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

British crown dependencies and overseas territories[edit]

Should we treat the crown dependencies and overseas territories as a part of the UK? Ron 1987 (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but that might be confusing. The law which passed in the UK only applied to England and Wales. All of the rest of the UK, overseas territories and dependencies are having their own debates and discussions. In fact, though the law provided for a means to convert a civil union, if one resides in an overseas territory that does not allow equality, the only way to convert your union to marriage is to go to England and do it. Human Dignity Trust is currently involved in an inquiry as to why this is so, but it is at present the state of the situation. SusunW (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're referring to my edit, I would say it only seems logical to list them as possessions of the UK. For a similar instance, take Greenland. It is autonomous over its own marriage and family law, but we still list it belonging to Denmark. Likewise, the crown dependencies (plus Gibraltar) have the most similar relationship to the UK as Greenland does to Denmark and thus should be formatted the same. I'm not trying to argue either way, just merely pointing out we should have consistency; which was the basis for my edit. Chase1493 (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are not independent nations, they are just highly autonomous form the United Kingdom. As such they should be treated as part of the UK for the purpose of this template.CH7i5 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015[edit]

update on the number of tribal jurisdictions to 23 + 1 necessary, see Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015[edit]

The state of Chihuaha just turned blue.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/mexico-state-chihuahua-officially-approves-same-sex-marriage120615

2A02:1205:505F:7050:ACA4:DA48:77DD:F3B0 (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now:
You will need to update Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico#Chihuahua, to include the information and reference(s), before the template is changed.
That article is not protected, so you can do that, then reactivate this request by changing "answered=y" to "answered=no" on the edit page (first line under the header, in this section) - Arjayay (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Updated article, made Chihuahua its own page Same-sex marriage in Chihuahua and corrected lede on Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico to reflect legality in Chihuahua. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Does that let you do it? And, please see comment on my talk page. SusunW (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
And can someone fix the map that is only blue for Chihuahua if you click on it? On the pages Same-sex marriage in Coahuila, Same-sex marriage in Chihuahua, Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo and the main page Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico it shows as brown, but if you click on the map, it turns blue? SusunW (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that is an issue with the pages being cached and should work itself out. I'm not seeing it on Coahuila.Naraht (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 19:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure when it was added, but this has been done.Naraht (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Mexico?[edit]

According to this article, Mexico has complete access to SSM, even though couples may have to go to a judge to get an injunction if they are initially refused a license. Is this ready for inclusion in the template, or is it necessary for the Supreme Court in Mexico to rule outright on the ban? Kumorifox (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I know the English press is making this sound this way. There is a discussion on my page, which I should probably put on the Mexico page. They do not have full access to marriage. The situation is NO different than it has been except that now a judge cannot say no to the amparo request. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Good to know, thank you :) Kumorifox (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I posted it here and if you can think of anywhere else it needs to be posted, please feel free to add it. I am overwhelmed by the amount of queries this "wee bit of exaggeration" is producing. Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico SusunW (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands[edit]

It seems that the British overseas territory of Pitcairn Islands have legalized same-sex marriage via an ordinance issued by the Governor on 5 May and published on 13 May 2015. It took effect on the day after publication. See [1], [2], [3]. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Should the Pitcairn Islands be added under the UK? It is an overseas territory, but it is not part of the UK. We have places like Jersey and Gibraltar separate, so Pitcairn Islands should be as well. Kumorifox (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Jersey, Gibraltar, and Isle of Man are also listed under UK in civi unions section. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Must have been another template I was thinking of then. Thanks for pointing that out for me. Kumorifox (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Whilst not part of the actual Kingdom (ie the Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), they are part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, and under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

United States[edit]

