Template talk:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression

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

Greenland[edit]

Greenland just approved same-sex marriage. It's already dark blue on the North American and European maps. It goes into effect on Oct. 1, 2015.[1] Tenor12 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ireland[edit]

I don't know how to edit the world map, but just to say that Ireland should be coloured in blue on the world map. Currently it's coloured in blue only on the European map. Civil partnerships are recognised in Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.124.227 (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Maine[edit]

Maine should be back to blue now please because the "people's veto" passed by 52 percent repealing the gay marriage law on November 3, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Portugal[edit]

I'm not sure how to edit the map, but the POrtugal info here is wrong. While the Portugese Parliament did have a positive vote on an SSM bill, the bill still has to go through committee, get voted on by Parliament again, and get a presidential signature before becoming law see this to confirm. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Note and update:

  • The Equal Marriage Code 2010 has been fully approved by the Portugal Unicamerial (One House) Parliament. This approved law does not include adoption and IVF rights for same sex couples. Belgium did not include adoption and IVF rights when they approved same sex marriage laws in 2003 as well (but 2 years later IVF and adoption was then included in 2005).

http://www.ontopmag.com/searchResults.aspx?q=Portugal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

State of Bahia in Brazil Approves Same Sex Marriage[edit]

http://www5.tjba.jus.br/corregedoria/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:uniaohomoafetiva&catid=31:noticias&Itemid=142

State of Alagoas in Brazil approves Gay Marriage[edit]

"On January 6, 2012 a judge in the Brazilian state of Alagoas ruled that same-sex marriages will be performed in the state instead of the Civil Unions, making this the first state in Brazil to grant the married status to gay couples in a broad manner. Marriages performed in this state will then be recognized throughout the whole country. Former Alagoas state judge Maria Berenice Dias, who currently directs the National Commission on Sexual Diversity of the Order_of_Attorneys_of_Brazil, sent the text with the decision of the Court of Alagoas to the other states in an attempt to extend the measure across the country. She said the state of Paraná must adhere to the decision of Alagoas soon.[2]"

Can Someone change the colour of the state of Alagoas in Brazil to Dark Blue? Denisxavier (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new color scheme for map[edit]

Same-sex marriage or unions
  Marriage freely available
  Most or all rights of marriage
  Some rights of marriage
  Recognized, but not performed
Homosexual acts illegal
  Minimal penalty
  Heavy penalty
  Life in prison
  Death penalty
Neither
  Not recognised, not illegal

So, WP:BRD and all that: what about this proposed new map? I think it's an improvement because (a) it distinguishes between civil unions that are marriage except the name and those that are distinctly less than marriage; and (b) it's a better colour scheme than the current one - I've noted in the past a couple of complaints that the "marriage" and "death-penalty" colours in the current scheme are visually not so distinguishable on certain monitors. (That's kind of why I drew up the new map, for which I used the ColorBrewer to choose a sensible color scheme.) - htonl (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed colour scheme is really awful, current map is much better. Distinguish is completely unnecessary. We don't need million positions in the legend. Besides, where is the exact line beetwen 'most' and 'some' rights? It's a subjective matter. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The map follows the most-vs-some distinction made by the ILGA report, which is a pretty reliable source. It's not just some made-up original research. And I think there's really a pretty huge distinction between, say, UK civil partnerships which are explicitly supposed to have all the benefits of marriage, and (for example) "designated beneficiary agreements" in Colorado, which only include "limited rights, including making funeral arrangements for each other, receiving death benefits, and inheriting property without a will". I think it's odd to treat them as if they're the same thing on the map. As to the colour scheme, I think the proposed new one is clearer and more harmonious. Obviously you disagree, so I'd like to hear some other editors' feelings on this matter of opinion. - htonl (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The current map also implies, by giving it a darker blue color, that no state recognition of marriage (medium blue) is a greater degree of rights than state recognition of marriage (light blue), which is backwards. You can be legally wed in Mexico and Israel. You can't be legally wed in France or Australia. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The map implies nothing. That is an absurd argument. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course it does. Under 'illegal', the darker the color, the harsher the penalty. It's a cline. If we gave the death penalty a medium shade, it would be out of order. Same for the 'legal' column: the darker the color, the greater the recognized rights. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
So you can change recognition of marriage colour from light blue to green on the current map. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
What is your objection to following the ILGA and distinguishing minimal from near-equal civil union rights? — kwami (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It's dispensable. I don't see a reason to implement that distinguish. Current legend is absolutely enough. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, several of us disagree with you there. It's equivalent to minor vs major penalties.
Also, AFAIK, homosexuality is not illegal, homosexual acts are. I don't think anyone would be sentenced to death for being a non-practicing homosexual, whereas a homosexual act by a heterosexual would still be illegal. Am I wrong? — kwami (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine, if you want that distinction do it on the current map. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
So, your basic objection is the color? How would you deal with the problem of the two dark colors being confused? — kwami (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
What problem? Difference between dark blue and dark brown is very clear. But, if you want, we can find some new colour for death penalty. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If you'll read the explanation, the original reason for changing the color is that people have complained that they look the same. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion the fact that 2 or 3 people have some problems with monitors is not a sensible reason to change the whole colour scheme. But, as I said in previous post, we can change death penalty colour (maybe pink or purple?). Ron 1987 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
True, I don't know how common the problem is.
Personally, I like the color being iconic, with a darker shade meaning a heavier penalty. It makes it easy to scan the map without having to refer back to the key. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Two points about the map above. First, the light green is problematic because for those with red-green colorblindness (affecting as many as 1 in 10 people) it may be confused with the pink, while for those with total colorblindness it may also be confused with the light blue. A possible workaround would be applying some sort of texture, such as diagonal bars. Second, the wording of the various categories under the "Homosexual acts legal" heading is confusing. For instance, "Recognized, but not performed" refers to marriage, but that's not immediately obvious, since the boldface heading refers to homosexual acts. I wonder whether it would be better to have two separate maps, one addressing the legal status of homosexual activity and the other dealing only with marriage equality. Rivertorch (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Both good points.
Green: We were in disagreement as to the order of the scale. To me, legal marriage trumps civil unions, even if they're not performed locally, and so should be a darker shade of blue. The creator of this map disagreed, and set them out as a separate color. Texture gets to be problematic, when we also use stripes for countries which fit more than one category. It would also be difficult to use texture for Israel, when even a solid color barely shows up. (Israel actually fits two categories, recognition + civil unions, but is too small for us to pattern it that way.)
2 maps: the two complement each other, so I think it's good to have them in one map. Maybe we could rename the first column to "Same-sex marriage or unions"? Grey would then be a third group, 'other' or 'neither' or s.t. like that.
kwami (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Another advantage of having separate maps is that fewer colors would be needed for each one, which would allow the use of more easily differentiated colors. I have to say, however, that if we're continuing with a combined map, the one currently in use seems preferable overall to the one proposed on this page. It's not perfect and perhaps could be modified slightly, but its color contrasts are pretty good and its legend's wording pretty easy to understand. You're right about Israel, of course. Shades of gray (I mean this in the figurative sense) like that may be beyond the reasonable scope of this template and will need to be fleshed out in the relevant articles. If none of the categories/colors seems to fit a given country very well, maybe there should be an extra one just labeled "other". Rivertorch (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Similarly to Ron 1987, I disagree with the distinction between "most of all rights of marriage" and "some rights of marriage". The key problem with the distinction is that it is difficult to neatly categorise all recognition schemes into two neat categories. Of course, when you compare UK civil partnerships with designated beneficiaries in Colorado, there is a clear difference. However, many schemes are in between - for example, registered partnerships in Germany do not provide taxation or joint adoption benefits, while civil partnerships in Ireland provide no parenting rights at all. It is unclear why they are in a different category to Uruguay, which does provide joint adoption in a civil union. Similarly, in Australia, couples in many states do not have access to a registered partnership scheme, but gain pretty much all of the rights of marriage through unregistered (de facto) cohabitation laws. Indeed, in Western Australia, same-sex couples are allowed to jointly adopt. Why should these states be shaded in the lighter colour, when they provide more substantive rights than the German or Irish schemes? Why is Ecuador shaded in the lighter colour but Colombia in the darker colour, when their schemes are essentially the same? What I've found over the years is that no matter what way you try to categorise same-sex recognition schemes, you will always oversimplify. Ronline 05:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a map will always oversimplify, but that's just reality. No map can possibly convey the many many many exceptions and variations in partnership laws around the world, and perhaps a succinct note should be added to the legend advising the reader to consult the article for any given country to get more details. But I do strongly feel that the distinction between "all or most rights" and "few rights" is a very important one, and that is exactly the sort of thing a reader would like to know at a glance when turning to a map, instead of reading an article. Textorus (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron, you may disagree with the judgements of the ILGA, but that's where we start getting into OR. We might be able to make a non-judgemental map, if we have the sources: which states allow adoption, inheritance, etc. (For all I know, some allow marriage but not adoption, since marriage alone does not qualify you for adoption.) We could also have a series of maps: one for adoption, one for taxation, etc. if it's too complicated to combine them. Of course, things are changing so fast that maintaining them might be impractical. But if we're going to make judgement calls, which several of us think is useful, we need an external source rather than using our own judgements. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Uruguay[edit]

