhere on WP, like Same-sex marriage in the United States. What the judge's order will say is hard to predict. He's held off for a reason, but only he knows why. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Timeline, Illinois

What about other counties in Illinois? Champaign, Cass, St. Claire, Jackson, Macon and McLean?--201.219.190.155 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Myanmar

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/an-myanmar-couple-in-27first-public-gay-wedding-ceremony27/5296432 ... not legal but celebrated in public ... 155.245.69.178 (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wonder if Burma should be yellow, then? — kwami (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you, it would appear that the gradual democratization of the country has caused this; at least that's what the article somewhat alluded to. Do you think we should get some more consensus or go ahead and change it? Chase1493 (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Just go ahead. If someone has refs to the contrary, we can always revert. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexico

I'd like to open up a discussion about what we should do with Mexico and the maps. Unlike the U.S. there is no DOMA like law and the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages must be recognized in all of the states. For the purposes of the map, should we bother having the subnational jurisdictions with civil unions if the legend specifically notes that higher colors supercede the lower ones in status? It seems kind of confusing if you take Oregon for example, which has domestic partnerships and yet recognizes marriages; so it is denoted teal. I think we shouldn't make an exception for Mexico and remove all of the civil union states. Can I get some consensus as to avoid an edit war with someone? :) Chase1493 (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

About Oregon, I think having it colored the same blue of Nevada with a neon teal ring would do best. Or the reverse, though at first the contrast would be so huge that people wouldn't immediately distinguish the 'civil union' blue tone from the darker 'SSM' one. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Aside Oregon, also Colorado alike Ohio, per kwami's SSM-centered map. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Chile

Should Chile's status on the map be changed since Michelle Bachelet came to power on 11 March 2014 which a commitment to legalise same sex marriage? http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/chile-expected-legalize-gay-marriage120314 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.172 (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Same-sex marriage

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Same-sex marriage's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC News":

• From The Simpsons: "Bart's voice tells all". BBC News Online. November 10, 2000. Retrieved May 16, 2007.
• From Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom: "Scotland's same-sex marriage bill is passed". BBC News. 4 February 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

On the actual marriage and wedding

This article talks immensely about the politics of same-sex marriagebut it talks very little about the unique aspects of the ceremony which is actually what I came to this article for.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What unique aspects of the ceremony are you referring to, that only apply to marriages of people of the same sex? The form actual weddings take varies with culture/tradition. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about efforts for legal recognition of same-sex marriage; the lede does a pretty good job of explaining that, but I can see room for improvement if it is not clear. Legal recognition, and the fact that it is being worked out in courts and legislative assemblies, makes same-sex marriage a political issue, so that is the focus of the article. Beyond those legal issues, marriage is marriage, and same-sex marriage ceremonies take the same dizzying array of forms as different-sex marriage ceremonies. Why would you expect something different? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It would not at all surprise me if there were trends particular to same-sex weddings, and that we were to see an article on same. However, until one pulls that up, we have nothing to add (and even if one were to be found, I suspect it would be a localized item, and perhaps fit better in one of the localized same-sex marriage articles.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying like what if one guy/gal wants to wear white and the other guy/girl wears black or what about a pride themed wedding or a drag wedding? Or what unique traditions would apply depending on culture or religion? How do they make the ceremony less gendered? I mean I understand how politicized this topic is but people don't go to the ant article to find out what people think about ants. They come to research information about the ants themselves. There should at least be a small discussion describing actual ceremony practices.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, we make specific statements based on reliable sources. What makes you think gay couples in general do try to make their ceremonies "less gendered" (whatever that means)? And do you realistically think there are reliable sources that have concluded this? This is not the place to make up stereotypical generalisations of what clearly are going to be choices unique to any particular couple.

Really the only encyclopaedic information related to the wedding may be, as you mention, things like the specifics of any particular faith group's policy on how same-sex marriages are celebrated, if different to opposite-sex ones. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ChiZeroOne, my thoughts exactly.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stereotype if that whats you mean. What I'm saying is that if two men or two women stand up in front of a preacher and he read's the original gendered version of the ceremony someone would've have to have been the husband and someone the wife "Will you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife. Do you promise to cherish her in good times and bad times, in sickness and in health till death do you part." Obviously that part has to be edited for a male-male wedding. Not to mention the statues on the cake, and when you dance at the reception both sides would be dancing with different grooms. That is what I mean by gendered weddings which is why those who do perform same-sex weddings create a more gender-neutral wedding ceremony. Aside from that for example Who gets led down the aisle? Who stands at the alter? Who gets given away? In Judaism who breaks the glass? In Greek tradition who throws the vase? Some LGBT people might want to have a different wedding theme. I know I do I want to have a pride theme where me and my partner and the groomsmen and bridemaids outfits each represent one of the pride colors. I'm not trying to sound like I'm stereotyping. It is just a fact that their will be some differences. Not to mention LGBT people might want to make small cultural differences as a refusal to assimilate.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably does vary by culture (and, of course, by individual). In order to have any meaningful progress in this discussion, you would need to present sources that discuss the topic rather than your speculation. Even if you do find a source, some (not all) of the details you list above seem too trivial to merit mention in the article. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw a wedding video a few months ago - I think that it was performed in California - which concluded "I now pronounce you spouses for life" instead of the traditional "I now pronounce you husband and wife". In countries/states/territories where the wording of the marriage ceremony is laid down in law, the law which permits same-sex marriage will have specified the appropriate amendments to the wording of the marriage ceremony. But where it is not laid down in law, the official has the freedom to vary the traditional wording as appropriate. For example, the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 gives, in section 9 subsection (3) an indication of the required declarations. It does not specify exact words, but the meanings of the two declarations:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, a marriage ceremony is of an appropriate form if it includes, and is in no way inconsistent with—

(a) a declaration by the parties, in the presence of each other, the celebrant and two witnesses, that they accept each other as husband and wife; and

(b) a declaration by the celebrant, after the declaration mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection, that the parties are then husband and wife,

and the Registrar General may, before deciding whether to accept or reject a nomination, require the nominating body to produce to him in writing the form of words used at its marriage ceremonies.

This is amended by the recently-passed Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, where, in section 13 subsections (2)(f) and (2)(g), we find some amendments to the 1977 Act, the effect of which is to produce the following wording:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, a marriage ceremony for marriage between persons of different sexes is of an appropriate form if it includes, and is in no way inconsistent with—

(a) a declaration by the parties, in the presence of each other, the celebrant and two witnesses—

(i) that they accept each other as husband and wife;

(ii) that they accept each other in marriage; or

(iii) either or both of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii); and

(b) a declaration by the celebrant, after the declaration mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection—

(i) that the parties are then husband and wife;

(ii) that the parties are then married; or

(iii) either or both of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii),

and the Registrar General may, before deciding whether to accept or reject a nomination, require the nominating body to produce to him in writing the form of words used at its marriage ceremonies for marriage between persons of different sexes.

(3A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, a marriage ceremony for marriage between persons of the same sex is of an appropriate form if it includes, and is in no way inconsistent with—

(a) a declaration by the parties, in the presence of each other, the celebrant and two witnesses, that they accept each other in marriage;

(b) a declaration by the celebrant, after the declaration mentioned in paragraph (a), that the parties are then married,

and the Registrar General may, before deciding whether to accept or reject a nomination, require the nominating body to produce in writing the form of words used at its marriage ceremonies for marriage between persons of the same sex.

So the precise text is still not laid down in law, but the law recognises the need to amend the wording. Of note is that for same-sex marriage, the gender-neutral form is required; but for different-sex marriage, either the gender-specific or the gender-neutral forms may be used. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wording of lead re England and Wales

The time has come where we once again have to confront the question of how to talk about England & Wales in the lead. The main parts of the act came into force at midnight; foreign same-sex marriages are recognized as marriages from today, while the celebration of new marriages is delayed until the 29th because of the required notice period.

Including it in the list of countries is not entirely satisfactory, because same-sex marriage is not legal in the whole of the UK. But on the other hand, treating it as a subnational jurisdiction is not entirely satisfactory either, because the law was passed by the sovereign UK Parliament, not by a subnational legislature. I suppose we could dodge the issue by saying that England and Wales are countries (in the sense of constituent countries) and therefore go in the countries list. - htonl (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

- Wouldn't it actually be 17 countries, not 16? 'United Kingdom' isn't a singular country, and since it's only England and Wales, why not mention them individually? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.171.137 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is the ONLY country, since the use of country in the article is synonymous with sovereign state. The fact we use the term "country" for the subnational components is rooted in political history, which has no formal meaning, but they most certainly should not be confused with sovereign states. They are subnational jurisdictions, and are treated as such by international organisations.

We should not try and fudge things just because it might be "convenient" for a list; listing the United Kingdom confuses the nature of the law, and it also confuses the nature of the United Kingdom ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

However, the law was passed by the national legislature and does not apply in parts of the country because those parts have autonomous legislatures. In that respect it is more like the way Denmark passed a marriage equality law but it did not apply in Greenland or the Faroes. - htonl (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. It does not apply in parts of the country, not because those parts have devolved (n.b. not "autonomous") legislatures, but because Section 20 explicitly states which parts apply where. In the absence of such clauses, a UK law automatically applies to all four of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, even if the devolved assemblies (something that England alone does not enjoy) have the power to legislate in those matters. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Italy

http://www.thelocal.it/20140410/italian-court-recognizes-gay-marriage-for-first-time Italy now has some legal recognition of same sex marriages performed abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincunxcats (talk • contribs) 10:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

National debates

Russia

In an Washington Post op-ed published 31 March 2014, Masha Gessen wrote on Putin's December 2013 speech to the State Duma in which he expressed concern over the acceptance "the equality of good and evil" and the "destruction of traditional values". Gessen saw in his phrase "so-called tolerance, neutered and barren" an allusion to homosexuality, and thought Russia saw itself as protector of the "unsuspecting citizens (from the) homosexuals marching in from Brussels."