The supreme court has ruled same sex marriage legal nation wide (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341) 87.112.206.54 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The ruling will apply to most territories, but not clear about American Samoa, where the 14th Amendment does not fully apply. Also not clear how it will interact with the sovereignty of the tribes. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I read articles published before the ruling that said the tribes would not be affected by the ruling as they are sovereign nations.--occono (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Why does the 14th Amendment not apply to American Samoa..? Prcc27 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The 14th guarantees citizenship for all born in the US. But Am. Samoa is not in the US, so citizenship requires an act of Congress. (This was legislated to prevent the country from being overrun by savages - not kidding.) This was upheld in the recent DC Circuit case. If I remember correctly, we have a treaty obligation with Germany to *not* grant citizenship to Am. Samoans. The Am. Samoan govt. opposes the granting of US citizenship because that would interfere with the local judicial system, which currently does not need to follow US law in several areas. It's clear that the SCOTUS ruling applies to US territories where the inhabitants are citizens, as they're equal under the law per the 14th, but I haven't heard anything about it applying to non-citizens. For all we know, it could be similar to the tribes. — kwami (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
All American Indians born in the U.S. (including on Indian reservations) are U.S. citizens by an act of Congress back in the 20s. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Even though they're citizens, the ruling does not apply to them. So does it apply where people aren't citizens? — kwami (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think the ruling does not apply to them? If you have a source for that claim I would like to see it. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
They're "sovereign" (sort-of) nations, so US law does not automatically apply. (This has been sourced elsewhere on this or a related page.) For Am.Samoa, the people are not citizens, so US law does not automatically apply. It could be that it does in this case, that there's no difference, but this is an obscure area of constitutional law that I rather doubt anyone here is competent to answer. We really need a RS specifically for Am. Samoa. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop adding a disclaimer about places that aren't following the law according to the SCOTUS! We don't list any given judge anywhere else that doesn't follow their own law. There is absolutely no consensus to change this on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talkcontribs) 14:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The mandate hasn't even been issued yet... Besides, the SCOTUS ruling is technically a precedent; it doesn't directly strike down every jurisdictions' ban, but same-sex marriage will eventually be legal nationwide (except Native American Tribal jurisdictions). Prcc27 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? — kwami (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Inclusion Criteria for this template state: "When marriage has been legalized through a US court decision, we wait until either the supreme court in the jurisdiction affirms the decision" - this has occurred, and therefore there is no need for any additional notation on the US listing. No talk has been given to changing that! Difbobatl (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The ruling hasn't been implemented in every jurisdiction yet. For example, Mississippi is waiting for their stay to be lifted or for the Fifth Circuit to make their own ruling on the matter. Prcc27 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That is NOT what the inclusion criteria state. You have no basis for undoing my changes. Please cease and desist! Difbobatl (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami:, @Rreagan007:, @Occono: will you guys please weigh in on whether or not having a footnote that says "not yet in effect in all jurisdictions" goes against the inclusion criteria, because this getting a little annoying. Prcc27 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we can all read the inclusion criteria, so we don't need 3 select users to decide this. Do we need some official wikipedian vote on some motion? Difbobatl (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, the inclusion criteria date from a time before we had the "Not yet in effect [in all jurisdictions]" footnotes. The criteria address whether a country/state should appear in the "Marriage" section of the template at all, not whether they should have a footnote. I think the footnotes are an appropriate solution to distinguishing those jurisdictions where SSM is currently legal from those where it is inevitable but not yet happened. I'd also like to remind everyone here about the WP:3RR policy. - htonl (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If the issue is that some feel the inclusion criteria no longer fit the situation, then there should be a vote on the inclusion criteria. SSM is legal nation-wide in the US. The question is whether or not some jurisdictions yet recognize that. I don't think that is the point of this template... Difbobatl (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