Uruguay should be reverted back to medium blue colour. The ruling recognizing foreign same-sex marriage was challenged. See [1] Ron 1987 (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Brazil: Alagoas and Bahia[edit]

Can someone change the Colour to dark blue in the map. And the rest of Brazil striped blue, darkblue, same sex mariages are not performed in all (cartórios de registro Civil) But a marriage is recognized nationwide when you married in a other city or state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.100.57 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Terminology change[edit]

See here for a discussion about changing "homosexual" to "same-sex" CTF83! 23:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the template should take place here. I oppose the proposed change to "same sex", as "homosexual" is the usual term used in legislation. And I don't know if anyone use the phrase "same sex acts". StAnselm (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, no, it would have to be "Same-sex sexual acts", which is rather an awkward construction. Either that or "Sexual acts between persons of the same sex", which is even more awkward. While I understand the problems with using the word "homosexual", I'm coming to feel that in this particular case it's the most suitable word. (Incidentally, as to legislation it would be rare to see either term, I think. In criminal laws you either see something vague like "crime against nature" or "unnatural sexual act", or something like "A male who commits a sexual act with another male...". In partnership legislation you usually see things like "two people of the same sex" or "two people, regardless of their sex".) - htonl (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Legislation where? Many gay people in eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa were persecuted under broad and vague statutes against "sodomy", "unnatural acts", "hooliganism", "acts against nature", etc. By the way, a lot of people are laboring under the assumption that gay identity was not criminalized, but that gay sex was. This is not true: according to the U.S. military: "Homosexual conduct is engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts; a statement by the Soldier that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect; or marriage or attempted marriage to a person known to be of the same biological sex." They discharged soldiers as a result of information found by snooping into their private emails, and not just those caught in flagrante delicto (which was very rare). Antigay legislation has been used to prosecute people in Africa who have attempted gay weddings, rather than gay sex. The laws about this taboo are not internationally or even internally consistent, so I think the quest for a precise, neutral, and non-anachronistic internationally-recognized legal term will be fruitless. Let's find a term that works for Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just further on this (since there have been a couple of recent attempts to change it) - I looked at the first country listed at LGBT rights by country or territory (Algeria) and LGBT rights in Algeria quotes Article 338, "Anyone guilty of a homosexual act is punishable with imprisonment of between 2 months and two years..." so "homosexual acts" seems appropriate in describing the legal situation. StAnselm (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been had before, where there was a rough consensus here. Here the second point would apply. Pass a Method talk 10:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The general consensus does not necessarily apply to this template, and we haven't reached a consensus here yet. In any case, the second point you mention ("When using a term to refer to a period before it was widely adopted (1960s for "gay", late 19th century for "homosexual"), be careful to avoid anachronism") would suggest "homosexual" is better than "gay" for this template - it is referring to legal situations in various countries, and many of the laws referred to predate the 1960s. Furthermore, the template uses "homosexual" as an adjective, whereas the consensus concerned the use of "homosexual" as a noun. StAnselm (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The majority of the laws on this template were at the very least modified since the 1960s. Pass a Method talk 11:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about majority - this document from the International Lesbian and Gay Association shows a wide range of dates (1966 for Algeria, 1949 for Panama, 1860 for Bangladesh). But more to the point, the lists it gives (page 45) have "homosexual acts" throughout. StAnselm (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem with same-sex act is that it's a bit vague... if I high-five a male friend, that's a same-sex act, isn't it? We have to go with a wording that acknowledges that we're generally talking about sex and relationships, which means that our adjective has to be one explicitly associated with sexuality (which same-sex really isn't - I mean, you can say, like, "same-sex debate teams tend to perform significantly less well than opposite-sex ones"). Gay does sound a tad casual, and gay act brings to mind tap-dance routines and drag shows. (I'm gay, I can say that.) But homosexual acts, as noted in the discussion at WT:LGBT, can sound rather clinical. So I'd say to choose neither. Instead, go with gay and lesbian acts: It's not nearly so scientific sounding, but the extra syllables and the more precise wording lend it more authority and sincerity; plus, it has the added benefit of not so summarily dismissing lesbians - yes, you can say "gay rights" and everyone knows you're including women in that description, but gay acts has much more of a male feeling to it. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Gay might actually be more accurate in that regard, as as in several of these countries, sex between men is outlawed 'while sex between women is not. Perhaps something like gay or gay/lesbian acts acts? Add a different color for countries that outlaw both? Whatever the solution is, the text should somehow make clear what the map actually shows.
Regarding a comment above, I'm not sure that we should be basing our choice of terminology (in Wikipedia's voice) on the terminology used in the laws. Looking at this document, the term sodomy seems to dominate the legislation, and I'm certain that's not on the table for discussion. Similarly, buggery appears in the document (I've not done a country-by-country count) nearly as often as homosexual and homosexuality.
It is true that homosexual is at its least problematic when used as an adjective to describe actions. I don't have a particular problem with its use here, but gay would be a more accurate description of what the map depicts.--Trystan (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  Same-sex unions not recognized, gay and lesbian sex acts legal