69.60.247.253 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: No clear request. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think they wanted that material added to the national debates section. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014

Malta is the latest country to adopt same sex union laws. The laws were approved by the Maltese parliament on the 14th April 2014.http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140414/local/same-sex-unions-approved-celebrations-in-valletta-opposition-abstains-because-of-adoptions.514992 Lolitocha (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi - is anyone able to add Malta to same sex civil unions? Or at least add a paragraph somewhere with the current status. The recent vote in Parliament is certainly worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.253.169 (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Not yet law. Not yet "adopted". Waiting for the president to sign it. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This article has a section on "national debates" (3.2); the least thing that could be done is mention it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.253.169 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2014‎

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See below. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Malta

Should we be adding Malta to the list? Our article for the country states this is a Civil Unions bill, however Euronews refers to this as "marriages" on the same legal par as heterosexual marriages. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The law in question is a Civil Unions bill, not marriage and not yet law. EuroNews is crap. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your personal opinion on the source. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Malta civil unions

I think that once the bill is signed by the president and becomes law, it will merit a mention under our heading "Other legally recognized same-sex unions". I'd expect we should note that Malta's civil unions are in every way identical to marriage except for the label civil union rather than marriage. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hearing no discussion.... now that President Preca has signed the legislation, I've added a line. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Map Legal Status

The Map under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg is not always completely accurate. Law against homosexuality is not enforced in Morocco and the death penalty is not enforced in Mauritania. Here is a another map, if somebody wants to do the changes: http://msur.es/sexo/homosexualidad/ About Morocco, here is a long interview (only Spanish): http://msur.es/2010/04/30/samir-bargachi/ About Mauritania I got no sources right now other than the map itself, but the fact is, Mauritania does not apply the death penalty to any crimes. Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's not enforced, but the law still exists and so can still be used to persecute homosexuals. Btw, I asked to a friend who comes from Morroco and she said me the law was applied against homosexuals in Morroco. Titanicophile (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/16/northern-ireland-assembly-set-to-debate-equal-marriage/ How should the recent commitment to debate marriage equality in Northern Ireland be reflected here? A section for United Kingdom under National Debates? Quincunxcats (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You should make in Same-sex union legislation a line in the "I Efforts to enable" within the "III Subnational level" about this bill. :) Titanicophile (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

ACT

Should the Australian Capital Territory be included in the timeline? SSM wasn't just discontinued, it was voided. Otherwise we'd have to include when San Francisco performed SSM under the direction of Gavin Newsom: the mayor of the city-county. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is quite comparable. ACT is a territory, for many purposes it is treated equivalently to a state, although it technically isn't one. (It's closest analog in US terms is DC, but ACT is treated more like a state than DC is.) San Francisco is just a city/county, a part of a state. Gavin Newsom acted in violation of state law; ACT passed a law, but the law was held to be unconstitutional by the High Court (equivalent to the US Supreme Court), since it conflicted with federal legislation. 101.164.1.138 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Redefinition

I have an issue with the text of the same-sex marriage page. One sentence said that "The legalization of same-sex marriage is characterized as "redefining marriage" by many opponents.[6][7][8]" Redefining marriage is not a characterization, it is what you do. Arizona defines marriage as a man and a woman. If we were to legalize same-sex marriage, what is actually being done? The definition of a marriage would have to be changed to "two persons". So, redefining marriage is not a characterization, it is literally what you do to legalize same-sex marriage. It is a fact, not a characterization of opponents.Patsfanrob (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, not all laws surrounding marriage have definitions of marriage; they may have legal limitations. If we change to law to say, for example, that second cousins are now not allowed to marry, that is seen as a change in the legal recognitions of marriage, not in definition. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

Today, May 22nd 2014, the State of Pennsylvania legalized gay marriage. 24.0.230.4 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC) [2]

It was yesterday and it's already in the article. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It was the day before yesterday according to CNN. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map USA

Hey, since this article predominately touches on same-sex marriage rather than same-sex partnerships in general, could we switch the current partnership map for the United States with this map File:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.png? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I don't understand. That image is already in the article, at Same-sex marriage#United States. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a little impatient and made a bold edit. --Prcc27 (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dralwik: Well it wasn't contested on this talk page. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait three days at least and see if anything bubbles up. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait three days. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I didn't revert you. I was in the middle of an edit. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw Prcc27's added images a couple days ago when I was away from the computer. We don't need multiple similar images. Let the comprehensive, current map stay, leave Prcc27's gutted map out. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Non-sexual same-sex marriage Several traditional societies in Africa have traditionally allowed non-sexual marriage between two women"

Do we know for a fact that none of these relationships ever have a sexual component? I will believe that many do not, but it seems a great leap to say none of them are ever sexual. Given we know that GLBT people exist in all societies, lesbian and bisexual women must exist in these cultures also; if the culture offers marriage between women as an option, it would seem likely that lesbian and bisexual women would be drawn to seek out and take advantage of that option, even while heterosexual women might also do it for other reasons. Given that, I don't think we can honestly call this "non-sexual same-sex marriage", since we don't know for a fact that every case of it is non-sexual, and it seems very likely that at least some cases of it are sexual in nature. 101.164.1.138 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In the end it does not matter if the couples have sex or no sex. Under the law they are married differently. Also wikipedia does not care about facts. It only cares about what reliable sources say, while being notable and following N:POV. Inserting that these people might be having sex or something similar would also be WP:OR based on just random speculation. NathanWubs (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Do reliable sources say that all these relationships are "non-sexual" ? Or is that an interpretation being imposed by a Wikipedia editor with an agenda? As to your statement "Under the law they are married differently", can you cite the law to which you refer? 101.164.1.138 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The claims of the article are not supported by the sources it cites. It call these relationships "non-sexual", but the Leo Igbwe source it cites makes clear that their character as sexual or non-sexual cannot be ascertained: "Because of the secrecy, privacy and hypocrisy that go with sexual expression, no one can really say, if these female partners have or do not have sex with each other." 101.164.1.138 (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me put a bit more simple to you. Are you just hear to rant, or are you actually wanting to make a suggestion to improve the article? That preferable would be backed up by reliable sources, instead of your speculation. As talk sections are not for ranting but actual improvement to articles. NathanWubs (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit pointless, no? It's like going to great lengths that a 'parents and children live in a non-sexual relationship'. It's not necessary to state that because the whole idea of parents and children is one of child-rearing, not of sex. Of course there are some abominable people who do, but we don't need to therefore frame the definition of parentage around that because that's just some deviation from the general idea of the concept. Similarly, the general idea of these marriages seems to me to be one of mutual support, not of a formalised homosexual relationship. So the question of whether some of these couples actually do have sex is really not the point. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is being suggested..? --Prcc27 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't even have a proposal. 101.164.1.138 seems to suggest we call it something like Non-sexual same-sex marriage which may or may not involve sex if the people in question decide to have some anyway Akerbeltz (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

How about, just plain old "same sex marriage". We can note, as the Igbwe source does, that the degree of sexual component these relationships have is unclear, but calling them "non-sexual" is overly conclusive. 101.164.1.138 (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that would be mis-interpeting sources which is not allowed. We do not deal with truth, speculation or anything like that. We Deal with what sources say. And sources call is none-sexual marriage. It does not matter what actually happens in these marriages. Heck that is not even the scope of this article. you would need to make an article about none-sexual marriage. And then you need to find sources that support your speculation. NathanWubs (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please quote a source that calls it that. There are no direct quotes from any sources in the article in support of the point you say they make. 101.164.1.138 (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm with NathanWubs on just go with the cites. If mentions generally call it 'non-sexual', and general situation is it's just a marriage in paper for inheiritance law reasons then go with calling it that. Besides, consider that the space due something that's both hypothetical and small proportion and not major impact to situation either way should be equally tiny -- and a tenth or a hundredth of the couple of lines for that para is just too tiny to put in. Markbassett (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

But do mentions generally call it that? The section cites 3 sources - a (deleted yet archived) newspaper opinon column that doesn't call it that, a deleted and not archived UN webpage (no idea what it said) and a book I don't have in front of me. None of these sources are quoted, and it is questionable whether the newspaper column is a reliable source. If someone can please quote reliable sources which explicitly call these relationships "non-sexual", fair enough, but no one has. 101.164.1.138 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the very term "Non-sexual same-sex marriage" is WP:OR. With quotes, only 16 ghits, most of which are derived from this Wikipedia article, and the others don't seem to be WP:RS. With quotes, no Google books nor Google scholar references. Without quotes, there are lots of hits, but many seem to be talking about other things - e.g. "non-sexual marriage" is used in reliable sources to discuss sexless opposite-sex marriages. Whether or not reliable sources discuss this concept, they certainly don't use this term - it is the invention of a Wikipedia editor. As such, I suggest the term be stricken. 101.164.1.138 (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A problem with the definition of same sex marriage

The definition in the first paragraph: "...between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity" doesn't seem exact: it implies that a marriage between a biological male and biological female with the same gender identity is a "same sex marriage" too.