And if anyone wants a citation, a quote from the opinion by Justice Kennedy: " The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize samesex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character." Difbobatl (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That kind of is the point of this template. We already have the "not yet in effect" footnote- so the "not yet in effect in all jurisdictions" is just as appropriate. We don't need to change the inclusion criteria because it has nothing to do with the footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Very recently there were judges in the south that would refuse to license interracial couples. Would you put a disclaimer for that? Difbobatl (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Difbobatl: A) the Supreme Court's ruling is already in effect for loving whereas we are still waiting for SCOTUS to issue their mandate for Obergefell. B) Every state that banned interracial marriage has officially repealed their ban so the recent actions of those judges went against state law. Prcc27 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Texas AG is telling county workers they don't have to issue SSM licenses, and tho they might face lawsuits if they have no-one to take over for them, the state has a bevy of lawyers to defend them. Sounds like marriage might not be open to SS couples across the state (tho presumably people can go to the next county over, as they can in Kansas). — kwami (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Kwamikagami: SSM is still fully de jure legal in Texas because federal law trumps state law. So does that mean you're for the "not yet in effect in all jurisdictions" footnote or no? Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think everyone here agrees that it is de jure legal throughout the US after Obergefell. As far as I know, though, we try to describe the de facto position as well; the footnote is how we indicate that there is a mismatch between the law and what is actually happening currently. - htonl (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
My point is that why should we list counties/judges/etc who are ignoring SCOTUS? We are now getting into the morass of individual judges and such that is impossible to keep track of and serves no purpose. The template should be to track where it is legal. It is legal in the entire US. Difbobatl (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
But we're not listing counties/judges/etc who are ignoring SCOTUS - I agree that would be a bad idea for exactly the reasons you give. All we have is a small footnote noting that the process is still underway. - htonl (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A footnote without details is useless, especially when the people covered by said footnote are de minimus. As I said, VERY recently (even after state laws were changed) we would have needed a footnote under interracial marriage using the same logic. State laws didn't get changed until more than 30 years after the supreme court decision on Loving in some cases (2000 in the case of AL)... 72.162.1.252 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that all states are licensing SSM now anyway. Difbobatl (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Three states are being difficult though. And it's still illegal in many territories. So the footnote is still needed. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no legal status of "difficult". In a couple states some judges/counties are being unofficially (and illegally) encouraged to state personal beliefs trump SCOTUS. As far as territories, only American Samoa is different - which could be a sub-listing like is done for Greenland, for instance. There remains NO NEED for a footnote! Difbobatl (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The SCOTUS ruling struck down bans directly in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. he ruling hasn't even received the mandate yet. For the rest of the states the SCOTUS' ruling is precedent and same-sex marriage will eventually be legal nationwide, but that isn't the case yet. Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It is already the law now. Besides, those states have given up on their false argument about 25 days and are now saying they are allowing officiants to not give licenses / perform ceremonies (forever essentially) based on personal belief. Difbobatl (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Those states have not given up. Kansas still doesn't recognize same-sex marriages and Louisiana is still awaiting a decision by the Fifth Circuit. Prcc27 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • That is not the case. There are numerous articles pointing out that licences are being offered in all states now - not necessarily by all judges. Difbobatl (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • That doesn't mean same-sex marriage is recognized in those states. If the state doesn't recognize same-sex couples and provide them with benefits, then same-sex marriage isn't fully legal. Prcc27 (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Please see [4]. Also, no state at this point is saying they won't recognize these marriages. The argument at this point is over licensing, is localized, and is very temporary. Difbobatl (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • We're not talking about what they will do, we're talking about what they're doing NOW. Since those states aren't recognizing same-sex marriages NOW it should say "not yet in effect in all jurisdictions". Kansas did NOT say they will recognize same-sex marriages- they said they're reviewing the ruling. And I still haven't heard of any territories issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Prcc27 (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I think you are trying your best to invent problems that aren't here. If you want to start providing sources and get some kind of consensus about them, fine; but at the moment it doesn't look like there is any need for a footnote. Difbobatl (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Louisiana will not comply until the Fifth Circuit steps in: [5] Prcc27 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • That is an old story and does not reflect the current situation in Louisiana. Difbobatl (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Then provide a source to shows the current situation in Louisiana! We must assume that Louisiana doesn't recognize same-sex marriages until proven otherwise. And just because some parishes are issuing same-sex licenses doesn't mean the state is recognizing same-sex marriage yet! Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Source from YESTERDAY: [6]! Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I agree a note should be added, such as 'Not yet in effect in all jurisdictions', because that is the truth and what reliable sources state. I fail to see why a note should not be added like Ireland and Slovenia AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment I disagree about adding a note. SSM is legal in the US as per Obergefell v. Hodges. Difbobatl (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, the ruling doesn't mean squat for Native American tribes and American Samoa. Just because same-sex marriage is "legal" doesn't mean the law is in effect. Prcc27 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Although a Native American couple can still be wed at their county courthouse via the state government, so while the tribe itself might not offer a ceremony or tribal recognition, federal and state recognition is still available. IMO trying to track the tribal governments is too much detail -- and effort -- for this template. When we had tribes offering marriage in banning states (like the two Michigan tribes), those were jurisdictions worth tracking but now such an exclave of equality is no longer a possibly. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Very true., User:Prcc27 Just as is the case for Slovenia, Ireland, Greenland etc, same-sex marriage may have been made legal but not in effect yet. A note is sensible. Questions also remain about tribal jurisdictions and American Samoa. Additionally, even if same-sex marriage is de jure legal, if officials and counties are not issuing licences, it is not de facto legal. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That is why I supported sublisting the territories, since they are different. Difbobatl (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The territories aren't different- only American Samoa is. And AFAIC there's consensus to re-add the footnote so I think we should do that soon! Prcc27 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, currently I think consensus exists to add a footnote. The simple reality is same-sex marriage is not currently recognised and performed in all jurisdictions. It may be soon, but it is not currently, just like Greenland, Ireland, Slovenia etc AusLondonder (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There has not been enough time for a consensus. WP:No Deadline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talkcontribs) 03:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • "Essays are not Wikipedia policies." There is consensus and the footnote will soon be added! Prcc27 (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The situation in the US has nothing to do with the situation in Greenland (other than American Samoa). This is why it would be a good idea to sublist the territories. There is no reason for an obsession about doing it "soon!"... Difbobatl (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • It has been discussed for long enough, there is consensus, and you seem to be the only one strongly against it. United States' situation is unique so it deserves a unique footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, now all 50 states and DC recognize SSM. If we want to be consistent with what we've done with other countries, and if we feel the need to further footnote the US, we need to sublist US Proper and Territories (with Tribal Jurisdictions as an additional if there is consensus). Then the footnotes can go to the section as appropriate. This is what was done with Greenland, UK, etc... Difbobatl (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Kansas governor is still holding off full recognition. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami:, @Rreagan007:, @Occono:, @AusLondonder:, @Dralwik:, @72.162.1.252:, @Htonl: Now that there is consensus for the footnote, @Difbobatl: is changing the wording of what was originally proposed. So which wording do you guys prefer: "Legal, but not yet recognized in all jurisdictions" or "not yet in effect for all jurisdictions"? Prcc27 (talk)
I prefer "Legal, but not yet recognized..." Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The first sounds better, but it's not legal in VI, PR, or arguably KS. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I prefer "Legal, but not yet recognized". It is legal in VI, PR, and KS for the many reasons that have been previously documented. Even VI, PR, and KS themselves admit this, they are just taking time (intentionally or not) implementing... Difbobatl (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Until things are implemented, "legal" is an inaccurate term. Same-sex marriage isn't legal until a law (like PR's executive order) goes into effect. Prcc27 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Prcc27 - That is not what "legal" means. See the wikipedia article on legality. It is already legal (possibly excluding AM Samoa). Also, i'm not sure implemented is a legally appropriate term in this case. Difbobatl (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think, tribal jurisdictions should be included into the template because they are in a way sovereign jurisdictions sui generis not (yet) covered by US law in that particular field 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico[edit]