Perhaps part of the solution is to not lump the countries with no laws against homosexual acts in with the countries that recognize same-sex unions (to varying degrees). The primary difference being that same-sex is the most accurate qualifier when it comes to such unions: Two bisexuals of the same sex can enter into a "homosexual union"; or take any number of same-sex couples where one partner has never had feelings for any member of the same sex other than their partner - in other words, people who would describe themselves most accurately as heterosexuals, but who are in "homosexual unions." This way, we don't have to use a shared term for both categories. And once you do that, it makes easier to decide the criminality column, since we don't need to worry about finding a term that will also work for the unions. In that case, the second column would really be entirely about sex (in theory, for instance, in most of these countries there's no law against kissing a member of the same sex), so I think "Gay and lesbian sex acts illegal" would be best (with no prejudice against, as soon as we settle this issue, setting to separating the anti-gay-male laws from the anti-lesbian ones). Anyways, this way it could be "Same sex unions recognized" in the left column, "Gay and lesbian sex acts illegal" in the right column, and "Same sex unions not recognized, gay and lesbian sex acts legal" as a bottom option. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I like your idea except for the term "gay and lesbian sex acts". There are lots of men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women who would not identify as "gay" or "lesbian", particularly outside the developed world. "Gay/lesbian" is an identity rather than an act. - htonl (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you in terms of semantics, but what do you suggest instead? Sounds to me like this takes us back to "same-sex sex acts." — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to propose an alternative to the suggestions: What about something along the lines of Same-gender relationships legal/illegal or Same-gender sexual activity legal/illegal? That seems to cover everything well. -- Interested Anon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.220.140 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2012‎ (UTC)

"Gender" sounds a bit prudish to my ears - in any case, "same sex" is used much more frequently in this context than "same gender". But nothing suggested in this discussion is an improvement on "homosexual acts", as being the International Lesbian and Gay Association usage. StAnselm (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
So how about F&A's example, except with "homosexual acts" in place of "gay and lesbian acts"? I'm not generally a proponent of the word "homosexual", but when we're talking about the actual acts, and not about people's identities, I think it's appropriate. - htonl (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It's clearly the correct word, and was stable for some time. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I can see the case for "homosexual acts"... the only thing that bugs me is that, if you take the literal definition, wouldn't me high-fiving a straight male friend be a "homosexual act"? We're the same sex, and are engaging in an act together. The reason I suggested "gay and lesbian acts" is that it avoided both that definition issue, and the clunkiness/clinical-ness of "homosexual sex acts." — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, neither is terribly precise. It's the sex that's illegal, so you'd need to say "gay and lesbian sex acts". (I'm not sure if we could get away with just "sex". Depends on the letter of the law.) — kwami (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Good point Francophonie CTF83! 11:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

File:State recognition of same-sex relationships (South America).svg[edit]

Could anyone change Alagoas, Bahia, Piauí and São Paulo on this map? Ron 1987 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As noted on the section below, coloring states of Brazil is questionable.189.72.2.102 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Brazil[edit]

Since marriage is subject of Federal Law only (article 22, I, of the Federal Constitution - hence it is different from the United States, where State Law can treat about the subject), I don't think that isolated judicial, non-binding decisions by state judges should count to change the colour of certain States. Honestly, I even think this is kinda silly.

Actually, in late 2011, the Superior Court of Justice (different from the Supreme Court), which is the highest Court to interpretate the legislation that lays below the Constitution, and has nation-wide jurisdiction, accepted the civil marriage between people of the same sex (Special Appeal #1183378/RS).

Although non-binding, this decision is reason enough, I believe, to colour the Brazilian map as a country that accepts civil marriage.

If a binding decision is needed (what I believe to be very reasonable), then Brazil should be fully coloured as "other type of partnership" only, since there is no law or binding decision accepting marriage, only isolated (but happily very repeated) cases.