But such a case is allowed everywhere, not just in some countries.

To avoid confusion and remain coherent with the rest of the content, it should read simply "same biological sex", without reference to "and/or gender identity". Bardoligneo (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This is addressed in section 5.2 of the article (though the section appears out of date with respect to the UK). There are jurisdictions which recognize a transgender individual's gender identity without allowing same-sex marriage, and therefore such individuals cannot marry people of the same gender identity, even though they can marry people of the same biological sex. Even if that weren't the case, there are social aspects to marriage as well, so a marriage between a trans woman who is biologically male and a cis woman is still a same-sex (or more properly in such a case same-gender) marriage for many purposes.--Trystan (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with {{u|Trystan]].--Mark Miller (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see. A definition that covers all the cases and relevant aspects could be something like "marriage between two people of the same [biological or] legally recognized sex". Bardoligneo (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Two people

@Mark Miller: said "No. Two people are a marriage" when I removed the "two people" reference in the article. Umm... it's not up to you to define marriage and quite frankly, I'm offended by that statement. What about polygamist partners..? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It is also not up to you to define marriage. I am not concerned with you taking offense by the revert. I am more concerned that you don't understand what "marriage" is. You offer no source for your change and frankly, I don't believe there is one to confirm that there are marriages in any of the countries we are concerned with here to show that there are actual marriages of gay people that include more than two.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly South Africa, It isn't criminalized there. Also, what is "marriage"? Some people might argue same-sex marriage isn't marriage. The "two people" reference is unnecessary especially since one day same-sex polygamy may become fully legal in a jurisdiction. Furthermore, a same-sex marriage does not require that the there be two spouses of the same-sex. If there was a marriage between more than two people of the same sex that would still be considered a same-sex marriage, right..? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a debate forum. You can debate what you "believe" all you want elsewhere. But here, either have supporting references or do not add original research. Marriage is simply a legal recognition of two people joined as a couple.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what marriage is; the "two people" reference is unnecessary: it doesn't clarify anything! Also, please note that marriage doesn't have the "two people" reference in the lede... I'm not necessarily saying that automatically means we shouldn't have it here, but we certainly can survive without it. How does keeping the "two people" reference benefit the article..? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not support the change. I have made myself clear. Gather any reference you can locate and attempt to gain consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. South Africa - there are two laws of marriage in South Africa: marriage under Roman-Dutch law (civil marriage), and marriage under African customary law (customary marriage). Civil marriage includes same-sex couples but requires monogamy; customary marriage allows polygamy (for those ethnic groups where it is the custom) but no ethnic group allows same-sex marriage in its customary law. So there are no same-sex polygamous marriages legally recognized in South Africa. - htonl (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Question - Are there any countries where civil marriage is not between only two parties? To the best of my knowledge, there are none. It would seem appropriate to describe civil marriage in its current mainstream state: between two individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, but there are polygamous marriages.

I don't see why we can't replace "two people" with "spouses"... Prcc27 (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

BRD. Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a bold edit, I reverted and now we are discussing the edit. You are asking for "point of view" changes. This is your point of view and is not a part of any source or reference.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to inform me on what's going on.. I know we are discussing the edit, and what I'm saying is that "two people" isn't as clear as "spouses" because people might take that as saying that same-sex marriage is only possible for monogamous same-sex couples and that same-sex polygamous partners can't form same-sex marriage. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Have a look at the "Recognized under civil law" list (and some of the others) in {{LROP}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Too complex timetable -> Make it simpler and more clear

The overwiew with the timetable on this English wikipedia site for same-sex marriage is very complex. The German wikipedia site for same-sex marriage uses simple and clear tables to show the development. I think that would be better for the English wikipedia site too. Standarddeviation (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Luxembourg

Hi,

Can someone add Luxembourg into the timeline? On June 19th parliament has overwhelmingly voted in favour of same-sex marriage and this will be effected 6 months after official publication. Luxembourg could be added in the same section as Scotland, with a expected date of January 2015.

Thanks!

The decision in the chamber od deputies of Luxembourg was on June 18th, not on June 19th. There were 56 votes for same-sex marriage and 4 votes against. The law will come into force on January 1st 2015, which a member of the government confirmed to me. Standarddeviation (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Has it been approved by the Council of State though..? --Prcc27 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: From the article: "Now, it awaits the consent of the Council of State" --Prcc27 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need the CoS's approval. The CoS in Luxembourg has an advisory role, must be informed of new laws and may check new proposals to see if they conform with the constitution before the Chamber may vote on them but once past that point, it has no role in approving or preventing laws. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And as I said in the edit summary, this is already mentioned in the article with a citation.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It does need consent by the Council of State, even though it's a formality just like promulgation by the Grand Duke is. Please read my explanation at Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Luxembourg. Previous practice is to mark same-sex marriage as being legalized after final assent/signature has been given, which is not yet the case. SPQRobin (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky ruling

Does this [3] mean it automatically becomes legal? Not familiar with US law. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No; the ruling is "stayed", which means that the opponents are given a chance to try to file an appeal to the ruling; if they don't, or if the appeal fails, then it becomes legal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Akerbeltz (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nayarit

So its same sex marriage legal in this Mexican state or not ?http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2014/07/08/declaran-inconstitucional-prohibir-matrimonio-gay-en-nayarit .--Allan120102 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Utah

The Same-sex marriage in Utah page states that on June 25 this was upheld and that it is now legal in Utah. Had a look around but it looks to me like it was stayed [4]. Or am I misreading this? Akerbeltz (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Australia

The Hight Court of Australia has said that they will overrule the ACT law and that same sex marriages will be annuled in five days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBS1313 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 12 December 2013‎

Queensland does not have civil unions. The state's Labor government introduced them at the end of 2011, but the Liberal National government immediately removed the legislation when they took power a few months later. Queensland has a registered partnership. The map should reflect that.

Civil union, registered partnership... it's the same thing with a different name, in many countries around the world, isn't it? Titanicophile (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

two more Native American tribal jurisdictions for the timeline

please add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions#Mashantucket_Pequot & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions#The_Puyallup_Tribe_of_Indians 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

4th circuit

As far as I can tell (cf NC Same-sex_marriage_in_North_Carolina#State.27s_defense) none of the 4th circuit states are intending to defend the struck down ban on GM. Based on previous discussions, that has immediate effect, no? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No. The Virginia Bostic case is very much alive, even if the state itself is not defending its ban on same-sex marriage, others are. It's not well covered on WP at present. See what the losing attorneys are saying about plans to go forward HERE. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The clerk in the Virginia case as stated they will defend the law, but also the AG has said he'll file a cert petition to the supreme court(but not actually defend the ban himself), so the ruling will be appealed regardless of a stay. It is up to the 10th circuit whether to stay the ruling following the release of the court mandate, the final stage of proceedings at the 10th. The ruling has no effect til then. However even if the 10th circuit does not stay the ruling, it will only immediately affect Virginia. While the 10th circuit has jurisdiction over the other states, their bans must all be struck down individually. Of course, federal judges must heed precedents from higher courts, so it is difficult to see how the judges overseeing the cases in NC, SC and WV can do anything but strike down those bans based on what their superiors have ruled. They could however delay their cases until the Supreme Court rules.

The article you quoted was regarding North Carolina and it's ban. The state will no longer defend it's ban, and the AG has pretty much told the judges that it what they should do, but no ruling on the NC ban has yet been made and so it is still in effect regardless of what the 10th does. South Carolina will be defending their ban. West Virginia is complicated, but someone will be defending. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Remind me never to move to the US. What a system... Akerbeltz (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Civil Law - Civil Rights/Abrahamic - religious and Secular POV as to what constitutes marriage vs Neutral POV.

This article is primarily covering Civil Law and the Civil Rights that flow from Civil Law regarding same-sex unions. It is a bit of a red herring to mix, match and compare Civil Law with mainstream Abrahamic religions [Judaism, Christianity and Islam], the variations on the subject among them and/or wholly Secular POV's with Civil Law. In the United States, anyway, these are, and rightly ought to be, separated one from the other. Thereby, offering respect, dignity and objectivity to all parties and the article maintaining a neutral POV vs attempts at advocacy or "demonization" of one understanding vs another in violation of Wikipedia principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrityandhonesty (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Conceptions of SSM are not wholly secular, nor are they strictly related to legal marriage. There are social and religious conceptions of SSM. These aspects aren't covered particularly well in the current article, but shouldn't be excluded from the scope.--Trystan (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. The vast majority of this Article's content and scope is speaking to the legal aspects of same-sex unions [specifically - same-sex/gender identity couples in monogamous, life long commitments in fidelity one to the other] in the realm of Civll Law and the Civil Rights that flow from it, that is to say, ordinances Municipal, County and Regional, legislative [both Sate and Federal] and Constitutionality, not to mention - international variations. It is not suggested here [by myself] SSM is uniquely a Secular notion as stated and made clear above. The Article discusses individual, psychological, familial, social and economic aspects? It does so, secondarily. The challenge here is to maintain objectivity and neutrality as required by Wikipedia.

This Article does not attempt to define marriage. And, perhaps, it's best it does not as it is beyond its scope. It does presume, however, a universal understanding as same-sex marriage is between two people; therefore, a germane definition is in place and presumed. Yet, marriage is clearly a cultural notion that has varied in understanding in time and place throughout history and remains so today. What is marriage to one is not to another for a range of reasons: cultural/social and religious. And, it is here where neutrality becomes challenging.

