Jump to content

Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10


Iceland

Since Iceland has a gay Prime Minister, has Iceland made SSM legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.84.243 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but it has had registered partnerships since 1996, which in Iceland means that the whole body of law that has to do with marriage and married couples applies to partners in a registered partnership—including joint adoption and blessings from the state church. Noble Spear (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Spain and South Africa

Spain recognized unregistered cohabitation since 1994. 12 Autonomous Communities implemented civil unions.

South Africa recognized unregistered cohabitation since 1999. Registered unions are recognized since 2006.

Canada - Alberta

Alberta recognized same-sex unions as "Adult interdependent relationship" since 2003

I think the key issue here is whether we should permit "double/multiple inclusion" in the template, or whether countries should only be listed once based on the "highest" level of rights they offer. So, essentially, there are two models that we can follow:
1) List countries only once. If a country has same-sex marriage, it would only be listed in the SSM section, even if it also offers civil unions and unregistered cohabitation to same-sex couples
2) List countries in all relevant sections. If a country has same-sex marriage and, say, unregistered cohabitation, it would be listed in both sections.
Personally, I am in favour of the first proposal. It would clutter the template to list countries so many times. The vast majority of jurisdictions which offer same-sex marriage also have provisions for civil unions and unregistered cohabitation. Furthermore, many countries with formal civil union schemes will also offer some rights to same-sex (and opposite-sex) cohabitating couples, and would thus need to be listed under "Unregistered cohabitation". If we're going to accept the addition of Alberta, Spain and South Africa, we also have to accept the addition of every other jurisdiction which offers some rights to cohabitating, unmarried same-sex couples. This would include every state in Canada, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom at the very least. It is also my understanding that Norway, Denmark and New Zealand provide some recognition to people in de facto relationships, be they same-sex or opposite-sex. Thus, the "unregisted cohabitation" section of the template would grow from 9 jurisdictions to at least 18 and probably more than 20. To me, this is needless clutter for a template that is already too large. Ronline ✉ 06:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungary

What is the situation in Hungary after the Consitutional Court ruling on a registered partnership law that was due to come into effect 1.1.2009. What is the outcome of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the Court prevented the entire law from coming into force on January 1, 2009, even though it did not object to the principle of providing same-sex couples with equal rights. The rationale behind the decision was that it was unconsistutional to provide opposite-sex couples with an institution that offers almost identical rights to marriage, considering that they already have the right to get married.
In response to the ruling, the Hungarian Government has proposed a new law which provides registered partnerships only for same-sex couples, similar to the British model. This law will soon be presented to the Parliament and, if it passes, it should come into force either later this year or in early 2010. Since 1996, Hungary already has a limited form of unregistered cohabitation for same-sex couples which remains in force. Ronline ✉ 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the latest in the US

Have more states of the US provided domestic partnerships, civil unions or marriage yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.178.34 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How far back do you want to go? The past year, month? If any states provide either of those things, they will be listed on this template, and sister articles like Same-sex unions in the United States. Looking ahead, civil unions in hawaii, and marriage in maine and rhode island are in the works. SultrySuzie (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The latest US state to provide recognition to same-sex couples was Maryland, in mid-2008. A bill establishing domestic partnerships in New Mexico recently failed to pass; similarly, a bill providing some rights to same-sex couples in Utah failed to get out of the Committee stage. In Hawaii, a civil union bill is stalling in the Senate (though the state already provides a limited form of domestic partnership). So, on the whole, not much progress has been made in the past few months. Nonetheless, as SultrySuzie points out, same-sex marriage bills have been submitted in Maine and Rhode Island. Similarly, there are proposals for marriage in New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York. Ronline ✉ 03:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

California Should Stay Removed

I removed California on the grounds that while it still recognizes the said 18,000+ SSMs — new ones cannot be carried out — as is the case with Iowa — which legally recognizes one SSM, but new ones cannot be formed. If California is listed, there is no reason that Iowa shouldn't, and therefore California is best removed from the list and placed under Recognition granted; SSM debated for the time being. As Iowa is under Recognition debated. The same applies to Greece, which could also be listed as a same-sex marriage is legally still recognized in the nation as well. After the CA supreme court makes their ruling, then we can decide where to place it. vickiloves08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.150.22 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your removal of CA. California's situation is far different from Iowa. Iowa had SSM for one day before it ended. In Iowa SSM was started and ended by the court; in California it was started by the court and then stopped by the people. The only reason to remove CA would be if the 18,000+ SSMs were voided. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The marriage in Iowa is still recognized by law, as is the case with a SSM marriage on an island that is part of Greece. California being included is both misleading and unneeded, as SS couples cannot get married in CA currently as they can in MA and CT. Therefore, it has no place in this template, and should stay under SSM debated until further notice. Vickiloves08 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Region Disputed section?