Rondonia[edit]

In the last edit someone forgot to include Rondonia. Please fill it in blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Paraíba and Santa Catarina should be filled in blue too, this map is too bad and out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay, Rondonia, Santa Catarina and Paraiba[edit]

Uruguay and the three Brazilian states should be filled in dark blue. In Uruguay President Mujica signed the law on 3 May 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talkcontribs) 16:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed clinical and imprecise terminology[edit]

This is the English Wikipedia. "Homosexual acts" sounds clinical. See Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language. Furthermore, same-sex unions are not mere "acts," as it includes various other components ranging from romantic attraction to legal status. Finally, non-sexual behaviour is also penalized in some countries. For example, this Cameroonian got jailed for texting 'I'm in love with you' to another man.[2]. "Same-sex relationships," is -therefore- more encompassing and precise. Cavann (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, see the discussion further up the page. There is dissatisfaction with the present terminology, but there was no consensus as to what to change it to. Secondly, we don't have to follow the APA guidelines here on wikipedia, but we do follow the terminology used by reliable sources. Thirdly, I suspect Cameroon might be an outlier - it would normally be the sexual activity that is outlawed. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
There was also no consensus to keep it. Hence, your behaviour seems to be Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. In any case, I added some sources. Please do not remove sourced material based on dated discussions that have not produced a consensus. The sources are invisible within '<-....->' not to mess with the appearance of the template. Cavann (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"Persecution" is not neutral terminology. Please work for a consensus here before you change the template again. I don't know what you mean by the discussion being "dated". StAnselm (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"Homosexual acts" is not neutral terminology either and it is not sourced. You have removed sourced material citing nonexistent consensus. Wikipedia is not a battleground Cavann (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the second accusation you've made in as many posts. Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling says "Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change... and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes" (emphasis original). But I immediately discussed the issue here. I don't think these sorts of accusations are helping the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You should realize though that there is no consensus for your changes either as there was also no consensus to keep the current wording, and various people have voiced concern about it. This template is a world map about laws on homosexuality. As such, the ILGA source was quite relevant [3]; given the lack of consensus in previous discussions, it would have made sense to adopt terminology used by a relevant source. Yet, despite this, you have edit warred and removed sourced material. This is also not helpful. Given your extensive contributions to Christianity-related content [4], I should again remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Cavann (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In any case, this is my current suggestion ("recognition" for same-sex unions and "persecution" for criminalization) based on ILGA map wording [5] (perhaps with a note such as this like on the ILGA map: "These laws are aimed at lesbians, gay men and bisexuals and at same-sex activities and relationships. At times, they also apply to trans and intersex people.") Cavann (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have much to state about this specific issue with regard to the map, except for the following: I don't believe that using the wording "homosexual acts" is neutral in this case, and that's because a lot of gay and lesbian people still take issue with the word homosexual, and some people who engage in same-sex romantic and/or sexual behavior feel that using the word homosexual is saying something about their sexual orientation when they actually identify as bisexual, or as some other sexual identity that they feel is more accurate, or with no sexual identity label, or even as heterosexual. Yes, homosexual refers to behavior as much as it does to sexual orientation, but that doesn't stop some people who engage in same-sex romantic and/or sexual relationships from feeling that the word is inaccurate when applied to them. For further information on this topic, concerning when it's fine to use homosexual, when it can be problematic to use, as well as the topic of using the spelling variation homosexuality, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It may be helpful to start an RfC on this. I think "persecution" is blatantly non-neutral. Whatever the faults in having "homosexual acts", that would not be an improvement. But because this is a template about laws (rather than perceptions and attitudes) we should follow the legal terminology. StAnselm (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
What legal terminology? The one in your imagination? Please cite sources, this is not a general discussion forum. UN also uses "persecution" for criminalization.

Persecution can be perpetrated against an individual as much for the fact of being LGBT, as for acts associated with the status. If harsh punishment is attracted by the latter, “it is scarcely possible that homosexuals are otherwise treated with dignity and respect”...being compelled to forsake or conceal one’s sexual orientation and gender identity, where this is instigated or condoned by the State, may amount to persecution...Criminal laws prohibiting same-sex consensual relations between adults have been found to be both discriminatory and to constitute a violation of the right to privacy.25 The very existence of such laws, irrespective of whether they are enforced and the severity of the penalties they impose, may have far-reaching effects on LGBT persons’ enjoyment of their fundamental human rights.26 Even where homosexual practices are not criminalized by specific provisions, others directed at homosexual sex such as those proscribing “carnal acts against the order of nature” and other crimes, such as “undermining public morality” or “immoral gratification of sexual desires”, may be relevant for the assessment of the claim.

[6] Cavann (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your personal attacks. They do not contribute to building consensus. The "legal terminology" I refer to includes, for example, Article 629 of the Criminal Code of Ethiopia:

Article 629.- Homosexual and other Indecent Acts.
“Whoever performs with another person of the same sex a homosexual act, or any other indecent act, is punishable with simple imprisonment.”

StAnselm (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
So I'm using terminology of global organizations such as United Nations and ILGA for a global map, and you are using terminology of Ethiopia for a global map. Ok then. Cavann (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I should also re-iterate that in the previous discussion I also appealed to an ILGA source,[7] which uses "homosexual acts" throughout (see p. 45). StAnselm (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Not in the main map, however. Picking and choosing seems to be non-NPOV.Cavann (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, I question the reliability of the ILGA map. It refers to "8 states" in Australia, when there are, in fact, only six. StAnselm (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: looking at the previous discussion, there seemed to have been an emerging consensus for Same-sex unions recognized/Homosexual acts illegal, with an adjustment made to the columns for the "neutral" territory. StAnselm (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Given your contributions here, you are not a neutral party to assess such a consensus, and some of those discussions are old. Cavann (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't think of closing the discussion - and it is sad that it just petered out. But in what sense is it "old"? Just because IGLA has published a new document, it doesn't mean we should change our template accordingly. StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Solution for illegality[edit]

In the countries where even e.g. same-sex kissing or love letters is illegal too, what about using "homosexuality and/or homoaffectivity illegal" or "homosexuality [and homoaffectivity] illegal"? I know this construct is very rare in the English-speaking world outside the asexual community, but it is widely common in the Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking ones (for example, media in Brazil talk about the casamento homoafetivo because often it is understood that gay may be confusing due to the reasons here presented), and it is a perfectly valid parallel to homosexuality.

