Talk:Same-sex marriage in Argentina

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


Argentine government seeks to legalize same-sex marriage

Civil unions in Santa Fe... coming soon?

Uruguay permits gay civil unions

Córdoba: aprueban la unión civil entre homosexuales en Villa Carlos Paz

Aprobaron la unión civil en Villa Carlos Paz pero advierten : "No será un Las Vegas"

Argentine gay leaders say they will fight to have their Spanish marriage recognised at home

Argentine gay leaders say they will fight to have their Spanish marriage recognised at home


Local Successes: Small but Significant

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

First in Latin America?[edit]

It has been reported that the gay marriage granted on November 13, 2009 was the first of its kind in Latin America (e.g.[1]). Can someone confirm that this is true, and if so, should it be added to the article? Robofish (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be added. Be WP:Bold. (todays would be the first legal marriage in Latam(Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not NPOV[edit]

"A bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Argentina was unfortunately approved in July 2010 by the Argentine National Congress, and marriage will become legal when the law is published in the official bulletin." I think this statement violates WP:NPOV. The bold is just my emphasis here. Raynethackery (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Removed and user warned. TbhotchTalk C. 22:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

edits explained[edit]

This WP:AGF was reverted in the process of reverting vandals. just to explain my addition the "update" tag is added because as per the edit summar the last para. that talks about the ongoing SC cases is not completed. It simply abruptly ends that tere were X cases in the court. "Controversy" section is as per the edit summary of an editor who (rightfully) removed my update tag at the time. The rest are just copy edits and the # of marriages was changed without the source doing so.Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I had removed statements not found in the source, so please don't introduce original research. Nowhere in the source is spoken of a required signature. Controversy sections are deprecated. And empty ones are even less useful. I put the update tag to where your complaint lies, not on top of the whole article. The source doesn't talk about how many Catholics live in Argentina. The exact day time of the vote is not needed. Hekerui (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The point of discussion is to have a discussion not to say why somethign doesnt belong. Controversy is certainly encyclopaedic because it was a major issue. The part on the catholics was added by someone else and inexplicable removes, at any rate sources on Argentine's catholic status and relevance to this do exist and are relevant. a simple fact tag can call for cites. The time of the day is not need is your opinion, someone was WP:Bold enough to add it and unless you explain "why its not needed" there is no grounds for rmeoval.Lihaas (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The exact day time is dispensable.Ron 1987 23:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Woops, ilost your edit in a conflict but i partially reverted my edit to simply add the the fact that it was a "marathon" session. Is that a compromise? Feel free to reword that.Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's good option. Ron 1987 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Great edits but you though, kudos.Lihaas (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Right to adopt children: it should be included in the introduction[edit]

I think that the fact that the bill grants for gay couples the right to adopt children is important enough to be included in the introduction. I think that it wasn't right to remove this info from the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebasbronzini (talkcontribs) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The information is included in section same-sex marriage. [2] It is enough. The information about churches opposition is also included in this section. The introduction it is general information. Details should be included in appropriate section. Ron 1987 15:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

catholic country[edit]

the lead was changed to say Arg is the 4th catholic country. There was no explanation for that either and it wasn an IP. I though Spain was first and Portugal second, what would be the other catholic country? Belgium...?

Also, does it need the "2nd in the Americas" tag? Doesnt make it much of a landmark there, although the others would be notable because of its stance and/or perceived worldview. (Lihaas (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the "2nd in the Americas" tag is unnecessary. Ron 1987 10:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with removing "2nd in the americas". It was left as a compromise with the intervening editor. The rest of the mentions were already there for the last +24hs. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I really dont get your pooint of view..In the article "same-sex marriage in canada" says "the first in the Americas"..ergo in the article for Argentina it should say "the second in the americas". I think is a really significant fact..And "the first in Latin America" is important, ok, but it doesn't show the dimension of being the second in a whole continent..I mean, the States are located in the Americas too fyi..(Oupals (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Technically 2 continents though. Again, the big story is a (atleast perceived) conservative bastion that legalized it. Likewise South Africa for Africa. Most European countries (iceland, for example) is not really that controversial, likewise canada. (where de fact relations have been on for years)Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Conservative Bastion? You've never been to Argentina, have you? Or are you just bunching all "Latin American Catholic" countries together? It's probably the most liberal country in the Americas, bar none... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is obsolete because none of this was in the reliable source used in the lead. It could be included provided a reliable source is found that discusses this and the numeration. Hekerui (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources can be found in the requisite pages. At any rate, i reverted the wholescale change because it was without discussion on here. 3 editors over here seem to be okay with the addition.
The bill will be law (its not yet, its only passed). Still kept your source as to when it happens. (this is not to slap your edit, it was a good edit and it was WP:Bold. Just seem to early like the debate on the template page.) Lihaas (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 22[edit]