Does anyone think we should have a disputed section so we won't have to fret over where to place countries such as Greece and states such as Iowa and California? I think this could come in handy — but what are your thoughts? vickiloves08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.150.22 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there was a proposal for this a while ago, but in my opinion it is unneeded. There are too few jurisdictions at the moment where recognition is disputed in order to justify a new section. Furthermore, in jurisdictions such as California or Greece or Iowa, no marriage licences are being issued at the moment. Thus, from a practical perspective, there is no difference between these jurisdictions and those which have not yet recognised same-sex marriage. In my view, there should only be two sections: one for countries where it is definitely confirmed that same-sex marriage is available (at the moment, 6 countries + MA and CT), and one for all other countries where SSM is not yet legal. Ronline ✉ 10:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up the recognition debated section?

Why on earth is Poland included under "recognition debated" — as there have been no developments in years — and the "developments" in the past were minor at best. And last time I checked, Latvia and Lithuania have constitutional bans on SSM — with no talk of a civil union bill. I think those three countries should be removed to clear up space, as we might as well list Cambodia if those nations with extremely minor updates are listed. I'm going to start a list of countries that I believe should be removed, and then after I get some feedback, we can decide.

Removals

  • Poland
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Romania
    • EDIT: I've included a list of each country in the "Recognition Debated" section and I am going to boldface the countries in which I believe should be removed, and italicize the countries that I believe should be questioned. The ones which I believe should indefinitely stay will be left alone.

Austria
Chile
China (PRC)
Costa Rica
Cuba
Estonia
Faroe Islands
Greece
Ireland
Italy (CU)
Jersey
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Nepal (SSM)
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Taiwan

Vickiloves08 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is long overdue. Let us in this process develop some criteria for the inclusion of countries in the "recognition debated" section. How about, for starters, a political party with representation in the legislature that advocates for SSM, or a pending court case that could decide the issue? SultrySuzie (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Wonderful idea! For example, countries such as Nepal would automatically qualify — as the highest court ruled that the government must grant all LGBT citizens with equal rights including marriage. We could also include countries/states such as Greece and Iowa who have performed legally recognized marriages, but they were halted and the legality of the performed marriages and for the entire country could be decided. So, I'll start a list of guidelines and include your suggestions as well and others can chip in to and we can soon after agree upon a full criteria which others must follow before updating — which will make it easier to include countries/regions on the template in the proper category without leaving others confused.

Also—do you think it would be too much if we added (M) or (SSM) next to the countries in the recognition debated section debating SSM and a (CU) next to the countries debating only civil unions? I know I have always been confused to which a country is debating either and since there are no separate sections for SSM marriage debated and Civil Union debated, I think it could clear up some confusion and inform those who wanted to know whether a country was debating civil unions or SSM specifically, and if it was just on the table for either being one or the other, we could just leave it blank to ensure that the country was debating the possibility of some form of recognition, but not specifically SSM or Civil Union. Like Italy for example. I tried it out on just Italy and Nepal, so let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Requirements

  • Court Ruling
  • Political Party that supports full marriage equality/and or civil unions.
  • A pending bill/ballot initiative
  • ---

(others are free to add) Vickiloves08 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