It is generally good because often people confuse acts, identity, affectivity and sexuality altogether, but these laws do not repress just "active" sexual minorities, they can repress anyone questioning the status quo. For example, in Brazil, we had a tendency in 2006-2009 where even heterosexual male emos (i.e. people who are obviously very distant to any sort of gay identity), about my age at the time (11-14, I don't think people are regarded as gay or bisexual anywhere in the West for experiences at this age, and they certainly aren't in Brazil), would go a la Katy Perry just to stand that they have no prejudices and stand for freedom and happiness of everybody (and I trolled a lot of rock music macho sectarians in internet forums saying emos indeed are punker than the own punks for this).

If this happened in Cameroon, they would be arrested (idk if kids can be arrested there but let's say it "isn't Brazil" where only adults are criminally charged and they are 16 or so), so it theoretically is something limiting to everybody (while it affects homoaffective people the most for obvious reasons). As in Latin America, homoaffectivity would be the most appropriate word for both the non-sexual acts (that can be done by "everyone" with typical and entire human mind and body – lol, without taking into account "disgussin'!11!11!", I am not mono-affective to know how it works, so "my bad", please – and is independent of an inherent orientation), such as Argentina's and Brazil's "egalitarian marriage", and the same-sex romantic feelings (apart of gays, lesbians and other homosexuals, felt by anyone bi or heterosexuals and asexuals that are "kind of bi", afaik some ~20-25% of the population). Finally, putting the two together strengthens the meaning that the "homosexuality" in question refers especifically to the acts (a usage that indeed exists and is very prevalent) rather than the orientation, that is inherent. I agree with Cavann that "homosexual acts" is misleading if more than sexual acts is punished in those countries. Lguipontes (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer "prosecution" "persecution" like the ILGA map and use what the source says, rather than coming up with random names. Cavann (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
1. People in Wikipedia care too much about sources. We mayn't, and often shouldn't, use the exact same words sources present. Seriously, I see no logical difference between prosecution or illegality. 2. Using illegality aside of homosexuality and homo-affectivity would work for the reasons I stated. Those are not random words, it is current English usage. Anyway, I think either my Portuguese reasoning still affects my English language skills significantly or you didn't pay attention to what I wrote, my proposition was to determine a term better than 'same-sex sexual acts', 'homosexual acts', 'gay/lesbian sexuality', whatever, rather than a term better than 'prosecution' or 'illegality'.
If this is the sole objection, I think I will apply it, then. Lguipontes (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Because the map should also include "propaganda laws" like in Russia, therefore "prosecution" "persecution" makes sense. Homo-affectivity is not used in English. I would rather prefer "same-sex intimate relationships illegal" which includes everything from texts to affection to sex. But that would still not cover "propaganda laws". Cavann (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You will need community consensus for that first. There were at least two attemps on discussion commenting it, one of them by me, but none came to the conclusion that censorship should be covered under criminalization of homosexuality. Actually, no one commented at mine. If I get out of this place, no one will note. xD
That is one of the reasons why criminalization of homosexuality needs to be changed with prosecution persecution, similar to ILGA map. You suggestion that "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" is completely weird and would lower the quality of Wiki project. Cavann (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Cavann, I notice you've shifted from "persecution" to "prosecution", which is definitely an improvement, but in some of these countries gay people are not necessarily prosecuted. The map concerns legislation, not really how the legislation is enforced. StAnselm (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not shift, seems like I confused the terminology in ILGA map. As for the latter part of your comment, your personal opinions are irrelevant. Please see Wikipedia:verifiability. Cavann (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If it improves the encyclopedia, WP:Ignore all rules. In this case, verifiability is clearly one of them as it is wholly unnecessary. We don't need to source that [outside at midday, in non-cloudy weather conditions] the sky is blue. Lguipontes (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what personal opinion you mean. That the map is about legislation? That's why it's called the "World homosexuality laws map"... StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Meaning it is not up to you to assess that "in some of these countries gay people are not necessarily prosecuted" although a reliable sources says otherwise. Cavann (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
And both of you and Ron 1982's conclusions seem to have quite of a different assumption on the meaning of the word "English" in relation to me, as a quick Google search presented numerous English page uses of the term, that, as I said, is used by the Anglophone asexual community for some time. Lguipontes (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It's fringe and there are better alternatives. Cavann (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Fringe covers THEORIES. Ask any romantic asexual, bisexual or bi-affective monosexual if the level and/or proportion of romantic attraction exactly corresponds to those of the sexual one and in more than 99% of times the response you will get is "no". As a bi-affective person of unknown sexuality, I already answer you. It is "no". Affectivity and its divisions equating sexual orientation is a perfectly valid construct and it indeed is present in contemporary English usage. Lguipontes (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? "Homo-affective" is not widely used in English. Cavann (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that most people don't know a word doesn't mean it is an invented word. In Portuguese we are generally acceptive of finding weird, never-heard-of lexicon in encyclopedias because people who read them admit they want to learn new things. Google and even Urban Dictionary agree with me that it is English. Actually I'd even say it is an English construct that entered Iberian languages because of left-wing and/or identity politics, including those of women and LGBT people. Lguipontes (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

US federal law; Post Section 3 DOMA[edit]

US federal law currently recognizes same-sex unions and grants federal benefits to same-sex couples, even if they are in states to do not recognize same-sex marriage. I added a disclaimer saying that US federal law only recognizes same-sex unions, and not state laws recognizing it. I think US should be teal nationwide. Foreign gay couples are no longer being deported since the repeal of DOMA section 3.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/new-york-immigration-judge-halts-deportation-of-married-gay-man/Gay conservative (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that we don't need a footnote about the whole of the US, since all the shades of blue imply recognition of same-sex relationships. The second is whether we should have a uniform colour for the US - we don't split up any other countries in this way. StAnselm (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure we do: Mexico, Denmark, Netherlands, and for a time Brazil. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops - my mistake. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

US colour after DOMA decision[edit]

There is discussion in Wikimedia Commons, but -apparently- edit-warring user User:Kwamikagami did not bother to look there [8]. There is some federal recognition [9], but not full recognition. [10] Cavann (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Those links are speculation. If your state recognizes your marriage, so does the fed. What's limited about that? If you're in a state that does not recognize SSM, then your state does not rec SSM. But we already knew that. Otherwise we'd color the country teal like Mexico. — kwami (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you frikkin not read?

