Talk:Same-sex union legislation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The King of Sweden

In the table, it said that Sweden's head of state had signed the various measures recognising same-sex relationships. This is obviously wrong, since under the Constitution of 1975, the King of Sweden is not the chief executive and thus does not sign any laws, nor does the Government sign any laws in his name. Thus, I replaced "Signed" with "n/a". In a previous edit, I replaced it with a hyphen, but in almost all other cases, that seems to mean that the head of state declined to sign and that the measure thus failed (unless the veto was overridden). Such is obviously not the case here. I don't know if there are other cases where a "Signed" status should be similarly replaced by "n/a". David ekstrand (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nepal.

The page states that Nepal in expected to adopt gender-neutral marriage in 2010. However same-sex marriage will only become legal after the new constitution in progmulgated in May 2011. Can someone please alter the page to indicate that Nepal will adopt same-sex marriage in May 2011 not 2010. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Done but do you have any references ? Rctycoplay (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

Is there actual propossed legislation for same-sex marriage nationally in Mexico? The provided reference is pertaining to a Supreme Court case on whether or not it was legal for Mexico City to legalize same-sex marriage and will not likely impact the laws of Mexico as a nation directly. Also this table is not for judicial events, only legislative and possibly constitutional adoptions in the case of Nepal. 134.243.205.94 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Was it not about the entire country to legalize same sex marriage ? Rctycoplay (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe so. Mexico City legalized same sex marriage and the federal government is challenging the legallity of that decision. I supposse its always possible the Supreme Court could decide that same sex marriage is a national right but that would be incredibly speculative especially since no party in the case is asking the court for that. Either way its still judical and not legislative in nature. Now its possible something is in the works but that is not what the linked article indicated.134.243.205.94 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela

Why has it been removed from the first section? I'm pretty sure a common-law status bill passed it's first reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Colombia

I am a spanish speaker and in the citation says that the Constitutional Court WILL rule, despite of the negative concept of the procurator, the Court is independient and can rule what they consider valid. So, we have to wait a few more weeks to the decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.17.170 (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article's title seems to mislead but the article itself suggests the court has yet to rule and is expected to do so any moment now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.63.82.69 (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I translated from Spanish to English and the title is something like "Court Fails", and it is wrong (the translator), that happened because in Spanish "To Rule" (judicial decision) and "To fail" are the same word (Fallar). That is curious, isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.5.178 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true. "La corte fallará" correctly (in that context) translates to "The court will rule". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.244.143 (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

interesting find

This article mentions that five mexican states have passed laws allowing gay weddings, is this accurate? what are the other four? [1] AshtonPayton (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg

On the national level Same-sex unions section, why is Luxembourg listed at 2011? I thought Gay marriage would be legalised this autumn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The bill was submitted to the parliament in August. Legislative process in Luxembourg is quite long. Legalization this autumn is unlikely. Ron 1987 23:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Crystal Ball

I always find this article interesting to read...looking further than the nations listed in this article, could anyone suggest which other countries are making progress towards marriage equality? Which of the nations mentionned have a realistic chance of enacting such legislation?

Cheers Orionsbelter (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel

It's the first time that I've read about this - but shouldn't we add it to the article, or at least mention it? http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=216326 Olliyeah (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No informations about that civil unions are open for same-sex couples. Apparently not. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

yeah u're right! I shoulda have read better :D Olliyeah (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Update Map: New York, Legal

Same-gender marriage is now legal in New York, map should reflect this. --Smart (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

The constitution of South Sudan says "Every person of marriageable age shall have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and to found a family according to their respective family laws, and no marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the man and woman intending to marry." This makes heterosexual marriage a constitutional right, but it does not forbid same-sex marriages. I didn't see any provision that explicitly prohibits same-sex marriages, so I think that South Sudan should be removed from the "Constitutional efforts to prohibit same-sex unions" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrater (talk • contribs) 11:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (The constitution of South Sudan can be found here.) - htonl (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. The constitution limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "every person has the right to a marry a person of the opposite sex" necessarily implies that the government can't allow same-sex marriages. The question is academic, of course; there's little prospect of South Sudan decriminalising sodomy any time soon, let alone allowing same-sex marriage. - htonl (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

the President has publicly stated there will be "no democracy and civil rights for gays, as there are no gays in South Sudan" --Smart (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Chile Aug 2011

Chilean President suggests legislation for SSM

The Chilean President has on 10/Aug/2011 suggested legislation to Congress. Please watch progress such as how they vote. --Smart (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Poland 2012

Civil Union bills have not been rejected. Parliamentary committee only delivered an opinion stated that two bills submitted by SLD and RP are unconstitutional based on a very high affinity for marriage. These bills still go through the legislative process, although it is already known that they would rather not be adopted. Besides, PO has its own bill. On 10 July 2012 PO will decide on further work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.185.74 (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

San Marino

san marino passed a act about same sex civil union only inmigration rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.55.2.30 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam

I believe Vietnam should be included, since there is a lot of discussion presently over proposals to introduce a marriage equality bill in Spring 2013. --Smart (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Flags