After the countries that need to be are culled, the "Recognition Debated" section could be split into two columns, one for marriage and others for civil unions and lower forms of recognition. SultrySuzie (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. Vickiloves08 (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. In my view, the "recognition debated" section should be a placeholder for all countries where the issue of same-sex relationship recognition has been debated and we have an article on that issue. It should not only be for countries which are currently in a formal process/debate regarding recognition. Removing countries such as Poland, Romania and Latvia from the template means that the articles on those countries will no longer be accessible from the template. This means a net loss of convenience for Wikipedia readers, who may be interested in what the situation in these countries is (for example, whether there is a constitutional ban on SSM, why, what the current political party views are, why the process was stalled, etc). To make it more accurate, maybe we could rename "Recognition debated" to "Other jurisdictions". Ronline ✉ 10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
A second problem with the proposal is that the criteria for "recognition debated" are somewhat subjective. In Vickiloves08's list above, she proposes questioning whether Ireland or Chile should stay, but places China and Italy on the "must stay" list. However, in Ireland, the heads of the Civil Partnerships Bill have already been introduced in Parliament while, in Chile, the governing party in theory supports civil unions (i.e. the President has indicated support for them). On the other hand, in China, no SSM bill has been introduced in the past two years and no pro-SSM political statements have been made. In Italy, a bill for civil unions was abandoned by the previous Prodi government and was actively opposed by the current government. Not to mention that, under the above criteria, Poland should still be included because the left-wing opposition parties in Parliament are quite strong supporters of civil unions and have introduced two parliamentary bills on the matter in the past two years (which has not happened in neither Italy nor Estonia nor Greece, which are kept on the list). This illustrates that it is often very difficult to ascertain which countries will soon legalise same-sex unions and which won't, and any decision to include/exclude will be quite arbitrary. Ronline ✉ 10:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I still think it would be a good idea, but we would need to really work on a way to clear up any confusion

Here's an idea I had previously, so maybe this sounds good as well: Also—do you think it would be too much if we added (M) or (SSM) next to the countries in the recognition debated section debating SSM and a (CU) next to the countries debating only civil unions? I know I have always been confused to which a country is debating either and since there are no separate sections for SSM marriage debated and Civil Union debated, I think it could clear up some confusion and inform those who wanted to know whether a country was debating civil unions or SSM specifically, and if it was just on the table for either being one or the other, we could just leave it blank to ensure that the country was debating the possibility of some form of recognition, but not specifically SSM or Civil Union.

Either way, I still believe that Latvia, Romania and Lithuania should be removed. They have no place there. I suppose we could someone link them in, but they shouldn't just be included so other can find out about their status. If we did it that way, we might as well include Wyoming under the debated section. Vickiloves08 (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's important to include countries simply as links so that others can find out about their status. The function of templates in general is to provide a set of links to articles about a given subject. There is less of a need to convey information per se or to make subtle distinctions. Latvia, Lithuania and especially Romania have quite detailed articles on same-sex unions in those countries, and I think leaving them out from the template essentially leaves these articles isolated. I would be OK with having a separate category for "Other jurisdictions" which would include all the jurisdictions not currently debating same-sex unions but which have articles on this issue (this would also include any US states we have articles on).
However, I believe this would not be an optimal situation for two reasons. 1) It would create an additional category to a template that is already too long and complex. We already have six main categories, with two of the categories having three sub-categories. The template initially started out with three main categories: Same-sex marriage, Any other recognition (civil unions and unregistered cohabitation), and "Recognition debated" (i.e. all other articles). 2) The distinction between "Recognition debated" and "Other jurisdictions" can sometimes be quite arbitrary. This is not the case for the other categories: our policy so far has been to include countries in the SSM or CU category only if SSM/CUs are actually being carried out. However, it's very hard to tell whether a meaningful debate is taking place on this issue, or whether there is any real probability of same-sex unions being legalised. For example, it is quite clear that in Ireland, Austria and Hungary, recognition of CUs is really being debated: there are clear bills being proposed, a timetable for implementation, etc. In jurisdictions like Jersey or Estonia, the debate is weaker but still present: bills are in the drafting or public consultation stage, there is some concrete progress. In other places, like Argentina, Chile and Taiwan, there is no concrete progress, but there is political will/evidence of pro-recognition political statements. Lastly, in places like Italy and Poland, there is neither mainstream political will nor concrete progress, even if significant parties do support legalisation and there have been recent, if symbolic, attepts to this end.
So, if we are going to have a more restrictive "Recognition debated" section, which only includes countries that are really and genuinely debating recognition, then I believe it should be made even more precise, to include only those countries where there is concrete progress - essentially, bills have already been submitted to parliament or have been announced by a governing party and are being drafted (e.g. Hungary, Ireland, Austria, etc). Ronline ✉ 07:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points, I have a few ideas that could solve both issues. I'm still working on perfecting them, though.