The concepts of dissenters are not treated here with neutrality as evidence - in part - by somewhat bias language and use of language in the lead. For example, placing quotation marks around the phrase redifining marriage in the lead, thereby, implicating this position lacks credibility. Or, referring to those who hold this position as "opponents" rather than a neutral use of language, such as, "dissenters", or simply the phrase "some" or "many" hold this position. The use of the word "opponents" is to suggest the Article takes a position one way or another, which, again, violates neutrality and objective discussion of the facts as they are. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Supporters" and "opponents" are neutral words and do not imply bias in either direction. If I wrote about, for example, "opponents of the death penalty" would you really assume that meant I was pro-death-penalty? I don't think so. - htonl (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, it can been viewed this way - of course. In legal neutral terms? The standard language is: advocacy and dissent. Not supporter and opponent. Supporter and Opponent is political language by their nature; therefore, lacking and detracting from objectivity. And, we all understand placing quotational marks on the phrase - redefining marriage - has negative implications, while that sentence does not offer the core dissent as religious as is predominately the case in fact.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that advocacy and dissent is the standard language? "Dissent" implies disagreement with a prevailing majority idea; SSM legalisation is certainly not a prevailing majority idea from a worldwide perspective. "Supporters" and "opponents" aren't political language; they are just as commonly used in sports, for example.

I really don't care that much about the quotes around "redefining marriage". If you want to change that sentence to "The legalization of same-sex marriage is characterized by many opponents as a redefinition of marriage," I'd be fine with it. - htonl (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem with that sentence is that it doesn't really belong there. It's phrased as if it were an alternative term for the topic, but isn't bolded because it isn't one. The other non-neutral alternative terms are appropriately bolded, making the use-mention distinction clear. Here, there is no reason to bold it, so it just comes across as an out of place random thought (with or without scare quotes). The appropriateness of the placement of that sentence has been questioned before.--Trystan (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

it is not a personal claim per se - it's the language used in our Courts in the United States to distinguish positions put forward one from the other. In Federal Supreme Court decisions, for example, the language is:position and dissent from a position. Not - supporter and opponent. It is correct, as you point to, that dissent is a separation from a majority opinion regarding one or several positions, in a manner of speaking. The key word here is: opinion, or POV.

Supporter and Opponent is "charged-up" language and most commonly used for political purposes, thereby, lending themselves to an atmosphere of "us vs. them - winner takes all' context as contrasted to objectively putting forward positions in as neutral a context as possible so that factual information is not lost in the 'noise'. Perhaps, it is better to state positions vs. supporter/opponent or advocate/dissent. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Htonl that support/oppose are more neutral. I rarely hear advocate or dissenter as a neutral description of a person, and certainly we do not all speak like SCOTUS lawyers. To take the court argument, the paradigm of a hearing and the case around it is in fact highly charged. Also, "dissent", as Htonl says, applies more to minorities, e.g. Chinese dissidents, than majority opinion holders, such as anti-SSM people in, say, Uganda. Support/oppose is a simple, neutral statement of opinion. BethNaught (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Trying to use "dissent" in this context would be confusing. Merriam-Webster defines it as "to publicly disagree with an official opinion, decision, or set of beliefs". As such, supporters of same-sex marriage are actually the dissenters in most places where the question is legally in play; they are dissenting from the official opinion as voiced by law. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dissent is too specific to a particular context of majority vs minority POV. So, it's problematic. It does seem helpful to use the word: position as opposed to support of or oppenent to, thereby, freeing up language to be more precise and neutral. "Pro and Anti" are also exceptionally political "muscled up" words and should be avoided here Integrityandhonesty (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit you made is not much of an improvement. The WP:Article title title and WP:Alternative titles in the WP:Lead should be bolded, per MOS:Bold. How is "by those who hold this position" better than "particularly by supporters"? And "regarded by some" is WP:Weasel wording; it should be clear who holds that view. "Many opponents" is more accurate. And while the term many can also be a WP:Weasel word, it is appropriate in this case. Also, don't mark edits like that as WP:Minor. WP:Minor is not for additions like that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted: it wasn't an improvement, consensus was not achieved, and I honestly don't believe it became more neutral, just wordier and more unspecific. W.r.t. the minor marking, I left a message on their talk but they're still doing it. BethNaught (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems there is confusion here. One editor already agreed the quotations over the phrase - redefining marriage - is unwarranted or less than neutral. The language of supporter and opposition is clearly politicized language, however. Or, we could just simply drop those words altogether? Just what is wrong with the phrase "position of some/or many"? This seems to meet the test of neutrality. These are minor edits to improve neutrality - not adding of new substantive data. But, if you insist? Very well. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:MINOR, "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." If you feel that is the case, clearly you are underestimating the ability of the edits to be the subject of dispute. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, consensus is essential - agreed - while it seems - to me - "belief" of a single editor or handful can have little to do with objective fact as any social scientist will share. To suggest at the very start, as this Article does, that any and every edit [minor or not] must meet consensus through the Talk page can be an attempt at censorship rather than authentic consensus and legitimate request for an RS citation and so on. One persons minor edit is another's major. We honor this of course, but at some point, minor is minor and major is major. Yes?

To silence/suppress legitimate credible positions already cited as in note 7 of the lead [lede] is evidence of this current faulty editing. Intentional or not. Or, suggesting the last sentence of the first paragraph be deleted altogether is as well. To frame the lead [lede] in the context of "supporters vs opponents" can very well be seen as politicizing the topic rather than approaching it from a neutral point of view. It is not Weasel language to substitute this charged language with, "the position of some". It's a legitimate compromise that does not take away the meaning or detract from the varying views. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Post-protection editing break

There is too much edit-and-revert going on at the article: there are 6 such edit/revert pairs in the last 36 hours, so WP:BRD has been ignored five times. When there is ongoing discussion, it is bad practice to pre-empt the outcome of the discussion: I see discussion above, but not consensus. Nobody has yet violated WP:3RR, but one or two people are close to that. Accordingly, I've given the article a one-week full prot. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose64 for your input. This effort - initiated by myself - is to bring to the attention of fellow Editor's concerns regarding Neutrality. On the whole? This Article is sound;however, the challenge is primarily regarding the use of language in the lead [lede].

To place the Article in the context of "Supporters vs Opposition" is normally reserved for political use and context. Therefore, it runs the risk of becoming politicized and Neutrality is lost. What is proposed, and discerned thus far, is the neutral language customarily used in many Articles: "some/many hold to" or "the position of some/many is". Whether one agrees with a position is besides [outside] Neutrality.

Readers are entitled to a concise presentation of the facts as they are. Not attempts at advocacy or demonization of any position. The second, is the placing of quotations marks on the phrase: redefining marriage. We all know and understand this places this position in a negative light as incredulous and/or in the pejorative sense; thereby Neutrality is lost. To simply state, "There is reason for this", lacks merit without offering a reason why or what is the "reason".

So, I look forward to collaborating with fellow Editors to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrityandhonesty (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

While neutrality is a goal we should aim for here, your specific suggestion of using the words "some/many" are against the manual of style, because they are weasel words that are "aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated". Using the words "supporter/opposer" is more specific, and they do not inherently display a political opinion. You claim that the word "supporters" suggests that such people are in the right; but for example, Conservapedia's article on SSM, a site strongly against it, says that "recent polls indicate that more than half of Americans support [SSM]", and this is not meant in a complimentary way. The way people parse "supporter/opposer" depends on their own beliefs and is not hard-wired into the language, or not at least in this case. BethNaught (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Integrityandhonesty: Saying that "some people" use an alternative term doesn't convey anything; we could just say it is an alternative term and leave it at that. The reason we mention equal marriage is used specifically by supporters is precisely because we are clarifying that it is a non-neutral term. We mention that term and provide its context, but we don't use it in Wikipedia's voice.

Similarly, we should absolutely not use the loaded phrase redefining marriage in Wikipedia's voice. The lead paragraph should define the topic and clarify terminology. The point of the redefining marriage sentence is emphatically not to make the first substantive thing the article says about SSM to be that it is viewed as redefining marriage, though it currently reads that way.--Trystan (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BethNaught and Trystan. Understood regarding Weasel "words/phrases". In many Articles the phrase 'some/many hold" is used.

It seems it has become customary to maintain neutrality. Though not strictly holding to the style manual? It holds to its purpose and intent. With that? Not certain how "some/many hold to" followed by the stated position conveys "nothing". The position is what is conveyed. Now, can Weasel words and phrases be used in the text of a sated position which conveys nothing? Absolutely, we've all seen this. So, the point 'nothing" is conveyed seems to falls short.

The use of terms equal marriage or marriage equality are not at all problematic. Nor, did I state it was a concern regarding neutrality. In fact, it is legitimately useful. It brings to light what the position is concisely and directly. Just as directly and concisely does the alternative position state it is a redefinition of marriage, which also is not problematic. It is a stated position. Neutrality is not about everyone agreeing with a position. It is about an unbiased presentation of the facts as they are free of politics, agendas or ulterior motives of a topic regardless of one agrees or not. So . . . . . can we proceed?