Last I saw with Puerto Rico, *everybody* involved is trying to get the commonwealth's "win" at the District level erased ASAP with the commonwealth committed to have all of its paperwork and regs ready for July 15. http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=21162&MediaType=1&Category=26

Mexican states[edit]

So I noticed that all of the Mexican states have been changed to their full names. While I like the idea, things will probably be changing quickly there now that the Supreme Court has created the precedent necessary to force change across the states. I think that we should stick with the two letter abbreviations for the states, primarily because there simply won't be enough room to list all of them later. Thoughts or proposals? Chase1493 (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. And I don't think there was every consensus to change it... Prcc27 (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We'd have to do the same thing for the civil union section with Mexico, Australia, etc. also. Prcc27 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. That does leave one glaring inconsistency though, what to do with the United Kingdom. I suppose we could justify keeping the full names due to them being four constituent countries. However, if (but more likely when) Northern Ireland legalizes marriage, will we remove the England, Wales and Scotland? I would be under the assumption we would, but that leaves the crown dependencies and overseas territories. While I don't think there will be any movement in most of the territories for a while; they are pretty numerous. The only way I could see something happen rapidly would be if there was an order in council to legalize across the board, although that seems very unlikely. We could save this conversation for another day, but if anyone has an idea I would love to hear it. Chase1493 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The 2-letter abbreviations for the Mexican states seems like a safer option to me. I think in the event Northern Ireland legalizes same-sex marriage, the template should just say "United Kingdom". I don't think the overseas territories are important enough to worry about, just like if American Samoa never legalizes in the United States, I don't really think that's important enough to include in the template. People who are that interested in these minor outliers and exceptions can read about them in the main articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Support rv to abbrev for Mex states. If NI legalizes, we can just say "UK proper", as we do for NZ and Denmark, since the names are ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the change for Mexico. SusunW (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright well then I'm going to go ahead and make the change. Hopefully it doesn't get reverted. Thanks for the input. Chase1493 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Two Letters or Three?[edit]

From looking at Administrative divisions of Mexico, it appears that the entire concept of which two letter abbreviations to use for each state represents Original Research. Should we use the three letter ISO codes instead?Naraht (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius.[edit]

I think we should add Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius to Netherlands. SSM is legal in Caribbean Netherlands. --Simon 015 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Caribbean Netherlands is a part of the Netherlands proper (already included in the template). Ron 1987 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel[edit]

Why is Israel in the recognition column when the article says "The ruling specifies that a record made by the Administration of Border Crossings, Population and Immigration is a statistical record which does not constitute official recognition of same-sex marriage by the state"? Maybe Israel should be removed from the recognition column unless someone has a source that Israel fully recognizes same-sex marriages.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Ron 1987 (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur as well. However, after our conversation on my talk page, would you say I have provided enough evidence to support Malta taking Israel's place? This is @Prcc27 in particular. Chase1493 (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Chase1493: Yes, there's enough evidence for Malta to take Israel's place. Prcc27 (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
In Israel unmarried couples got virtually the same rights as married couples. To claim their rights a couple has to prove they are in a marriage-like relationship. A foreign marriage certificate serves as proof.176.4.0.58 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Islands[edit]