Vermont and New Hampshire

The Governor vetoed the bill around 6pm today. Will go to back to senate and house early tomorrow morning, April 7th. Very likely to pass override his veto. Senate passed 26-4. That's a no brainer.

New Hampshire is likely to pass in its senate next week. If it were to pass, we still don't know whether or not their gov. lynch will sign it or not. Likely to pass. Effective date 2010-1-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.113.119 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Added European Union page

As many others have asked in the past if a European Union page was necessary, and others unanimously agreed, I decided to finally create the page which had been suggested and offered, but never officially created. Feel free to add addition info/or rephrase wordings. Not only will this give others info on updates throughout the 27-state union, it will also save space if the EU passes the currently debated and much supported bill to require each member (yup, even Cyprus and the former Soviet Nations) to recognize each other's SSMs, CUs, and RPs — it will save space in the "recognized, not performed" section. It would be much too spacious and irritating to list all 27 nations in the template, therefore we can simply link the European Union page under the said category if/when it is agreed upon. I also added it under SSM debated and Civil Unions/RP debated — so it can stand for some of the nations with minimal debates with very little progress (i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, and Bulgaria) and we won't have to include each nation. Vickiloves08 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, the EU is not a country but an international organization and the template does not include other organizations such as NAFTA or NATO. Besides, to be consistent, you should move Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Sweden etc. to "recognized in some regions" of the EU. But in fact the discussion seems to be pointless at the moment: after the failure of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU simply cannot decide on topics such as recognition of SSM in its member states. Tom, 21:34, 8 April 2009 (GMT)
The EU is unlike NAFTA or NATO in that it is not purely a trade or military organization, but it also handles many state responsibilities, like upholding human rights in Europe. Even without the Lisbon treaty, same-sex unions are relevant to the EU because of the rights and benefits provided for spouses and partners under the EU's Free Movement Directive, the Family Reunification Directive and the Qualification Directive. Fortuynist (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Fortuynist. NAFTA and NATO are economic and military organizations, respectively. The EU is both of those - plus it is an organization that handles state-responsibilities and makes sure that human rights is upheld in each of its member nations. Very different than NAFTA or NATO. --haha169 (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should CA (status in flux)) remain under Recognized in some regions

There are legally recognized SSMs in CA. This situation is NOT analagous to Iowa or Greece. Over there, the courts started and ended SSM. In CA the people (possibly illegaly) ended it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's a big gray area IMHO, there are 18,000 same-sex marriages that will go to trial if Prop 8 isn't invalidated. -- Banjeboi 11:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is possible for Prop H8 to be valid and for those interim marriage to be valid. I know WP:SPECULATION is not allowed, but the way the judges spoke on Thursday it seemed that they would be unwilling to divorce those 18000+ marriages. My point is that, unless those marriage are invalidated, there are still substantial number of SSMs in CA and therefore they ought be represented on the template. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

NO. It is not the same as Massachusetts and Conneticutt, as two people of the same sex cannot get married there currently, as they can in MA or CT. It should stay under debated until further notice. It's inclusion in the SSM section is ridiculous and confusing. If California will be included with Status in flux, then there's no reason why Iowa and Greece shouldn't be included, as a few SSM marriages are legally recognized in those places. Numbers mean nothing. This is why it has no place there. Vickiloves08 (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Numbers do matter and public recognition of the SSM does matter too. Most of the US (and a large chunk of the rest of the world) knows about the legal challenges pertaining the SSM in California and the currently-valid marriages. How many people recognize the very few marriages performed in Iowa and Greece, and on top of that these marriages were started and stopped by the courts; Iowas was a misfire of the court because they accidentally started them before the appeal. In California they were going on smoothly for about five months before the people stopped them with a (hopefully unconstitutional) ballot propostion. The situations are not identical despite how often you claim they are. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's stop it with the biased insertions please. Anyway, my suggestion would be to move it to the same category as New York, recognized, not performed. Since technically (this is saying that the supreme court invalidates Prop 8), CA would be recognizing marriages but not performing them. But personally, I think this discussion should wait until the Supreme Court issues its holding. We shouldn't be here to discuss ifs or whens. --haha169 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


I think you are slightly off when you say "Since technically (this is saying that the supreme court invalidates Prop 8), CA would be recognizing marriages but not performing them.". There are three primary possible results of the Lawsuits to overturn Proposition 8
1. Prop 8 is invalidated and SSMs continue and the in flux comment is removed
2. Prop 8 remains active and SSMs committed in the interim period become divorced, and CA is removed from the template w/o question
3. Prop 8 remains active BUT the interim SSMs are still valid for various legal reasons; in this case there is a can of worms opened over the template.