My concerns have been stated so I wish not to waste your time and mine by repeating it. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not customary, it's policy. In any case: it seems the question is whether to replace "supporters/opponents" with "some/others". Laying aside the MoS, I just don't think it's an improvement, as it sounds more vague. Also, as I thought Trystan conveyed well (apparently not clearly enough...) the words are useful. Who is it who calls it marriage equality? Supporters in particular. Who calls it redefining marriage? Many opponents. That is a clear fact. I honestly don't understand why you think "some" is an improvement and I suspect you will not get consensus for this change. BethNaught (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We're at a crossroads it seems on the use of language. Some see the context of "Supporters and Opponents" as neutral. Whereas, some - perhaps many - see it as introducing politics into the text. This is how "some/many" works when used authentically and in good faith as it is in other Articles. And, in this instance there is a bit of nuance that allows for either. Not certain the interpretation of Wikipedia policy presented here is being properly applied in its intent to maintain or improve clarity and neutrality. The use of some/many as a Weasel word is reference to numerical slight of hand to deceive people of the size of a population referenced. This is not the case here. It is to proceed a stated position supported with an existing RS citation. So be it.

There is still the concern regarding the quotations on the phrase: redefining marriage. Is this too neutral use of language/syntax?Integrityandhonesty (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a very weasly use of "some - perhaps many"; it is being used to suggest many without actually making a statement that would be sourced. And given that in this case the "some" appears to be "one".

The quotes are used around "redefining marriage" not with the intent of scare quotes, but to indicate that this is actual specific phrasing being used; given that it's a short phrase, it might be rephrased to used italics under MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Itleg shouldn't be bolded because the folks using it seem to be saying that "same-sex marriage" is an example of redefining marriage, rather than the two terms being synonymous. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So now we can't update the article for Coahuila..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: If that wasn't a rhetorical question, see Template:Edit protected and Wikipedia:Edit requests. BethNaught (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@BethNaught: It wasn't rhetorical; thank you! Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello NatGertler - It is merely an example of authentic use of the word/phrase. The words/phrases themselves are not categorically Weasel words/phrases. It's about the context in which they are used as well. This lead [lede] of the Article is not addressing how many hold to a position, but rather, affirm these positions exist in fact. And, they are both already supported by existing RS citations. An example is already present in the lead [lede]. The 3rd paragraph begins, quote, " Some analysts state that . . . " Is this Weaseling, or authentic use with supporting RS citation? This can always be improved, of course. Your suggestions with regard to "redefine marriage" are - in my view - sound and worthwhile and contribute to neutrality.

There is not an imperative these positions be labeled as Supporters or Opponents to share the notions put forward. And, seems at risk of becoming political rather than communal sharing of the facts as they stand on their own.

A sample of how this can be achieved is: "Legalization of same sex marriage is also known as equal marriage or marriage equality." Stop. It's a logical and rational supposition supporters/advocates use this language. As for the redefining marriage position? The following can be stated. "An alternative view holds same-sex marriage is a redefinition of marriage." Stop. Neither is presuming how many, etc. and the essential information is shared with supporting RS citations - which already exist - while avoiding the slippery slope of politicization, divisive language and improve and maintain neutrality.

Trystan also offers a valid insight. Should the last two sentences even be there? The Article should limit itself to discussing what is same sex marriage, and its history [non-legal/political] as its title 'Same Sex Marriage' states and suggests. Or, its title reflect the content as it is: 'The Legal and Political Aspects of Same Sex Marriage'. This too can be accomplished via two separate Articles that are linked. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you want to strip the article of information. The fact that the certain terminology is used by those seeking to advance certain views is important context, and should not be ignored. And since the title is not Same-sex marriage except for how it is situated in the law and politics, I see no reason that such information needs to be divorced from this article; even if there were articles on those topics spun off for space, they should be at least summarized here. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so we should not be limited to explaining what something is, and it would be a rather artificial division to remove the political and legal from its history. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your sincere and thoughtful response, NatGertler. The statement, "those seeking to advance certain views" [ I presume both "pro and con"] is challenging when the standard is neutrality. Not impossible - but a challenge.

An Article then is at risk of becoming a donor subsidized advocacy blog/Op-Ed rather than the attainment, maintenance and promotion of objective knowledge which is what an encyclopedia is intended to be. Unless, all views are welcomed in good faith, offered their "space" and no one is demonized or treated in a dismissive/pejorative fashion by overt or subtle means. Neutrality is not about agreeing with one another. It's about offering dignity and respect to all of good will and legitimacy while sharing knowledge. There is concern here that this is not really happening as it should - and consistently - namely in the lead.

This is not about "striping" the Article of information. It's about clarity and neutrality. The Title is, "Same Sex Marriage". The Title should reflect its content. The content here currently offers little in the way of sharing what is Same Sex Marriage and is nominal. On the other hand, the Politics and Laws on the topic dominate content here. There is nothing wrong with sharing the Politics and Laws of Same Sex Marriage, but the Title should reflect that so readers are aware what they will be learning and what to expect. A Title would be more accurate as, "Laws and Politics of Same Sex Marriage", or "History of Same Sex Marriage and the Law." The later actually offers the freedom to use political language legitimately Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Just no. In a discussion of same sex marriage, it is important to discuss the legal, political and social context. Nobody is being demonised by the lead, it is factually accurate and I honestly do not understand how you think it is non neutral. I don't think any further discussion of this point will be productive. BethNaught (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for casting your "vote" BethNaught. Don't recall stating its not important to have the legal, social and political aspects of SSM on Wikipedia. It's about clarity and neutrality as required by Wikipedia specifically to this Title and Article lead [lede]. First, a Title should reflect its content. And, an Article lead [lede] sets the context and scope of the Article body based on its Title.

This Article is not only an objective exhortation of what is Same Sex Marriage as the Title suggests and states. It's at least inaccurate and possibly sophistical now. It may have started as an objective resource of what is SSM - but has evolved in time to much beyond that; in fact, it is an objective fact - very little is actually speaking to what is SSM and is overwhelmingly speaking to its social, political and the law as the Article lead [lede] currently sets this context disjointed/divorced from the Title. And, if this is an objective sharing of the law and politics on the subject? There is precious little in the way of alternative views on the subject in the body, which also challenges clarity, objectivity and neutrality based on the Title, but that may be a matter of the mix of Editors and not germane to the point. It has already been stated what indicates the faulty editing with regard to less than objective/neutral use of language. They should be addressed if maintaining neutrality is the goal. The Title should - and realistically - change now to reflect the content accurately. As suggested, the Title, "History of Same Sex Marriage and the Law" encompass the social, legal and political in a wholly appropriate, respectful and accurate manner that reflects the reality of the content allowing for the content that exist without further separation of the Article into others.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate in further discussion of this content change because it's going nowhere and it's getting tedious and there is no consensus for it. If you still want a content change, it won't happen; if however you want to change the title I suggest you file a move request per WP:RM/CM. For the record, I oppose it, therefore it is not uncontroversial, therefore a discussion is required.

Be aware that borderline WP:WALLS of text are often not appreciated and often not read and that all your paragraphs must be indented using colons. The past couple of times I've been fixing them for you. BethNaught (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You've made your position clear enough and is honored - of course. Thus far only 4 Editors are discussing this, including myself. So - agreed consensus is not even likely to take place given so modest participation. Thank you for correcting my text here. In the same spirit? An Article lead [lede] is to be composed of 3 to 4 concise paragraphs. The current lead is 5. This too should be corrected. We do not agree - and that's fine. Valid points are being made here. Some Editors can choose to ignore "agenda creep" and erosion of clarity and neutrality . But, I choose not to. Not an easy choice to make as it's often unpopular to point out faults. Reaction thus far speaks poorly though to a willings to adjust and address sincere efforts to maintain objective reality and neutrality. Instead of offering, " I see some of what you're pointing out is valid." We're getting less than that Integrityandhonesty (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You may want to reflect on the fact that you've gotten no one to go along with the central thrust of your edits (and there have been more editors involved than what you claim). Take that as a reason to, rather than cast yourself as a hero (the other people involved have also been willing to point out faults, but in this case they've been faults with your edits), take the time to question not only your strategy, but your goal. Now excuse me, I've got to go change the article Abraham Lincoln so that it just reads "Abraham Lincoln is a corpse", and move the rest of the article to The history and politics of Abraham Lincoln. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The time to reflect is long past. The time to reflect is before one acts - not after. It was anticipated this would be the response and is no surprise at all. The surprise would have been a genuine offer of collaboration and an openness to an earnest critique. This response, ultimately, proves the point raised and its "thrust" perfectly and sadly. And, it's a shame.