Virgin Islands performs same-sex marriage but unless there's a reliable source that it also recognizes it then there should be a footnote! The judge only ordered performance, not recognition! [7] Prcc27 (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No original research, please. I have asked you to produce a source that states same-sex marriage is licensed but not recognized in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and you have been unable to do so. You are reading into a source and drawing your own conclusions that are not textually supported. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The Governor has signed an executive order to implement. Prcc27, you are being even more intransigent on this than you were with Kansas. There is consensus ... unanimous other than with you and your specious grasping at straws... that VI has full marriage equality and should be dark blue. You keep repeating the same bogus arguments and need to let this go. Njsustain (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The source I provided only mentions performance so unless you have a source that says otherwise, it is WP:OR to assume that they recognize same-sex marriages. Once again, the Lt. Gov's signature is required for the executive order to go into effect! Prcc27 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
And you are again shouting and repeating the same nonsense. Njsustain (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The only one that shouted was you! Re-read WP:SHOUT and tell me where it says using an exclamation point is shouting.... Prcc27 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Here: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/17/american-samoa-only-us-territory-defying-same-sex-marriage-ruling/ is yet another confirmation that VI is complying with the SCOTUS decision. Unless you have any evidence they are not complying, you have no reason to stand in the way of the many, many editors who believe VI should be listed as full legality for SSM. If you wish to involve administration, you are welcome to do so. I'd very much like to see their evaluation of your recent activity as well(!) Njsustain (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Njsustain: But did the Lt. Gov sign it yet? I already provided a source that their signature is required! Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The term "grasping at straws" has been applied to your specious arguments by multiple people. I'm not going to make a snarky remark that your argument is "insane", but it doesn't seem rational. The governor of the territory signed an executive order welcoming and recognizing same sex marriage. Licenses have been issued to same sex couples. No one has been denied any rights. The Lt. Gov was out of town and his signature is procedural, not political... it's not even a formality; not a "decision" he has to make. It's his duty to simply recognize that the governor has signed the order... not "approve" the order. There isn't going to be a big press release that a clerical step took place. It is your onus (and yours alone it seems) to prove that the Lt. Gov has not and/or will not recognize the order with his signature. I'm willing to compromise on the edit you made on the map key for now, but unless you can prove VI is not recognizing or has in some way denied civil rights to any same-sex couple as a matter of policy, then with each passing day it becomes more ridiculous to leave VI light blue. Njsustain (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, when are you going to inform administration about my SHOUTING? From the "rule" (guideline) you keep bringing up, it is clear that what is frowned upon is repeated emphasis... and it is you, sir who ends! every! single! communication! with! an! exclamation! point! Whether this punctuation is specifically against the guidelines, it is clear that you are in constant violation of the spirit of the SHOUTING guideline. I've asked you to stop repeatedly but you continue doing so(!) Njsustain (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
How many other judges ordered licensing and never mentioned recognition? Who among the sane would issue a license and then refuse to recognize it as legal? If you don't have a source for your POV, then it's just OR and has no place here. — kwami (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kwamikagami: Do you not remember what happened with Kansas? Kansas is a perfect example of licensing same-sex marriages but not recognizing them! It may be your POV that it's "insane" to license but not recognize. However, just because it's "insane" doesn't mean it's impossible as we saw with Kansas! Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I remember what happened in KS very well... after Obergefell the Governor was digging his heels in, as were you... insisting that "concession" on his part was the gold standard we needed to wait for. Well, the Governor of VI has conceded. His signing the executive order recognizing marriages is more than clear evidence of his concession. The clerical process that happens thereafter is not the standard you were going by, and as no one else is questioning the legality in VI, it is time to move on. Njsustain (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there anyone other than Prcc27 who thinks VI does not qualify as fully legal at this point? Njsustain (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There's two type of concessions though: "Same-sex marriage is the law of the land and we will comply immediately" and "same-sex marriage is the law of the land and we will comply in the near future." Puerto Rico "conceded" the same day Obergefell was issued but none of us counted it as a marriage equality territory because the executive order didn't go into effect until 15 days later. Also, on the map talk page there is a user that agrees that Virgin Islands is issuing but not recognizing. Prcc27 (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
      • A) That's hairsplitting if I've ever seen it. B) If anyone agrees with you, I'm sure they can speak for themselves. Njsustain (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Idk what you mean by "hairsplitting". They obviously did- just not on this talk page.... Pinging them would violate Wikipedia policy so I won't do that!Prcc27 (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We should leave the US tribal bullet point off[edit]

There are two reasons why I continue to remove the US tribal bullet point.

  • First is that they are no longer a level of jurisdiction controlling access to equal marriage. When we had tribes issuing licenses in states that banned same-sex marriages, those tribes were worthy of inclusion since a same-sex couple could achieve a valid license in their state of residence. However, Obergefell has now rendered these islands of equality irrelevant. With every state now issuing licenses, couples in any tribe have access to recognized marriages through the state marriage system, which does not stop at the reservation border. A reservation banning marriage (like the Navajo Nation) does not invalidate Arizona marriage licenses within its borders.
  • Second is that there are 567 federally recognized tribes, many of which simply defer to state law. Unless someone is willing to comb through those tribes and get a new count, the current count of 24 is giving an inaccurate picture. It would be easier (and tidier) to simply remove the bullet point given its limited reach in point #1, than try to provide an accurate number which could very well cross into OR territory.