Any of these three possibilities are very possible; however, at the moment there are valid SSMs around CA. I think the template should stay as it currently is in regards to CA until the CA SC rules. This is a very important case and I don't think they will dilly-dally over this; I remember reading somewhere that they promised an expedited ruling. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with you. It should stay the way it is until the Supreme Court comes up with a holding. Then we change it accordingly. That's why I think this discussion is a bit premature. --haha169 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweden - same-sex marriage bill

When will be a final vote in the Swedish Parliament? Ron 1987 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the info from the RSFL, a parliamentary vote is due to take place on April 1. The bill will enter into force in May 1. As soon as the Bill passes and receives Royal Assent, we can insert it into the template. Ronline ✉ 10:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, what's the deal? How long does it take to vote on a SSM bill? Same with Nepal, why can't they just speed it along and legalize SSM? Wikitiki666 (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the legalisation of SSM in Sweden is taking somewhat longer than most people expected it to take. The main problem is that one of four parties in the governing coaliton, the Christian Democrats, disagrees with same-sex marriage. While the other three parties agree, this has made it difficult for the Cabinet to proceed rapidly on the issue. However, it is my understanding that there will finally be a parliamentary vote on April 1, when it is almost certain that SSM will be approved, and will enter into force on May 1. This is what both the Swedish newspapers and RFSL is saying.
As to Nepal, my view is that there will be no SSM there in the near future. Despite what the media have reported, the High Court's ruling did not legalise SSM. Instead, it upheld equal rights for LGBT people in a broader sense and ordered the government to set up a committee to look at recognition of same-sex couples. Whether the government will do this is in itself not certain. Even if it does, it is unlikely that full SSM will be recommended.
My bet is that the next country to legalise SSM (the 8th in total) will be Portugal, sometime in late 2009 or 2010. We could also see movement from Iceland and Luxembourg in the near future. Ronline ✉ 03:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cambodia

Currently, same-sex marriage is not debated in Cambodia. King Norodom Sihanouk abdicated in 2004. Current monarch nor any party not supported same-sex marriage. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger / standardization discussion

There is a centralized discussion at the LGBT Wikiproject here regarding standardizing all the article names for at least the United States articles. Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 07:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Austria and Hungary

Should Austria and Hungary be included in the registered partnership list? From 1.1.2010 Austria and Hungary will provide "registered partnerships". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Parliaments in Austria and Hungary not approved registered partnership bills yet. Ron 1987 (talk)18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

United States - Vermont

[1] [2] --205.167.47.253 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NY Times and CNN have caught up with the news ([3]) ([4]) - but nothing will be changed until the bill actually passes. --haha169 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably will pass right through the Vermont House of Representatives, which is Democratically led 96-47-5-2 (Dems-GOP-Progressives-Independents). It is just a question as for whether the Republican governor will sign it or not. Anyways, so what is the drill if it is signed (or veto'ed and then overrided)? will be put up before CA (as CA is in flux) with an (Eff. 9-01-08) on it? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We could just simply put it up when the date passes, but the parenthesis (Eff. ...) is fine as well. But I'm under the impression that September 1, 2008 was by and gone a few months ago. Are you sure you don't mean 2009? --haha169 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
[5] - governor is vetoing. It will take a while longer to override, if it ever does. --haha169 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
[6] - New York, New Hampshire, Rhode Island. --haha169 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Philippines? Venezuela?