The Article Same-sex marriage in the United States has no quotations over the phrase:redefine marriage, in some borderline dubious manner/style or use of language such as: "characterized" to describe the position. It plainly states the position. Though it too uses "Supporter vs Opposition" its over all use is much more neutral and up to Wikipedia standards while offering alternative views rationally and factually. And, yes, like the 3rd paragraph of the lead [lede] here? It uses "some and many" authentically . This Article on the other hand? Rather than assisting to "advance certain views"? If this trend continues and grows? Certainly it will do more harm than good in the long run. It will become increasingly clear objectivity, clarity and neutrality has been approached in a cavalier fashion and tainted with obvious subjectivity and a very lopsided over all POV; thereby, credibility will be lost. Once lost? It is nearly impossible to regain. So, I fail to see any room for humor here; the honorable Abe Lincoln aside. In fact, the opposite. So, I offer thanks for your patience, time and effort. It is my hope some ideas presented will be considered and applied going forward. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Coahuila

Please update the status of Coahuila. On September 1, 2014, Congress approved reforms in its Civil Code to make marriage in the state gender-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.202.181.243 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but this wiki have it wrong with QR because every newspaper I have read it only says that only Mexico DF and Coahuila have same sex marriage. Quintana roo marriages were possible because of an amparo, and if we let that pass we should then color all the states that have marriage by amparos and I am against that.I am providing two links that support my point so QR should change from dark blue to light blue. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Mexicos-Northern-State-Approves-Same-Sex-Marriage-20140902-0011.html http://www.sdpnoticias.com/gay/2014/09/01/aprueba-coahuila-matrimonio-civil-igualitario.--Allan120102 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I request that Coahuila be added to the date unspecified part of the timeline. I don't know Quintana roo's situation... Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am serious someone need to change QR more news that only Mexico city have ssm. So I request a change of map because many people come in here and get confuse. I will do it myself but I am not sure how . http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/northern-mexico-state-approves-sex-marriage-25222703 .--Allan120102 (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Allan120102: Here's a source [5]. Now can we discuss Coahuila..? Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27:That is of 2012. I have friends in Mexico and they told me that the status of QR is what NM had before the state supreme court legalize ssm, so even though ssm is not illegal is not legal either so marriages cannot start unless the legislature of the state acts. The only form you can get married is by amparos so I really believe QR should be strip of its dark color only living Coahuila and Mexico city. I agree with your proposition on adding Coahuila to the timeline. Some say the law takes effect next week but is nothing conclusive. --Allan120102 (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Allan120102: In that case it should be made a ring or striped. Just so you know, on the world maps New Mexico was solid blue even though it was only legal in select counties (I was opposed to that). Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: No I mean its like NM before counties start granting licences. QR in its constitution does not prohibit but it also do not permit ssm. the only other way is by granting amparos like what happen in the other states.At the moment base on all information QR should have a ring but not be color blue. We need to clear this as soon as possible because many people come here in the wiki and they might get confuse.--Allan120102 (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Requests

Add Coahuila, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Broward County, Florida to the marriage equality timeline as unspecified date. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Colombia Marriage Situation Misrepresented

In the "National debates" section there is a mention to a union from july of 2013 "that is not matrimony" indeed it was not, anyhow since september of the same year there have been other cases already protected by higher courts with the word "marriage", that you can find in these links: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/judges-allow-first-same-sex-marriages-colombia011013 , http://blabbeando.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/same-sex-couples-marry-in-colombia.html#.VAp6r_l5OSr and this one in Spanish http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/vivir/matrimonio-igualitario-un-hecho-articulo-449264 , the fact is that those marriages are registered and recognized by the Colombian State, it should be represented at some point, perhaps a brief mention in this article because there is a certainty that Judges are performing marriages using the 2011 Contitutional Court ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bor989 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely a case of NONE, SOME and ALL authorities granting marriage licenses for gay couples, and in Colombia there are Some. ALL is not true and will ignore the fact that gay couples face dificulties to get married, saying NONE ignores the reality the couples are married. So this SOME should be considered by you editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bor989 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

you got this news story, right?

Today's SCOTUS denial of certiorari. http://www.wtop.com/319/3716613/High-court-denies-gay-marriage-appeals 71.163.117.143 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Estonia

G'day everyone, I think it should be considered to review the paragraphs related to these news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29559012 . -- Torne (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Torne. I've added it ... though it may be re-classified as a 'civil partnership', the article is not very clear on that, it uses both terms. It seems that the only difference to 'marriage' is the lack of adoption rights though if it grants adoption if the couple is infertile... well, assuming that refers the fertility of the people IN the relationship, that would be all of them? Not sure. Thoughts? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording at lede

Someone did put a [citation needed] tag in the very first sentence of the article, but I think they could have been bold and deleted the alleged disputable content. This article by and large deals with legal discrimination against and equalization for couples that are seen by the law as being of the same sex, so I think we should do away with both "biological sex" and "gender identity", replacing it with whatever fits "what your government regards you as being either X or Y".

We have intersex males, females and non-binary/genderqueer people, and trans male, trans female and genderqueer or non-binary trans dyadic people, at various degrees of recognition by multiple cultures and legal systems (most of them multiple times more wicked toward said groups than in regards to cisgender non-heteros, that are already largely discriminated against). There are multiple combinations of this with what cis people are already used to consider [ traditional standard vs new part of what's tolerable inside gender norms ]. Reading what a SSM might be, depending on such potentially conflicting characteristics (according to the way it is implied to be), will just make it further confusing.

Personally, it seems rather trans-exclusionary to me to regard this particular nonsense sex x gender divide, given how it implies science's and law's invalidation of inner gender identity through this social construct of "sex" that legitimizes your designated social role based on an arbitrary bodily binary (that establishes a given bodily function-focused pattern for an infinite spectrum regarding multiple levels of dimorphism-related corporeality) often at the sake of what you get to say about it, as something we should officially respect as one given adequate worldview. That's bad.

Let me explain. I can understand Wikipedia citing "biological sex" - a particular worldview - in its science-related articles based on a contemporary established consensus, that is to be cynically expected when it comes to academic fields historically dominated by dyadic cisgender people (particularly male ones), but not here. There's nothing exact about classifying people as F [ ] / M [ ], or F [ ] / M [ ] / N.A. - humans obviously don't work like this. "Biological sex" of the chromosomes, of the gonads, regarding the shape of genitalia, regarding endocrine gearing, regarding neurological wiring? They all are spectra that have at least a dozen of different possibilities (the last one has infinite variation... so that, if we were to take a certain so-called "neutral" standpoint, without needing to fit people into boxes [for the sake of simplicity... or social control that needs a fair amount of body and identity policing/pathologization], every single one of us could be their own micro-mini-"biological sex"), all are independent in status regarding each other, all are defined in different stages of development, and the three or four last could be ambiguous or "switched" in all humans ever, entirely depending on the course of the hormonal bath over pregnancy rather than a "perfect, intersex-proof" genetic code, as often people ignorantly think is what is related to such [at least oftentimes, non-pathological] conditions.

The point is, if we know that a diverse, science-based understanding of "sex" that is also affirmative of the people who despise the concept is not just possible but real, why would we need to legitimize the dominant one? We could just discuss the legal aspects, as this article is already concerned with to the most part. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that some editors took a WP:Too long, didn't read approach to your above comment in this section; I mean no disrespect by that. What I mean is that it's an approach I see often when it comes to a section that begins with three or more decent-sized paragraphs, and especially ones that begin with four or more. Moving on to the matter at hand: We should go by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight (WP:Due weight is an aspect of the WP:Neutrality policy; being neutral on Wikipedia means something entirely different than what it means in common discourse). Like I told you in the edit history of the Yaoi article in March of this year, WP:Activism should be left at the door. The sex and gender distinction exists, and it is a distinction that many intersex, and especially transgender, people go by; for example, when trying to explain the topic of gender identity being different than the how one's body is. This distinction is far more an intersex and transgender matter than a cisgender matter. Both "biological sex" and "gender identity" were cited in the lead before you changed the lead. So I don't see what exclusion of transgender people you are referring to in this case. Sure, the word "biological" was not needed, since, as we know by the existence of intersex and transgender people, biology is more complicated than just, for example, "You have a Y chromosome, so you're a male." But there's also the fact that, like I stated near the end of this section at the Transsexualism talk page, "Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter." The same applies to transgender people (at least when you exclude genderqueer people from the category of transgender); they usually identify as male or female and/or as a man or a woman. "I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article)."

That stated, the previous lead wording was unsourced. But so is yours. I tweaked your change here with regard to the WP:REFERS essay. And like I stated in that edit summary with a followup note here, your version currently includes a WP:EGG link...unless, of course, it can be demonstrated that people who type in "legal sex" will be looking for the Sex assignment article and/or unless that article is expanded to include explicit legal material regarding sex/gender assignment. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I object to the revised version on a few points:

• It greatly narrows the scope of the topic to be only about legal aspects of SSM. The coverage of social aspects in the article isn't yet what it could be, but it is an important part of the topic and shouldn't be excluded from the scope.
• By making it only about same-sex couples in the eyes of the law, it excludes some marriages with a trans partner from the scope of the article.
• It's much less clearly written and rather difficult to parse for a lead sentence.

I would support restoring the longstanding version while consensus is built on a revised version to address the issues raised by Srtª above.--Trystan (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long, I tried to make my response more compact but that was futile. Awfully futile. Edit: (+11,599)‎, this is a first...

@Flyer22, I wasn't trying to do activism, but rather to reduce systemic bias (especially given how often large pro-*minority group* discourses are not cited as major views in this place – even as minority ones –, when we get coverage of much more obscure information) – if I tried to be activist, the page sex assignment would be seriously altered as a whole to reflect my views of intersex people as everything but an ambiguous blurry non-classification of what cis-dyadic science can't explain according to its seemingly reasonable but actually problematic expectation of ~perfection as fully male or fully female~ – after all, as we people who are used to think of homosexuality as natural, shouldn't we regard what /works/ rather than what we /idealize/ as what is to be expected in biology? –, instead a fully normal part of our [at least] 5 distinct, isolated, possibly "conflicting" spectra of kaleidoscopic-like corporeality (genetic background + anatomy) possibilities, specifically what is represented in it as a [conditionally] pathologized core (and the associated lived experiences with such kind of institutionally-validated oppression), with vast internal discrepancies, arbitrarily classified as a group because people aren't willing to admit that their illusion of manhood/womanhood as something that starts from spermatozoa is pure bullshit. (Yes, I would go that far into throwing the jars around if I could.)