The law cannot take effect before being published in the official gazette. It was published today. Near the title BOLETIN OFICIAL DE LA REPUBLICA ARGENTINA, on the right side, is date Buenos Aires,jueves 22 de julio de 2010 [3] Ron 1987 10:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Every marriage can be perfomed 28 days after submission of aplication in the Registy Office. See [4] Date of first marriage was announced on July 16. [5] Ron 1987 10:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Then its legal. Add these sources on and we're done with this. Now where next? Europe somewhere...? Lihaas (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Starting date[edit]

The Agence France-Presse is an established news agency, On Top Magazine isn't. Unless the AFP is contradicted by a reliable source, it should have precedence over some gay travel website. Hekerui (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As there are hundreds of Municipalities in Argentina where the wedding could take place before August 13, it is plausible than AFP, nor any media as of now, is updated enough so as to when is gonna be the first marriage. Probably during the next week we'll have information for sure. As I said in Template talk:Same-sex unions#Argentine law, the 28 days protocol only counts for Buenos Aires city, not for other districts. AFP is reporting a widely-publicited BA city wedding, but I wouldn't be that sure about it being the first. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
AFP's news is from July 21. Date concerning marriage in Mendoza was announced on July 23. You should read date of publication the news. [6] Ron 1987 20:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That was not the news you had cited, so I couldn't read it. Hekerui (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... According to some sources the law will take 8 days after being published. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 31 July and 1 August it's a weekend. August 2, Monday, it's a first working day. But couple in Mendoza will get married on July 31, despite that it's Saturday. Perhaps, the situation will be clarified within few days. Ron 1987 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Ron, it's needed to separate "legality" and "wedding performance". The second one requires some days in-between asking for it and the ceremony (in BA City, 28 days; in Mendoza and other districts, a week or less). The legality is given by the Congress ("it is legal since the Congress approve it"), and it comes into practice the first working day following 8 days since the Executive Power signs the bill. All right? Now, the 31st July wedding in Mendoza is surely due to the fact that some couples were admited asking for a wedding after the Congressional approval (because the law was already approved and, ,thus, "legal"); as well as to the fact that Mendoza delay between asking for a ceremony and having it is shorter than Buenos Aires' procedures.
The law, it is technically "legal" since the Congress approves it, and technically "enters into force" when the executive signs the bill. The other are merely bereaucratic reglamentary delays. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The law doesnt become active until due procedure in each country (apparently in Arg. upon publication). So if its not done so yet then its not legal (regardless of a wedding ceremony being performed)Lihaas (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's been already "publicated" and "instrumented by executive power legal decree" as of July 22nd ([12]). --IANVS (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


It's significant to know all the facts that involve the legalization of same-sex marriage in Argentina. I found that Buenos Aires also was the first city in whole Latin America to approve civil unions between same-sex couples. We really need to expand this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oupals (talkcontribs) 04:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The section 'civil unions' includes information about civil unions in Buenos Aires. Ron 1987 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Two marriages were conducted today[edit]

Please, see here. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ron 1987 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Latin America Map[edit]

Why does the map not include the central american countries can someone please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rctycoplay (talkcontribs) 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The map is about status of same-sex unions in South America only and is titled 'State recognition of same-sex relationships (South America).svg'. Ron 1987 01:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you see the map about LGBT adoption for south america it includes the central american countries could we use that map for the south american countries and just change it to show the laws about same sex marriage (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage in Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)