Why somebody added Philippines and Venezuela? Could you give some source? Ron 1987 17:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't mean that they have recognition of same-sex unions, it just means that it's being debated. See the sources on LGBT rights in the Philippines and LGBT rights in Venezuela. SultrySuzie (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I know. Venezuela? I agree. Addition Philippines to section "Same-marriage debated' is doubtful. Article LGBT rights in the Philippines is not convincing source. Ron 1987 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 (talk • contribs)
It says that anti-discrimination and anti-same sex marriage bills are pending and being debated before the Senate and the Congress, and that at least one party has a LGBT platform. SultrySuzie (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
In that case I agree Ron 1987 (talk 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Venezuela debate is now completely off the table. See this link

Japan

Should I place something next to Japan along the lines of "foreign partners only" or (foreign+national only)? I think a distinction needs to be made, but it needs to be brief. It clearly does not recognize ALL foreign SSMs in the same fashion as Israel and France, so I think some form of distinction would be helpful. Wikitiki666 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we list it like this:

Pretend the template is below: Japan (restrictions apply) *OR* (restrictions) <— It links to the SSM page, I just made the text black to look nicer based on what I saw another member do with a similar instance. Wikitiki666 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The wording in the Japan article is confusing. Are same-sex marriages recognized in Japan at all?; Would they get state benefits? If not, why does it matter that they "allow" Japanese nationals to marry overseas? Can they naturalize their spouses quicker? SultrySuzie (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This source says that Japan will issue documents that it has previously denied but not that Japan will recognize foreign same-sex marriages, which begs the question, do other countries that do not recognize same-sex marriages deny the paperwork necessary for foreign marriages? Or was Japan always a unique case, and this just makes it equal to countries like Venezuela? SultrySuzie (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Japan will be recognizing SSMs conducted between a foreign partner and a Japanese citizen — and they will receive exactly the same benefits as a married hetero couple. This is definitely a unique case, but Japan has already allowed such occurrences to start so I suppose one could be happening by tomorrow. Why Japan chose to do it that way is beyond me, but perhaps they'll simply realize the absurdity and just recognize all foreign SSMs or just legalize SSMs to begin with. Wikitiki666 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? SultrySuzie (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, here's one: (from the AP)

"Japan has given the green light for its nationals to marry same-sex foreign partners in countries where gay marriage is legal, a justice ministry official said Friday. Japan does not allow same-sex marriages at home and has so far also refused to issue a key document required for citizens to wed overseas if the applicant's intended spouse was of the same gender." Under the change, the justice ministry has told local authorities to issue the key certificate -- which states a person is single and of legal age -- for those who want to enter same-sex marriages, the official told AFP. (one must be national and the other from a foreign country though)[1]

  1. ^ Source

Wikitiki666 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't say that Japan will recognize the marriage of that couple married in a foreign country or that they would get the rights of heterosexual couples. SultrySuzie (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I probably didn't pick the best source. It kind of confused me when I first read it myself. Here's a clear one that confirms it. (From The Advocate) "The Japanese government will recognize the marriages of nationals who legally marry their same-sex partners outside the country." [1]

  1. ^ Japan OK's Foreign Marriages for Gay Citizens

Wikitiki666 (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It still could mean that they, since they are issuing papers saying that the person is single could just mean that they will consider that person married for the purposes of not getting married again in Japan, but a change in recognition of benefits would require a change in law. The article says that the Justice ministry just told local authorities to give out documentation required for foreign marriages. It would be best to get another source (which should be forthcoming—this is a new development) to improve Japan's article before putting Japan on the template to avoid confusing people. SultrySuzie (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SultrySuzie's point, and have taken Japan out of the template for the time being. None of the sources provided actually state that Japan will recognise foreign SSMs as if they were valid marriages and bestow upon them the rights associated with marriage in Japan. To be included in the "Recognised, not performed" section, the jurisdiction must not perform SSMs, but must recognise them as legal and valid within the jurisdiction. So, for example, in New York same-sex couples married in Massachussetts are recognised as married couples and afforded all the state benefits of marriage. In Aruba, a Dutch SSM must be recognised due to a "mutual recognition of marriage" agreement between countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This seems not to be the case in Japan.
I'm not at all acquainted with Japanese family law, but from what I read (including in the sources above), all that the Japanese Government is doing is issuing a document to Japanese people stating that they are single in Japan, and thus allowing them to get married in jurisdictions which may need this confirmation before issuing a marriage certificate. Ronline ✉ 10:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a comment in the foreign section to assure people that it is not recognized, and to stop adding it. Wikitiki666 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Same-sex_unions/Archive_5&oldid=1138528926"