(Irrelevant info: I imply the belief in 2 sexes to be questionable, because there is a large number of people who believe it to be, too, a social construct – one that is validated by academia to such pervasive levels, it manages to dismiss the cited dissidence, and the exact reason why careful people should also construct heavy criticism of it if they're supposed to be truly affirmative of people who deviate from said established sex-gender norm, that is not just societal anymore, given how, as non-hetero cis dyadic folks should know very well, law and "science" are not always so neutral and can indeed be used to extreme extents to validate existing prejudices.)

Of course I know all this information is best left for social media (or Rational Wiki... maybe, if I wasn't lazy), given how getting "science" to back me is almost supposed to be hard – and that's a good reason for me to question its credibility, as there is "science" (or rather institutional power controlling it; I've seen it referred to as "biopoder" here) actually advocating for infant genital mutilation as ever valid, as far as I can tell in that very "sex assignment" article (unless my English skills are doubtful and I got it all wrong), what is many shades worse than my possibly questionable view of the world. You probably get the idea now, so actual comments on the issues you pointed out must now follow.

Going back to the point, yes, that Wikipedia has no single article commenting the sharp consequences of how legal sex designation affects people and that I needed to get an Easter Egg link because the only seemingly distant equivalent I found was on about, to the most part, how to identify an adequate gender identity as the choice for an intersex infant, is very problematic. Given how my view is not just existent, but it resonates a lot within both feminist (particularly the queer and trans flavors) AND intersex-affirmative politics, we should take care whether we talk about "sex" assignment – as in what governments generally regards the M/F system to be; not to be confused with intersex genital mutilation (that I don't even see being addressed as an important ethical/moral controversy, or the often alleged inaccuracies in the presentation of its virtues – e.g. internal testes being more cancer-proof than DFAB folks' breasts or something like that –, when Wikipedia got plenty of room for dyadic DMAB-related intactivism and dyadic DFAB-related FGV coverage) – and gender designation – as in our reading of people's corporeality for a multitude of social functions – as different stuff.

That people don't pay attention to how legal sex and societal gender are related (and "chosen"/chosen in the same circumstances) but also vastly differ in various aspects – e.g. some people raise [binary] trans children as their chosen gender role from early ages, maybe as early as 4 or 5, but they are the sole ones that can change their legal genders, in most places far after a decade from the start of their recognition by family/society, often at the sake of the alteration of their bodies as explicitly mandatory – is an issue. That people don't realize how 1) identifying legal sex/societal gender (something about sociology, law, etc.) and 2) what the corporeality spectra/spectrum/dimorphism actually is and is meant to influence (something about biology, neurology, maybe a bit of sociological/activist commentary), are relevantly divergent notions that need their own three different flavors each of social or specialist commentary, meaning different takes on our use of what others said, what most likely would ask for three different articles if someone actually got really into doing this right, is an even bigger issue.

Yes, most intersex and transgender people identify within one binary gender. Nevertheless, this article discusses something that is seen as new in society. Something that is binarized as meaning what was previously excluded, and now is increasingly fully included. In such a report, it is very likely that a binary approach to things will be taken, and some people might be erased. I preferred to not argue in favor of radically altering this mentioned report that has been construed here over the course of these many years, but rather to fully exclude gender out of it (because there are infinite genders and this is a private issue that is almost never discussed socially and never discussed legally so far – hint to my "as of 2014, limited to both male and both female" – unless the prospect of married third gender-only couples suddenly appear in India, and non-binary people were always erased from this debate – hell, people act like bisexuality [relevant given that serial monogamy exists] doesn't exist a lot in their take on the matter), and to stop this page from engaging in unnecessary validation of the construct of "biological sex", that I believe should be left out for the areas of Wikipedia that explicitly deal with natural sciences, given how 1) governments don't give a damn over anything other than what is written in legal documents, or changes in the scientific take on the definition of what constitutes the placing of who in a binarism that, given the minute number of countries willing to give us both marriage and adoption certificates, is seen as essential to the very structures of society, tradition, pardon the POV, all that stinky yadda yadda, and 2) haters opponents of same-sex marriage's opinions on transgender and intersex people as well as their legal recognition as such might not be among the most sensitive or receptive...

Over sources, the ones I gathered in my foolish excuse of a research only pass through slightly the subject of same-sex marriage being related to [specifically] legal sex, without limiting its definition, what I would believe would appease you the most:

• http://books.google.com.br/books?id=hR0_CoNj6GAC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=same-sex+marriage+%22legal+sex%22&source=bl&ots=NOcP6vPfSd&sig=w6j2VaIoLY9D-l_7nJMYHZY47e8&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ei=gghGVJuqIIHJggS0iIGAAg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22legal%20sex%22&f=false (page 76 explicitly narrows the importance of 'legal sex' when it comes to trans people)
• http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/What%20Feminists%20Have%20to%20Lose%20in%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20Litigation.pdf (sex just as understood by law is at the stake of how individuals are read by the State and how they can be seen as legitimately discriminated for said reason, gender is used as an euphemism for sex)
• http://www.glaad.org/reference/marriage (again cites trans people being on a legal gray area due to the construct of 'legal sex')

@Trystan, I'm okay with just "sex" without a link, or even marking that said "same sex" might be describing either the one in the eyes of law or individuals, but I can't see a reason to why we should comment on gender. The term "sex" implying also the gender of binary people (both cis and trans) is already enough. Gender, for this article, will inherently imply binary gender as the sole relevant detail in this account of historical gender-based discrimination and attempts of reparation – it'd be undue to comment on the long consequences of gender terminology here, and also how cis queer couples get it better in comparison to trans, particularly non-binary, people (especially when we look at these maps and see so little navy blue) –, it also implies that if we got "same", there's also a corresponding "opposite"... In short, I can only see a feast of confusion as the result coming out of this.

People are still okay with seeing sex as [ideally] a binary with little space for criticism, but, as Flyer22 noted, gender is increasingly seen as the sparkly mental one that we are progressing our views on to the point we should get used with a [far] greater number of available choices. We should use the word in an article that doesn't, putting it bluntly, is forced to look at matters as "gays vs. anti-gays".

/Gender identity/ (this terminology means not any gender, it's gender as in what you feel like inside your head) is something disrespected all over the world, never to be written on papers if it's something society (and by extension law/academia influenced by it) can't accept as valid, and never really recognized by society at large – just sympathetic fractions of it – unless it's the one you were designated to carry, if you don't "switch" (how people imagine it works) for a hegemonic "opposite" as long as you are both keen to a lot of expectations and accepts being classified as mentally ill (except for Argentina and Denmark). Maybe I'm overdoing it, but it's my full belief that using the term casually when only a millimeter of the iceberg that it represents is not fully erased is not adequate.

Roundabouts that are supposed to be inclusive of trans people but actually reconfirm given prevailing ideas about how "gender" works have an excluding effect. That would occur here because we are discussing what other people think of same-sex marriage and what it is institutionally (meaning we only comment what they direct their generalized "ew"/"no" at – heterosexism avoiding cissexism and dyadism seems even mythical, so there's that –, and how we're winning it), not representing a given definition of "same-sex relationships" as a general idea, and associating an inclusive narrative of gender identity with it. Same-sex relationship is the ideal place to start seeking more trans-inclusive descriptions (that's part of the reason I also linked the SSR article in the lede, and why I altered it as soon as I glanced into it too), but I still think this article isn't the place to discuss or get aware in regards to "same-sex marriage and trans issues". Does Wikipedia have a policy on what people interpret from the wording being a really important part of the choice about what the article should say? Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Srtª PiriLimPomPom, without reading all of your latest post, I must state that you should very seriously (not just somewhat) keep WP:Too long, didn't read in mind. When you make super long posts like your "12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)" post, it discourages the vast majority of people from wanting to read what you have stated and therefore discourages them from interacting with you. Some editors use that type of approach -- very long posts -- to derail conversation and people challenging their edits; I've been wrongly accused of doing the same, though I've never made a post as long as, or anywhere close to as long as, your "12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)" post (unless I was perhaps transporting some copied and pasted text from a Wikipedia article to the talk page). In the future, in order to reduce your post size, consider WP:Hatting (with a note) the aspects that are not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article, or posting those aspects on the talk page(s) of the user(s) you are debating with. As for what you stated, "[trying] to reduce systemic bias" in the way that you have done, as you have explained above, is WP:Activism or close to it at least. This section that was on my user page (and is temporarily removed) about neutrality is exactly how Wikipedia treats neutrality. I follow what I stated there, even with being supportive of the LGBT community. Wikipedia is about the majority view far more than it is about the minority view. We should not be here to WP:Right the great wrongs. We do have the Wikipedia:Systemic bias page, but that is a WP:Essay, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it begins by seemingly noting that Wikipedia should follow the WP:Neutral policy. You can discuss any systemic bias issue there and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. We also have the Wikipedia:Gender identity essay; you can discuss gender ideas there or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies. But like BullRangifer (Brangifer) stated before (see Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Name of policy) concerning the WP:Neutral policy, "The policy refers primarily to the neutrality of editors, not blah articles which contain no opinions or POV. Editors must edit in a neutral manner, reproducing faithfully the opinions, POV, and spirit of the sources, regardless of whether they agree with them or not. If the balance of mainstream RS tends in one direction, then the article will tend in that direction, with minority opinions only getting passing mention." That is the way Wikipedia works, and is supposed to work.