Therefore, I see no reason to keep adding a bullet point to what is already a clustered US listing. Dralwik|Have a Chat 03:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree with your second point, though that could be resolved by just having the bullet point text saying "various tribal jurisdictions" and linking to the article rather than specifying a definitive number. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree the bullet should be left off, but for a different (or partially overlapping) reason. Before states had to issue licenses, this was a "back door" to getting one, so it was a relevant point. However it's now moot. That every state issues licenses has now subsumed the relevance of the tribal jurisdictions in the matter and listing tribes is just redundant. It's simply no longer relevant except on a local level when a person is deciding the particulars of where to get his or her license. Njsustain (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
In general the whole US section needs cleaning up. The purpose of this chart isn't to get into the minutia of what's going on in each country. "United States Proper"? Really? NMI intends to comply, so the only real question left is American Samoa, which apparently isn't "really" part of the US in regard to this matter, so it doesn't need clarifying. Let's just make it "United States" and be done with it. I will wait for other opinions though before considering editing as such. Njsustain (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
While your second point is true, your first point is off, as the tribes are their own jurisdictions and are able to not recognize marriages for their own purposes. Saying the XYZ Nation will not perform or recognize marriages even though the state they are in will is not conceptually different from saying that the state will not recognize marriages even though the federal government will. As that argument was the reason for your deletion, that was why I reverted. But yes, the point should either read "at least 24"... or it can be done away with for simplicity, if that's what people want. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
What I am trying to point out is the effective reach of each level of jurisdiction. Since the federal government only recognized validly conducted marriages, before Obergefell there were still areas where a couple had no access to a license due to state law. Now with every state issuing, every couple (at least in the 50 states + DC) has access to marriage. The tribal recognition has to do with some benefits, but tribal recognition no longer has an effect on the availability of valid licenses. That is why I want the bullet point gone. Dralwik|Have a Chat 13:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Nat, the difference is that prior to Obergefell, getting a license through a tribe gave you rights outside of the tribe, so it was significant. But now, if a tribe doesn't recognize your marriage, that is of no consequence whatsoever except within the tribe... it is of no more consequence than the Catholic church not recognizing your marriage. This template and associated articles are about civil marriage, not tribal recognition. Njsustain (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
No, actually, it is different from the church not recognizing your marriage. Tribes are governments, with their own physical jurisdictions, their own set of government-granted rights and services. (As a clear example in context: if your local church granted a marriage that was not done in accordance with some larger government, it would not be recognized by other governments; marriages granted by tribes are recognized.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
That's specious. The tribal "governments" have very limited differences in services compared to the state. While they were able to get away with granting marriage licenses in some cases where the state would not, to pretend it is an entirely separate government is invalid and misleading. Njsustain (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd say this is rather unfair to the tribal governments, which are functioning, self-contained governments. My point isn't that their recognition or non-recognition isn't worthy of attention in an article, my point is that they simply aren't distinct enough from omni-recognizing state law to warrant a bullet point. Dralwik|Have a Chat 14:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
My point wasn't to disparage tribal governments. The point is that, in regards to this template, their influence is of no consequence and longer. Perhaps a better analogy would be that a tribal government is more like a municipal government that is slightly more separated (I don't think "autonomous" is accurate) from the state than a township, city, or county might be. But in reality they have little leeway in what they can do that is not already within the general bounds of U.S. laws, and they exist only at the pleasure of the prevailing government(s). That tribes were able to issue civil marriage licenses that were valid was significant when the government of the state they were located in would not. Now that all states do, it is moot/irrelevant/subsumed... whatever you want to call it. Njsustain (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the tribes are worth noting because even though you can get a license through the state government within tribal borders- you cannot receive tribal recognition if a tribe bans same-sex marriage. A same-sex couple in a tribe that recognizes same-sex marriages has more rights than a same-sex couple that lives in a tribe that doesn't! Prcc27 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you give an example of rights that a same-sex couple legally married under the laws of the state in which the tribe is located doesn't have that they would have if their tribe also recognized their marriage? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rreagan007: Housing and property rights are denied to same-sex couples on tribal lands where ssm is banned even if they live in a state where it's legal (see link I provided below)! Prcc27 (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Up until now I've been pretty neutral on whether or not to continue to include the indian tribes in the template, but I'm starting to lean towards including them. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Which suggests that we should stop focusing on tribes that recognize SSM and focus on tracking those that deny recognition, as they are the exception from the general situation in the US. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This template is about civil rights, not tribal rights. It's outside of the scope of this file. Njsustain (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The template doesn't list exceptions and I'd prefer we'd just stick with saying "various jurisdictions ". Also, tribes are in the scope of this template and they've been listed on this template for years! Tribal governments are still governments... Prcc27 (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • School boards are governments. Counties are governments. Municipalities are governments. But they don't merit listing on an international list of countries. And as continues to escape you, things are no longer the same as they have been "For years!" since Obergefell. That some are still willing to give out licenses is no longer relevant... before, it was, but now, no. Njsustain (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"""
    • Local governments aren't sovereign and they have to comply with state law; tribes are sovereign and don't have to comply with state law. You're comparing apples to oranges. And yes, since Obergefell the licensing isn't as relevant. But recognition and lack thereof is still completely relevant! Prcc27 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A) Stop shouting at me. B) Yet you still have not a single example, verified or unverified, of anyone who has been denied any rights because their tribe does not license SSM. It is not just less relevant, it is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Njsustain (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you think that rights of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans are irrelevant. However, as the tribes control such things as homesite rights, adoption rights, participation in tribe health benefits, and so forth, and in some cases tie these things to marriage, it seems rather relevant to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Putting untrue and offensive words in my mouth doesn't change the fact that you have no verifiable evidence of anyone being denied rights. As you may not have realized, a same sex couple living on native land of a tribe that does not issue SSM licenses can still get a civil marriage certificate in their state, so it would be pretty impossible for the tribe to deny any rights based on marital status. Once you have any proof of your untested hypothesis I will be the first person who would want to know about the injustice.Njsustain (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's WP:OR to assume that a tribe can't deny recognition. First of all, a tribe doesn't have to recognize any state marriages because they are sovereign. Second of all, Obergefell doesn't affect tribal ssm bans and since ssm bans are still on the books they are obviously still enforceable. The burden of proof lies with you to prove the status quo has changed. And for the last time, WP:SHOUT only counts bolding and all caps (like what you hypocritically use) as shouting. Exclamation points are necessary forms of punctuation used to properly emphasis a sentence. I suggest you watch your shouting before it gets you in trouble... Prcc27 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I found a source and it says "without the recognition of their tribes, couples lack access to the same benefits —housing, child custody, and property rights — that non-native same-sex partners just spent decades fighting for." [8] Prcc27 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
"let's say that my partner and I decide to get married in California, or let's say we go to Albuquerque ... the state recognizes it, and so I can come back here home ... and the Navajo government will not recognize the rights and the benefits I deserve. They will not recognize the rights and the benefits my partner deserves."--Nat Gertler (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There are several sovereign states within the boundaries of the United States that do not rec SSM, and which are not required to under the SCOTUS ruling. To make a blanket statement saying SSM is legal in the United States is therefor false. If we do not give a note about the tribes, then we cannot honestly say SSM is legal in the US. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Others hypothesizing that rights could be denied is still not evidence that anyone is being denied any rights. Njsustain (talk)
This is not a chart of where people are being denied rights, but of the legal status of SSM. SSM is not legal in the US, only in parts of it. Those parts may now cover 99.9% of the population, but they're not everything, just as in the Netherlands. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yet same-sex marriage is legal in reservations under state law; tribal non-recognition does not negate the state recognition and thus the tribes are irrelevant to this template.
A similar situation happens in Canada with the First Nations. Do they merit a bullet point as well? Dralwik|Have a Chat 06:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I suppose that's a good point. Is there a comparable Wikipedia article that covers same-sex marriage in Canadian first nations jurisdictions? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
While I continue to be of the opinion that the recognition from Native tribes is no longer of relevance to this issue, there is a clear consensus (which I also do not agree with) that the details of what entities specifically license and recognize SSM should indeed be spelled out in the table. Given this, I have no serious objection to "various native tribes" being included as well. Njsustain (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
In which case, there is a town in New York State that does not perform as well that we should consider. Also Brazil has a system of native reserves that may fall in with the U.S. tribes and First Nations. Dralwik|Have a Chat 07:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about a rogue town in NY that is disobeying the law? Prcc27 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Canadian First Nations aren't treated as sovereigns by the Federal and Province governments, family law is a federal matter in Canada and de jure, every decision by a tribal chief or council needs state approval, can't tell about Brazil but I don't think that the native reservations or nations are de facto recognized as law-making bodies by the federal or state governments there 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Gory details of minor US non-compliance needs to be footnoted or removed[edit]