“The decision means that same-sex married couples will have access to some federal benefits, but will not have access to the full range of marriage benefits due to state marriage bans,” said Mark Daley, a spokesperson for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.....There are more than 1,000 federal laws relating to marital status, including Social Security, Medicaid, and federal tax benefits, according to Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, better known as GLAD, a non-profit legal rights organization based in New England. And, often, an employee’s “place of domicile” or primary residence determines whether a person may receive spousal benefits.[11]

Stop putting inaccuracies into the template, without even bothering to read about it. Cavann (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I could say the same to you. You have no RS for those claims, just speculation. And regardless of whether the local state recognizes SSM, the fed does if the state does. So again, saying there's "limited recognition only at the fed level" in the US is simply wrong, as that would mean that if I get married in New York, it will be partially recognized by the fed but not recognized by New York.
How about s.t. like "recognized at the fed level depending on the state"? — kwami (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
What the heck? We are talking about light blue colour. Not the dark blue colour New York has. If you get married in New York and live in Florida, you get partial federal recognition and no state recognition. Hence the light blue colour. If you get married in New York and live in New York, you get full federal recognition and full state recognition. Hence the dark blue colour.
Light blue = partial federal recognition, no state recognition
Cyan (Mexico) = full recognition, but not performed
And what do you mean I have no RS? I provided news sources, quoting legal organizations. What have you provided for your claims? Just your irrelevant New York example. As I said, this is getting ridiculous. Cavann (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
No-one yet knows the ramifications of the repeal of DOMA. You don't have any court decisions about how it will be implemented: All you have is speculation.
The US is colored light blue. Light blue was listed as " Limited recognition only at the federal level". That meant that if I get married in the US, it will only be rec at the fed level, and the rec will be limited. That's not true. Removing the "only" helps: Now it means that if I get married in the US, fed recognition will be limited. If I get married in NY, and reside in NY, will the fed recognition be limited?
You're right about Mexico, though: SSM is performed in that country, so we need to change the wording that it's not. — kwami (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you colour-blind? Not all of US is light blue. Cavann (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, kwami, the light blue colour only applies to those parts of the US where same-sex marriage doesn't have state recognition. The states where is it recognized are dark blue and there's no implication that recognition there is limited. - htonl (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course there's such an implication. The US as a nation is light blue. Only individual states are dark blue. That means that, nationwide, there is limited recognition of SSM only at the federal level, a flat contradiction of the dark-blue states. With the "only" removed we remove the contradiction, but still we have full recognition in several states, with limited recognition at the federal level. AFAIK, recognition is not limited at the federal level if you reside in a state that recs SSM. The wording is therefore inaccurate. At least we could add "in those states which do not recognize SSM", but hopefully we can come up with s.t. more succinct. — kwami (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
"The US as a nation is light blue." You are imagining it.Cavann (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
How? The entire country literally is colored light blue in the map encoding. It's also glossed as "federal", which also indicates the country as a whole. Since the description does not apply to the country as a whole, the description is wrong. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The underlying SVG/CSS code is irrelevant, though. What matters is the appearance of the map. And, in appearance, the map has 13 states dark blue and 37 states light blue. The "limited" wording for light blue only applies to those 37 states. - htonl (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Saying it doesn't make it so. We have light blue in the US for federal law, which is nation-wide. Similarly in Mexico, and until a few months ago in Brazil. The federal law doesn't change from state to state. That is, I'm making the same argument you made at the same-sex unions template just 15 minutes after your comment here.[12]kwami (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Functionally, the federal law does change from state to state. If you marry in New York and stay in New York, you get the full benefit of federal recognition of your marriage. If you move to Alabama, you get only very limited federal benefits. Married same-sex couples in the 37 states do not have full federal recognition of their marriages. I don't see how my argument at the template page is relevant - that's a completely different context. Civil partnerships are equally recognized and have the same benefits in all parts of the UK; same-sex marriages are not equally recognized by the federal government in all parts of the USA. - htonl (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Then we need to word the gloss to say that, and not say that there is only limited fed recognition in New York. Also, this is still speculation: We only have sources that various people think this will be the case, as it has yet to be established on the ground. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But we do not say that there is limited federal recognition in New York, because New York is not coloured #99ccff; it is coloured #002255. The 37 states are coloured #99ccff. It doesn't matter how the underlying code makes this happen. Seriously, would it solve the issue for you if I added the 37 other states as separate paths so they can be coloured individually? - htonl (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No. While individual states are dark blue, the nation on a federal level is light blue. The individual states override the national color just as they do in Mexico and the UK. (Take Coahuila: Just because that state is colored for civil unions does not mean that they don't recognize SSM performed in other states, as federal law requires. The civil-union color simply overlies the federal color.) There's no indication that the light blue for the federal level does not apply to the blue states which are not at the federal level. That strongly suggests that the blue states give SSM full recognition and that the fed gives it partial recognition, which is incorrect. If I knew nothing about the topic, that's how I'd understand it: You can get married in New York, but the federal govt will not fully recognize your marriage. At best, I'd think the map was poorly designed and that it probably means something else, and would tag it for clarification.
If we accept your reading, then we would believe that Coahuila does not recognize marriage performed in Mexico. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You just do not understand that there is no one federal government definition. Or you do not understand the concept of federalism. Or you are just trolling since arguments like this "the nation on a federal level is light blue" are seriously nonsensical. Cavann (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course. If you don't understand, I must be operating in bad faith. Now you've claimed that SSM is not performed in Mexico, but I don't accuse you of trolling. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said in your talk page: 'your edit summary was: "actually wrong: SSM is performed in Mexico." Marriages are not performed in those states in cyan colour. That colour also includes countries like Israel'
As I said, you either do not understand the concept of federalism or you are trolling. Cavann (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
You have two choices: Either the cyan applies to the entire country, or it only applies to those states not colored something else. Since it's a federal law, it applies to the entire country, but let's play dumb for the sake of argument. If it only applies to the states colored something else, then Coahuila does not recognize SSM performed in Mexico, which is false. If it applies nation-wide, then SSM is not performed in Mexico, which is false. Either way, the legend is inaccurate. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Coahuila and Mexico City are different jurisdictions. Coahuila does not perform same-sex marriages, but recognizes those performed in other jurisdictions (Mexico City). The wording I used was correct. I have no idea what your problem is. You are simply being nonsensical. "Since it's a federal law, it applies to the entire country" is again nonsensical. Some federal law does allow variation between states without superseding them. Look up what federal means.
"then Coahuila does not recognize SSM performed in Mexico" is also nonsensical since the legend stated that out of jurisdiction marriages were recognized. Cavann (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. Coahuila is med. blue. That means "Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation)". Since your argument is that cyan does not apply to states with other colors, then your wording means that Coahuila does not recognize marriages performed elsewhere. You can't have it both ways, that the cyan applies to med. blue states but not to dark blue ones. — kwami (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah I thought Coahuila was cyan, since I did not check where that state was. Hard to get that among the other garbage you wrote. Then it needs to be mid blue with cyan stripes. It has Other type of partnership, no marriage, but recognizes marriage. In any case that is irrelevant to wording of cyan. Cavann (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Stripes would be one way to handle it. But then we'd need to do the same thing with the US. And what of states that impose both the death penalty and life in prison: should those be striped too? Or we could change the wording to make it accurately reflect the map. So far we've managed to avoid stripes, which are difficult to see at small scales. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
And your new wording, which only includes "Marriages from other jurisdictions recognized," is also stupid. Again, NY also recognizes marriages from Canada. Yet, there is a categorical difference between NY and cyan Mexico. Your wording omits that cyan does not perform marriages. And again, the stripes is irrelevant to what cyan says. Cyan is not the federal Mexican law that overrides and supersedes other colours. For the millionth time, look up what federal means. Cavann (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying that we need to change dark blue to "Same-sex marriage and recognizes same-sex marriage performed in other jurisdictions"? Isn't that a little obvious? You need a rational argument for the map as it exists, not a strawman. If you wish to change the map, that's a discussion for the map talk page.
And you're wrong: Cyan *is* the federal Mexican law. Just read the article. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No. "Same-sex marriage and recognizes same-sex marriage performed in other jurisdictions" is obvious, but "Marriages not performed; marriages from other jurisdictions recognized" is not obvious when there is only "marriages from other jurisdictions recognized." Cavann (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If marriage were performed, we'd color it dark blue. The fact that it's not dark blue means that marriages aren't performed, just as the fact it isn't brown means there is no death penalty. Do we really need to spell that out? And if we do, we'd still need to reword because marriage *is* performed is some jurisdictions. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Homosexuality Recriminalized in India[edit]