Anyway, I have now read all of your "12:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)" reply. I still feel that the lead was better/flowed better the previous way (meaning before your aforementioned change to it), but I have also stated above that "biological" was not needed. The words "sex and gender identity" in the context that was in the article covered everybody, including intersex, transgender and genderqueer people; so I don't grasp any objection to sticking with that...except for the argument that the law goes by sex assignment only and/or legally changing one's sex when it comes to what is or is not same-sex marriage. But I'm also thinking that I'll mainly leave this aspect of the lead up to others watching this article to work out, especially since I'm busy with other matters on Wikipedia and have enough contentious Wikipedia topics to worry about. And, Brangifer, I know that I've pinged you twice today via WP:Echo, here and above; forgive me. Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: I approve of Trystan's approach of having gone back to the basics. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline in the timeline section is not consistent with the timeline article. Maryland, for instance, shows up here on January 1, 2013, and on the timeline article on November 6, 2012. Please make these two consistent as we would like to use them at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Date_of_same-sex_marriage_legalization.svg. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Civil unions in Australia

There are not civil unions in most of Australia as the map shows. Only the ACT has civil unions; the other states have "relationship registers" which are not the same. Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Domestic partnerships are like civil unions, it's a matter of name. Titanicophile (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This article claims Burma has announced an intention to legalise same-sex marriage while later claiming this country has it on the statute books as likely to lead to life imprisonment. Please can some text be added clarifying. It would be interesting if the former were the case, seeing as polygamy is also legal.

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi

I'm assuming there's sources out there to back that up? Just wondering because the link goes to LGBT rights in Mississippi which doesn't seem to refer to any such judgement. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here's a source to back up same-sex marriages not being able to happen until a higher court intervenes [6]. Prcc27 (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah and someone has added a source on the M article, it's stayed until the 6 Dec [7] Akerbeltz (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Finland!

http://yle.fi/uutiset/finnish_parliament_approves_same-sex_marriage/7657759 155.245.69.178 (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• In Finland it has not been approved yet http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/11/finlands-parliament-approves-measure-aimed-at-legalizing-same-sex-marriage/ Baronedimare (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It might be difficult to find information on Finland's situation in English. With the clear vote result observed the other stages of approval are more or less reduced to formalities, they are expected to have been dealt with by 12th December. The next government, selected next year, may challenge the law, but it's generally seen unlikely that it would happen (it would be an unpopular move!), and it would probably be even more unlikely that the Parliament would support the challenge. But I can't see a need to include any of this information (for which you could get references in Finnish) until the events have taken place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.88.175 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Florida

Florida has a temporary stay: [8]. Prcc27 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Missouri

Missouri's stay is set to expire [9]. Prcc27 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

When it expires, does it become legal immediately? If yes, Missouri needs to be added to the timeline right next to Mississippi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurryaany (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Τurn Finland deep blue and include in all lists

The majority of the press mentions that same sex marriage has been legalised in Finland but not yet effective.It should be included in the maps and all in text references as a country with same sex marriage with the footnote *not yet in effect.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/28/finland-legalises-gay-marriage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It was NOT legalized, there are still two votes in a group of MP and in the whole assembly to legalize it. Titanicophile (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was.What remains is the change of the relevant laws affected by the change and this is reason of the votes and committees to follow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 10:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage isn't legal in Finland yet: [10] Prcc27 (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The law has passed in Finland yesterday (12th December), pending president's signature (which is a formality). The law will take effect in March 2017. The parliament also decided to streamline all other relevant laws, but these will be decided on by the next parliament - they need to be changed to remove internal conflict, but even if the next parliament would, in a highly unlikely situation, decide not to change them, they will not affect the passing of same sex marriage. Some individuals opposing the change (and earlier, a few individuals in favour of it) have given statements that have tried to make it appear as if the next parliament still has to decide on the law, but this is false information, as stated by sources with knowledge of parliament protocols. There is plenty of literature, again, in Finnish media. Passing the law was highly unusual from several perspectives, which is why the protocol is not completely clear, especially to media: it was the first citizen's initiative to pass in the parliament, and one of the very few times, and the only time in a very long time, when the parliament acted against the advisory committee's (Legal Afairs Comittee in this case) majority recommendation. The second parliamentary vote was therefore a very rare occurrence, but it was required as the law had to pass another advisory committee (which it did last week). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.130.11 (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Is same-sex marriage currently legal in the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community because this source says "Tribal leaders have acknowledged that both of those proposals conflict with state and federal laws, and that they may not be able to implement them." Prcc27 (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Florida

You need the change the map's color, same sex marriage is legal in Florida from January 6th! And btw, Kansas needs to be painted in blue too. Archwayh (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Chile

Chile has now joined the club too, just waiting for Bachelet to sign. http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2015/01/28/54c935f3ca474161208b4579.html ¡Viva Chile! ZygonLieutenant (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Chile world same-sex marriage map

Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Finland

I'm just about to edit the information regarding Finland's situation, as it does not reflect the current situation. The same sex marriage law has been fully passed and it does take effect on 1st March 2017. It is unfortunate that the Government website has not written a statement on the law in English, but it has been very clearly stated in their website in Finnish (http://valtioneuvosto.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_publisher/tasavallan-presidentin-esittely-20-2-2015?_101_INSTANCE_3wyslLo1Z0ni_redirect=%2Fajankohtaista&_101_INSTANCE_3wyslLo1Z0ni_groupId=10616), my translation: "The President of the Republic confirmed the law to change marriage legislation. The changes are made on basis of a citizesns' initiative. In the future, same sex couples are entitled to become married. The law will take effect on 1st March 2017".

The change of legislation, and the date of it, has been confirmed, and it does not require any further action. It does not depend on other legislative changes mentioned (that the government has been instructed to streamline before the change of the law). By the way, even without any of the streamlining, adoption becomes available to married couples as marriage is the only relevant requirement for adoption. The streamlining is simply to clean statements from existing laws that contradict same sex marriages (i.e. mentions of a husband and a wife as the compulsory options for members of a marriage).

Please provide detailed reasoning if you are to revert my changes.202.156.88.5 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sentence about history of same-sex unions/marriage in lead

I propose adding a sentence, phrased something like "Same-sex unions have been recorded in the history of a number of cultures, but marriages or socially-accepted unions between same-sex partners were rare or nonexistent in other cultures", to the start of the second paragraph. This would summarise the history section of the article, as well as make clear to the reader that the concept of formalised same-sex unions or marriages dates back further than the 21st century. -- Hazhk^Talk 15:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no immediate objection and I can't imagine there will be, since it isn't disputing anything in the lead and is merely summarising what is already in the article, I will go ahead and add this sentence. -- Hazhk^Talk 17:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia

See Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Slovenia#Marriage legislation. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comparing situation in Slovenia to the US states like Florida is absurd. Court rulings in these states are currently in force and marriages are performed. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Slovenian President merely promulgates the laws adopted by the parliament. I made the edit to reflect that the laws in both Slovenia and Finland are not in force yet. The Slovenian law will be valid on 15th day following publication in the official gazette and will take effect 6 months later. Of cource, if the referendum effort is blocked... Ron 1987 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A monkey wrench can upset any future event. If implementation is Slovenia is a mere formality, as you say, then yes, it should be treated the same as Finnland. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

!!It's not formal. The bill could fail if a referendum is made and gives a bad result. Titanicophile (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it a law or a bill? Btw, this should also be discussed here! Prcc27 (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Demographics?

As demographics begin to be reported, shouldn't there be a section on this? There are numbers from Pew and others reporting on how many such marriages there are. And several countries have had it for years now, what portion of their marriages are same sex marriages? 76.21.107.77 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Color on map to depict USA state laws permitting discrimination against LBGT

There is a light-mustard color used to depict countries that have limits on public speech regarding LGBT issues. In the interest of accuracy, a color should be applied to states in the USA (and maybe other countries) that permit discrimination against LGBT based on religious beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.207.90 (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

How would you distinguish between those that allow discrimination and those that don't disallow discrimination? And how much would have to be disallowed? — kwami (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is going wildly outside the scope of same-sex marriage. The map is a map of the status of SSM (and similar unions), not a map of all LGBT rights. - htonl (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. More general LGBT rights content relating to the USA belongs here, not on this page. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Education section

I have three problems with this recent insertion.

1. It's entirely unsourced.
2. It doesn't explain its relevance to the subject of this article
3. It has been stuck in the middle of the 'Studies' section, breaking the article structure. If there is to be such a section, it should be under 'Issues'.

William Avery (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Palau

Palau decriminalized homosexuality in 2014. This should be updated on the South Pacific map. I don't know how to do that. 174.91.165.181 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Which map? Teammm ^talk
_email 18:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm wrong page though the IP may mean the right map. This is really a topic for LGBT rights by country or territory because while they have decriminalized it, they have not introduced marriage or CPs. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Malta

Malta doesn't "recognize foreign same-sex marriages" per se; it recognizes them as 'civil unions.' I've checked this with Malta's justice ministry when they passed the law last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.9.138 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External Links

The External Links for this article are pretty out of date. Maybe someone could update them. RichardLane2 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"Allow" gay marriage

The text as it stands is misleading as most countries allow gay marriage, and the real issue is that the countries named officially recognize these marriages. Skyhawk0 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)