The entire US has SSM except for American Samoa, and NMI which intends to comply. The "United States Proper" bullet is ludicrous... has anyone ever seen this term used anywhere else? So, how about we just have "United States", possibly with a footnote: "Not in effect in MP, and AS, [with links]"? The footnote could even be an appropriate place to mention some native tribes are not complying, if there is consensus to do so and it's referenced. I don't think the latter warrants inclusion though, even as a footnote here. Njsustain (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The other countries with overseas territories use this same format in this template, so I see no reason why the United States should not be listed in the same fashion. I very rarely (if ever) have heard "New Zealand proper" or "Netherlands proper" either, but it doesn't mean we can't use it in this template to distinguish the primary country from its overseas territories. And I assume if/when Northern Ireland legalizes SSM, we would just list "United Kingdom proper". Whatever we do, we need to be consistent. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rreagan007. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not a matter of the tribes complying, because the SCOTUS ruling does not apply to them: there's nothing for them to comply to. They are, however, in the United States, so a blanket statement that SSM is legal in the United States would be false. And as others have noted, territories controlled by a country are listed under that country. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm responding more so to the X country proper format. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we really need to list the main country as a separate entity. The United States, bar American Samoa has same-sex marriage, that really isn't in question. Denmark has marriage and now Greenland does too. We should scrap proper and just have the link related to the country highlighted. If one of the territories of these respective countries passes legislation, we can add it as a separate entity (under its the state's that it belongs too**). Regardless, many of the territories are more conservative and thus we shouldn't need to distinguish the main country in the template. All it does is take up unnecessary space. Chase1493 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Laws in Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand and United States does not apply to some parts of these countries. 2. There is no reason to treat these countries and the UK differently. 3. Your edit suggested that same-sex marriage is legal in Greenland, but not in the other parts of Denmark. Your proposition is misleading and creates inconsistency. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands[edit]