"A colonial-era law criminalising homosexuality will remain in effect in India, a top court said, dealing a blow to gay activists who have argued for years for the chance to live openly in India's deeply conservative society.

The Supreme Court threw out a 2009 New Delhi High Court decision that struck down the law as unconstitutional, saying it was for lawmakers - and not the courts - to decide the matter."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/gay-sex-ban-to-remain-in-india-29829426.html

It seems like this has implications for the map.

Dansan99 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, but will the law be enforced? Is there prison time? — kwami (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is an older NY Times article saying that the law provides for up to 10 years in prison (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/world/asia/16india.html). Here is a newer NY Times article saying that "The law banning homosexuality is rarely enforced in India, but the police sometimes use it to bully and intimidate gay men and women." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/world/asia/court-restores-indias-ban-on-gay-sex.html)Dansan99 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll color it as unenforced, then. — kwami (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Color it as imprisonment, as there is a minimum ten year sentence. Recently there has been arrests and police harassment of gays there. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-29822149). Here is another article (http://scroll.in/article/700121/as-arrests-for-unnatural-sex-soar-so-do-cases-of-gay-people-being-blackmailed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.236.125 (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Map Versions[edit]

Why are there two versions of this map? (This map is more accurate and updated more often.) Prcc27 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes[edit]

The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes have no law prohibiting same-sex marriage; the tribal law code pertaining to marriage "does not specify gender". The tribal court has issued a marriage license to a same-sex couple. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/gay-couple-married-in-oklahoma-jason-pickel-darren-black-bear_n_4142700.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics Prcc27 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any idea when they first decided this? — kwami (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably Oct. 10, 2013. (Was that a rhetorical question...?) Prcc27 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
No. It was deleted from the timeline because we supposedly couldn't be sure which year it was. But that article says it wasn't possible before the repeal of DOMA, which means it had to be 2013. I'll rv. the deletion. 23:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Prcc27 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Jalisco[edit]

It looks like Jalisco needs a ring. http://purpleunions.com/blog/2013/12/mexico-first-same-sex-couple-marries-in-jalisco.html Prcc27 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

People Upset with New Mexico[edit]

Hi, there are many people who have expressed that they are upset with New Mexico being colored blue when technically it isn't legal statewide. This was discussed on the OTHER talk page for "World Homosexuality Laws Map" (Which I have no idea why there are two talk pages...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:World_homosexuality_laws.svg. I have a very helpfully suggestion, I suggest that New Mexico be colored green (Marriages from other jurisdictions recognized) because New Mexico recognizes same-sex marriage performed in other jurisdictions (as well as New Mexico) and also adding a blue ring because "Rings indicate areas where local judges have granted marriage". I just think it's more accurate that way (especially since the Supreme Court of New Mexico is yet to rule on the legality of same-sex marriage in the state). I will also invite the people who are upset by the change in New Mexico to THIS talk page so we can figure out how to make the map more accurate.

