Template talk:Same-sex unions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Template  Quality: rating not applicable

Not yet in effect[edit]

Can we turn the greek letter into an asterisk instead..? Prcc27 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 30 June 2014

Recognition of foreign marriages[edit]

In legal terms recognition and transcription (or registration) of foreign marriages are not the same thing: whereas the former implies that the recognized foreign marriage is treated on a par with domestic marriage (obtaining all the rights that married opposite-sex couples enjoy), the latter is simply a public notification that the same-sex couple got married in another country, but without other effects than this. Reading the wiki pages on Estonia and Israel, it is not clear whether these countries recognize or simply register same-sex marriage. In my country, Italy, EU law has been applied and the right to have same-sex marriage registered has been won in many individual court proceedings. However, this carries a mostly symbolic value, since no other rights apply to these couples. Situation may vary still if the couple or one of them are foreign-national. I wonder whether Estonia and Israel are in the same situation as Italy. Estonia in particular seems ambiguous. Finedelledanze (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I have repeatedly removed Israel and it keeps being added without a good enough explanation. I will be removing the two until your concerns are properly addressed. Prcc27 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Israel recognizes same-sex marriage for citizenship purposes actually. Prcc27 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


How should we handle this Taiwan ruling? It's supposed to be be binding in two years, right? Isseubnida (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it belongs, but of course with a *.Naraht (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Prcc27 (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's binding in two years, but as no bill has been passed yet, I don't think we should include it. It's more than just "not yet in effect" - there is no law. Jdcooper (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a legally binding judicial ruling with a set period of time for when same-sex marriage needs to be implemented by. When same-sex marriage was legalized in the Sixth Circuit by SCOTUS we treated those states as "not yet in effect" since the mandate was not officially finalized. I know these are two separate cases but I still think that a judicial ruling itself can be more or less considered a "law". Prcc27 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
But that judicial ruling actually changed the law, it was just under appeal. In this case the judicial ruling, as you note, says something will happen in the future. The government is probably going to write and pass legislation, to actually legalise it. Nonetheless, I don't think it matters much either way so I'm happy to go with the crowd, just I would personally wait. Jdcooper (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I also think the change should be delayed. Changes of this type have usually been made after the enabling legislation is in place, fully signed and only awaiting going into effect. Unlike in the US where the court mandated the change with immediate effect, here the court dictated that the legislature do something about it, and the mandate, that it would go into effect in two years if the legislature failed to act, was (if our own page is correct) in a press release but not explicit in the ruling. The big question is how much leeway the legislature has in satisfying the court's mandate: our own article says "it could elect to pass a new law recognising same-sex marriages or civil partnerships but giving said couples only some of the rights attributed to marriage." I think we need to wait for the formal legislation. (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The precedent probably comes from 2014 when binding decisions were being handed down by the US Circuit Courts. Then, states that were bound by circuit court decisions were added to the list and marked with an asterisk. Isn't this true of Taiwan as well since the judicial decision is binding if the Legislative Yuan doesn't act? Andrew1444 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't view it the same. Those court decisions mandated marriage equality. This one, as we describe it, is mandating that they do something, which could be marriage equality or could be some other solution that embodies equivalent rights but needn't be marriage itself (e.g. civil partnerships). Thus it is not mandating same-sex marriage, per se, and it is a bit CRYSTAL to conclude that the legislature will choose to enact marriage equality when they have this other option. (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Japan should be removed.[edit]

Japan's same sex registration in the limited jurisdictions have no legal effect and therefore should be removed.

Paullb (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan: Keelung City[edit]

The Keelung City approved sex-same partnership-- (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)