First same-sex marriage took place in Northern Mariana Islands on July 22, so we can remove the asterix. See [9], [10]. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's great news. I doubt everyone will accept this source though, and some will dig in their heels, refusing to accept that NMI is recognizing marriages without proclamations from Congress, the U.N., the Vatican and Jimmy Wales saying that it is so. I thank you for finding this though.
Meanwhile, since all of the US now has marriage equality, the file should just list "United States " with a footnote about American Samoa. Njsustain (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I support this shorter footnote. Dralwik|Have a Chat 11:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, done. We'll see how it flies. I didn't add wikilinks in footnotes as I didn't think it was necessary, but if someone wants to, go crazy.Njsustain (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No, how we handle countries and their territories on the template must be consistent. So unless we will be changing New Zealand, Denmark and the Netherlands also, we can't be changing the United States to a different format. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The situation in each country is different so there is no reason they all need to be treated the same. The U.S. is all the same now barring an unincorporated territory that is not even, apparently, subject to U.S. law, and a similar situation with sovereign tribes. Marriage equality is clearly the rule in the U.S., not the exception. Presenting it otherwise is inappropriate and misleading. Njsustain (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It's the rule in ND, Den, and NZ as well. If we use fn's for exceptions there, we can for the US as well. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I still fail to see the need to differentiate at all. If a territory legalizes a form of union, then it can be appropriately placed under the country that has jurisdiction over it (i.e. The Pitcairn's or Greenland). The "proper" designation is redundant to what is already present in the country's name already being present. As I recall, the U.K. and Denmark's same-sex marriage page have mini-tables that show where their territories stand. It would be easier just to do that for the remaining ones and have a section of the U.S. page dedicated to the legal question of American Samoa's non-compliance. Chase1493 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree. This "proper" stuff is ridiculous, redundant, and clutters the whole table needlessly. And again I don't see any need to have a rigid rule for how to treat each country that has "extra" jurisdictions. For the US at this point it should clearly be "except AS (& sovereign native tribes)". Njsustain (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
So, we should say it's legal in Denmark, though it's not, and legal in the Netherlands, though it's not, and legal in the UK, though it's not, and legal in the US, though it's not? I guess it's close enough, and we can't expect our readers to know what all these countries are anyway. Better to dumb things down than confuse them with details. We could simplify the table even further, stating that it's legal in Europe, America, Oceania, and Africa, with a footnote noting it's not legal in all jurisdictions in those areas. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Like all things, it's necessary to find a balance between too much and too little information. What serves the chart best? What are people looking for? Is it "dumbed down" to say simply that same sex marriage is legal in the US when there is only one unincorporated territory in which the situation is unsettled, and in some native tribes, for which the residents can still get married within whatever state they live in? If someone wants to know the gory details of the individual country's laws, is the link provided not adequate? Readers know what the countries are, but how much detail do they need to glean about each country from the chart? Should we list every county in the US which is complying? Every town?Njsustain (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the only good alternative would be replacing all sublists with notes. See my sandbox. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015[edit]

There is no reliable source that can confirm the existence of civil unions in the state of Mérida, Venezuela. There is no recognition of same sex couples in this country. Can you delete it, please? TitoBRPA (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a source here ("In the state of Merida we currently have civil unions"). And here ("In Venezuela, only the state of Mérida recognizes same‐sex civil unions"). Stickee (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)