Thank you,--Prcc27 (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see by "many" you mean "two", and by "upset" you mean "don't understand".
Marriage is open to same-sex couples in NM. You may need to drive to the next county over, but you can get married. Unless that causes legal difficulties in your home county, which no-one has suggested, blue is therefore appropriate. A ring would mean that you have to go to court to get a judge to rule specifically on your union, which isn't the case. Striped blue/green would also work, but we don't use stripes on this map. — kwami (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
(Sorry, I kinda included the person that put the ring there in the first place as one of the "many's")
Well, the footnote used to state "Rings indicate local or case-by-case application" so I wouldn't see the problem in adding a ring.
I'm not completely against having New Mexico remain blue. I just think the situation there is a little complicated. Prcc27 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
New Mexico just legalized it anyways... Prcc27 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Civil Union Ordinances[edit]

What should be done about the cities that passed Civil Union Ordinances...? http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_northern_az/other/cottonwood-latest-to-approve-civil-unions
(Also, Jalisco still doesn't have a ring). http://purpleunions.com/blog/2013/12/mexico-first-same-sex-couple-marries-in-jalisco.html
(The Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes hasn't been added either) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/gay-couple-married-in-oklahoma-jason-pickel-darren-black-bear_n_4142700.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
Prcc27 (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Utah[edit]

Utah looks a little off.. Prcc27 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Utah Update[edit]

Utah needs to be removed. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

UTAH STILL HASN'T BEEN REMOVED... --Prcc27 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oregon error[edit]

Yes Oregon recognizes ssm. However, Oregon's color is wrong because Oregon has an "Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation)" which overrides the recognition. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should it override it? — kwami (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Because Chihuahua is in the same situation as Oregon and it's colored as "Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation)" Also, in the key- recognition is below Other partnership. --Prcc27 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
That's not a convention on this map. Chihuahua is shown because the other color is national, like fed recognition in the US, and hopefully readers are bright enough to figure that out. On a world map w/o striping, we can only show so much detail. — kwami (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe coloring Oregon medium blue and adding a turquoise ring like the one for Ohio should do. I'd also suggest the reverse, but the color would be so contrasting that one wouldn't see clearly if it intends for civil union or marriage. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Map is not up to date[edit]

Mexico still needs rings; Utah still needs to be removed. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky[edit]

Kentucky recognizes same-sex marriage http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ky-seeks-delay-recognizing-sex-marriage-22698884 --Prcc27 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Kentucky needs to be removed. --Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Colorado[edit]

Colorado recognizes ssm for tax purposes (and allows same-sex couples to file jointly). A (green) ring should be added for Colorado since it is in a similar situation as Ohio. (limited recognition). http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2014A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/480C36805CEC7DA187257C300005E032?Open&file=019_ren.pdf

Scotland[edit]

The Scottish Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill has just been given royal assent legalising gay marriage in Scotland, could the map be altered to show this. Gord0227 (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been done; because of caching it may not show up immediately for you. - htonl (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee[edit]

There should be a green ring for Tennessee. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-tenn-recognize-sex-marriages-22919788 --Prcc27 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexico Rings[edit]

Rings need to be added for Mexico [13] --Prcc27 (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Michigan[edit]

Michigan should have a blue ring like Utah because marriages were performed in both places before a stay was granted. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-strikes-michigans-ban-gay-marriage-23012280

About this map[edit]

If this map is about "World Homosexuality Laws" then why doesn't it include laws that prohibit GLB discrimination..? That definitely qualifies as a law that pertains to homosexuality and is very important to the GLB community. Furthermore, same-sex marriage doesn't necessarily have to be between homosexual/bisexual people because anyone regardless of sexuality can get married to the same-sex. Plus, there's already a same-sex marriage map anyways. At the very least I suggest that laws that prohibit GLB discrimination should be added to this map; but I also think that the marriage/partnership laws have got to go! I will be posting this same message on the other talk page since this page has two talk pages for some reason.. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If I don't get a response in at least the next 24 hours, I'm going to request this page for deletion. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimea[edit]

Crimea is disputed territory, therefore should be stripped with Ukraine's laws. 98.248.157.202 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Chile[edit]

It shouldn't be blue yet, it's only been voted on by one house. Czolgolz (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Change of color and recognition of same sex marriage from abroad[edit]

Now has been approved by both houses.Kallme (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which color should have Chile. Finally the bill establishes Civil Union for same sex relationships and heterosexual couples and also recognizes Same sex marriage performed abroad but as Civil Unions. It worth mention that in practice there is no difference between marriage and a civil unionKallme (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

Easter Island[edit]

The change of color should include Easter Island.Kallme (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Russia???[edit]

In Russia, a woman just legally married a woman despite the nation's anti-gay laws. They found a legal loophole in the law (pardon my redundancy). One bride is transitioning from male to female and she is still marked as male on her documents. Both women wore bridal dresses. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Should we put a blue ring in Russia for a case-by-case basis? This is definitely a same-gender wedding, but some might say there is (and I almost regret to say there is) a debate over whether this was a same-sex or an opposite-sex ceremony. Personally, I don't want to discount this as a non-lesbian wedding because gender is more important than sex when it comes to dignity.

Should we put this up there?

Note that if this is put on the map it may in the future be disregarded by the government because they're pretty frustrated about it.

For more info on this, see http://jezebel.com/lesbian-couple-pulls-of-first-gay-marriage-in-russia-1656610125 http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/two-women-marry-russia-despite-countrys-anti-gay-laws 98.253.175.243 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

The map suggests that while same sex marriage is not recognised it is still legal to be gay in North Korea. This does not seem to be the case, LGBT rights in North Korea seems to suggest that it is similar to Russia (no 'gay propaganda'), but with the possibility that some gay people have been executed and killed. Should the colour be changed to reflect this? As the is no clear answer should we just add another 'unclear' colour? CH7i5 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Australia[edit]

The Australian states of Tasmania, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, as well as the Australian Capital Territory, recognise same-sex marriages that are performed abroad. Therefore, they must be coloured in cyan blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xylo kai Gyali (talkcontribs) 18:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Chad[edit]

Homosexuality is illegal in Chad, but the map does not show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.210.183 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is still not updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.210.183 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is STILL not updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.190.78 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Did Déby sign the bill? A reliable source is needed. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Chechnya[edit]

Is there a way this map could include the state-sponsored killings in Chechnya? Over 100 have been detained and at least four have been killed. Sir Alan Duncan, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, told parliament: “Sources have said that he wants the [LGBT] community eliminated by the start of Ramadan.”

[3]

  1. ^ http://www.hrc.org/m/blog/marriage-equality-arrives-in-greenland
  2. ^ http://acapa.virgula.uol.com.br/politica/alagoas-regulamenta-o-casamento-civil-entre-gays-em-todos-os-cartorios-do-estado/2/14/15493
  3. ^ http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/21/chechnyas-president-i-will-eliminate-the-gay-community-by-the-start-of-ramadan/