Talk:Same-sex marriage in Portugal

Comments

It should be noted that there is no same-sex marriage ban in Portugal, and therefore no law to be challenged. Also, as a civil law country, laws cannot be challenged and overthrown in courts. Galf 08:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A law which says on a man and a woman can marry is essentially a ban on two men marring each other. I don't know about Portugal but not all civil law countries lack constitutional judicial review (nor do all common law countries have constitutional judicial review). Both Germany and Italy have constitutional courts which can strike down statutes. Caveat lector 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact article 1577 of the Civil Code that states that "marriage" is only valid between two persons of the oposite sex. So the ban is not only in Portugal but also for marriages celebrated abroad that are void in legal terms in Portugal. Portugalgay.pt 09:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 ARTIGO 1577º
 (Noção de casamento)
 Casamento é o contrato celebrado entre duas pessoas de sexo 
 diferente que pretendem constituir família mediante uma plena 
 comunhão de vida, nos termos das disposições deste Código.
 (Redacção do Dec.-Lei 496/77, de 25-11)

Proposed merger

It is proposed to merge the articles on Same-sex marriage in Portugal and Civil unions in Portugal into a new (to be created) article called Recognition of gay unions in Portugal. In order not to prejudge the result of the discussion I haven't created this article yet. Other suggestions for the name of the destination article are welcome.

This is part of a general proposed merger of the "Same-sex marriage in..." with the "Civil unions in..." series. Any general points can be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#"Same-sex marriage in ..." v. "Civil unions in the ...".

In essence these articles deal with the same subject matter and unified articles could deal more comprehensively with the topic and avoid unnecessary repetition. Caveat lector 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this proposal. Civil unions in Portugal are very different from Civil Marriage and the discussions between both have been very different in the Portuguese society. Portugalgay.pt 09:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

there should be soem mention of controversy in its section? If Mexico/Spain had controversies im sure there was plenty here (how did the Church react?)Lihaas (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not reason to consider article as POV. Language used in article is neutral. Ron 1987 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This tag is for POV article content, please identify it otherwise adding a tag like that helps no one. Lihaas is right in that articles don't need long link lists, WP:EL states "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum". A link to the law on an official government page would be helpful, the rest is just news articles. Hekerui (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The day of the presidential assent was not chosen because of it being an international day for anything. If something, it was because the Pope had left. Cavaco Silva made an address stating that he was signing it "to prevent further institutional disruption on a time of crisis". Cavaco is known to personally hold an opinion against gay marriage refs: http://jn.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Nacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=1451232 and http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/politica/cavaco-silva-casamento-gay-homossexual-tvi24/1163407-4072.html. I think the mention to the international day should be removed. Galf (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly worth a POV tag, this was obvious synthesis. I removed the day as unrelated. Hekerui (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that unless we have a reliable source explicitly saying that the date for ratifying the law was intentionally chosen to coincide with the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia we shouldn't say (or imply) that it was. A number of sources have, however, taken note of the coincidence (even if it was unintentional). Would anyone object if I cited one of them? Gabbe (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated, portuguese media did not notice the coincidence and the president has made it quite clear that he doesn't support gay marriage. Given that he even addressed the nation about why he gave assent to the law (which he had never done before), I think he was not even aware of IDAHO's date.Galf (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If Gabbe has a source for it then by all means add it. let's see the source atleast.Lihaas (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill and Law

In Portugal a bill becomes a law after approved by the Assembly, where it was introduced by one of the represented parties. The President then ratifies it (gives assent) or veto's it, returning it to the parliament for further discussion. Before deciding, the President can send all or some parts of the law to the Constitutional Court to be checked. Cavaco Silva did so for 3 of the articles (he didn't ask about the constitutionality of the article prohibiting the adoption by gay couples).Galf (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We know that, but that a bill is approved does not retroactivly make it a law while it was still considered. Hekerui (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The bill is made a law on it's approval by the parliament. Also, the government DOES NOT introduce bills, the parties do. A government can issue decrees (decretos-lei) of similar validity. And it was never intended for the law to include adoption, as the current wording seems to imply.Galf (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I took the wordings from a reliable source,the Associated Press article I cited. If you disagree, find reliable sources of similar quality to back up your statements and cite them. Hekerui (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only you don't cite anything in your last edit, as you contradict portions of the article, ignore what documents are called and delete my messages on your talk page. Very mature. I won't get suckered into this discussion, someone else can correct your mistakes.Galf (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The bill was introduced by the government.[1]. Ron 1987 12:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Same-sex marriage isn't legal yet. Same-sex marriage cannot be performed yet. The law is not published in the official journal yet. Same-sex marriage will be legal few days after publication of the law in the journal. [2] The sentence: Same-sex marriage in Portugal is legal since May 2010 is incorrect. Ron 1987 00:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The same-sex marriage law was published today [3]. So, we can leave the sentence. GMMarques 9:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

I think that section is completely unnecessary. The opposition to same-sex marriage in the country is minimal, when compared to other catholic countries like Spain and Mexico. Yes, the right wing parties in the parliament and some religious organisations were calling for a referendum on the issue. But most opponents in fact proposed the introduction of civil unions in place of marriage for same-sex couples, which is essentially the same as what we have now, but under a different name. 09:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersingular (talk • contribs)

Wikinews article

There is an article - Portugal's first same-sex marriage - on wikinews if anyone wants to contribute. ~~ Mrchris (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

June 5 date

The date should be apparent in the law http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2010/05/10500/0185301853.pdf but is not. The date given by http://portugalgay.pt/politica/parlamento07x.asp looks like speculation and the source is not a proper news source, so I question its reliability. What can be properly sourced is when the law was approved and when the first marriages started. Hekerui (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

[4] Ron 1987 10:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Does that include the 31st? Then it would be June 4. Hekerui (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The law took effect on Saturday, June 5. Registry officies are closed Saturday, so first marriage was performed on Monday, June 7. See [5] Ron 1987 10:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Same-sex marriage in Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ik3aX3N0ru0tZv_wqU87GX6lm4lwD9FOPSSO0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901093743/http://catholicnation.com/news.htm to http://catholicnation.com/news.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98738
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209063539/http://www.javno.com/en-world/gay-marriage-fundamental-to-equality_289187 to http://www.javno.com/en-world/gay-marriage-fundamental-to-equality_289187
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://russiatoday.com/Top_News/2009-06-09/Same-sex_marriages_hot_debate_in_deeply_Catholic_Portugal.html?fullstory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Same-sex marriage in Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320210657/http://sol.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Sociedade/Interior.aspx?content_id=61785 to http://sol.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Sociedade/Interior.aspx?content_id=61785
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728154836/http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=14851 to http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=14851
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401113520/http://movies.transveados.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109%3Aportugal-em-defesa-dos-casamento-gay&catid=50%3Amyblog to http://movies.transveados.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109%3Aportugal-em-defesa-dos-casamento-gay&catid=50%3Amyblog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)