Why do we need to load up the tables with flags? It's visually distracting. 70.253.93.37 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The flags are not distracting. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

agree with Ron! Olliyeah (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Also agree with Ron. Flags are not distraction, on the contrary, it is much easier (at least to me) to find specific country in large tables by looking at flags.--В и к и T 13:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I find them useful for navigating the table myself. There are a variety of uses of flag icons that are warned against in WP:FLAG, but this doesn't seem to hit any of the problem usages, and does fall within on of the categories of usages that are considered likely acceptable. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of ambivalent on this question, as I generally feel that flagicons are used too much, and indeed I removed flagicons from the section headers in same-sex marriage. But in that case the removal was required by MOS:HEAD and the icons didn't make the article any easier to navigate. In this case I feel that the flags make it considerably easier to find particular items in the lists. And, considering the use of flags across Wikipedia, long tables seem to be one of the situations where flags are most frequently used. - htonl (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My feelings are similar to what I think User:Htonl is expressing, that they're generally used too much, but I'm willing to consider each case individually. I just feel that they get put in there because someone can, and so they do. Anyway, so I've just looked at the article, and here's what I came away with:

• Generally, these flag icons are helpful, because in the chronology, several countries appear multiple times. I often think the flag icons add nothing, but this allows me to look back at the big picture and see the trends of a country's involvement with legislation on the topic.
• However, as soon as I got to the table on subnational units, I reverted to my whole distaste. Two columns of flags made it seem to heavy-handed, and I didn't care for it at all. An emotional response? Yes, admittedly so. But that's where I am. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that subnational flags are different, because they're not nearly as well-known. At least that's my impression - that while most people can recognise a bunch of national flags, they're unlikely to recognize many subnational flags, even from their own country. - htonl (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All the tables are now sortable. So, there's no point to using flags the way HuskyHuskie described. Aside from this, the article is way too long. All the flagicons (hundreds?) contribute greatly to this problem. 70.253.87.253 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I clearly did a poor job of explaining myself; the sortability has nothing to do with my point. I'm saying that (I find) the icons lend a small amount of added value when viewing the entire table in chronological order, before sorting. Sorting actually destroys what I'm talking about. HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Small amount of added value" versus a hugely bloated article that exceeds Wikipedia size guidelines by a large amount. 70.253.87.253 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Flags are only useful, if everyone knows every flag, otherwise they serve no purpose. Simple prose with a link satisfies the encyclopedic need.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has to know every flag for them to serve a purpose? I don't follow that at all. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless a person knows what country each flag represents, then they are without purpose. Tell me what these flags are, without looking them up: , , , . Its just color that has no meaning to the reader.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that the flags should all go. Whatever benefit those with better computers derive from them is far overshadowed by the long time it takes for those of us with older computers to load the page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

All I see is a bunch of noise. Flags are only to be used for things which represent a country, and this doesn't. From WP:FLAG:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams.

— kwami (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a visual person, so I see value to the flags in moderation. I think flags at the state/province level are just too much detail and too distracting.

@ JOJ Hutton - Firefox shows the names of the countries in a bubble when I point to the flags. I thought most current browsers had that capability by default, but I could be wrong. – MrX 02:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep the flags...I can quickly search USA entries by easily finding the flag, rather than text...all the text looks the same. CTF83! 02:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't know that many flags, hasn't this issue come up many times already? They seem to be clutter rather than helping. Insomesia (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the current format with flags along side the names of the nations. It serves a kind of aesthetic purpose, especially for us visual people. Without the flags, then this list would be really boring to be honest. I think anyone would be proud to see their country's flag added to the list - something that words alone can't achieve. However, I would certainly think that we could create a collapsible list split up by decade because it seems like it is going to grow out of control eventually. (Tigerghost (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

National pride is wholly irrelevant, as is the level of boredom you have with looking at a table or the "aesthetics" of the table. The article already is out of control. Look at its size. Look at the preservation of historical information in tables that has been superceded by more recent information. 70.253.65.251 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep the flags, it looks better, but I'm American so what do I know? :) --Smart (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tigerghost: 70.253.65.251 is correct; although I lean towards keeping the flags, "pride" is not an acceptable reason for including them, and keeping you from getting bored is just as poor a reason. Would you be more engaged by multi-colored text?HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami|kwami: When I see a long list of countries, with several of them repeated, that's when I see "noise", and the flags help me see the patterns more clearly of evolving legislation more easily.HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: Actually, I do know the flags of about 170 countries on sight, as well as those of the subnational units of the UK, US, and Canada. But I will acknowledge that I'm a bit of an outlier.HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, most likely since I have voiced opposition to flags in articles. I tend to be of the same opinion as HuskyHuskie on this. In moderation, it would be useful however this feels overwhelming. I believe the most informative graphic is the map of the world at the top. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment - this is the type of flag use I'm not really that keen on, as there's no obvious representational purpose for them. I also find them a bit messy in such large quantities. But if people reading this article genuinely find them useful (rather than just decorative) then there's a case for keeping them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And no to subnational flags. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the national flags are helpful, as many have said, they make finding specific countries way more easy, and even if many people don't know every single flag, I'm sure everyone knows at least, I don't know, more than 20 maybe... So it is useful. But the subnational table is just way too crowded with flags and in this case I really don't find a purpose, there should only be the country's flag, but adding each territory's flag is almost useless and even confusing having to look at two different columns of flags. --DrkFrdric (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Normally, I'm OK with the flags representing a country (all too often we have flags for people, objects, businesses &c simply because it's possible to put them in a national pigeonhole). However, in this case, I feel that they're just a decorative element; if we can have the name of the country in readable text, that's the most important thing.
• Such flags lead to some secondary problems - for instance it's harder to accurately flag subdivisions and cities. Whatever that little picture is next to the City of Vincent, it doesn't look like the emblem on the City of Vincent website. At first I thought we might have some timing problems too; but of all the flags in the "Court challenges to enable same-sex unions" table, none seem to have changed since the date of the event; by neglecting same-sex marriage legislation outside the first world, this article avoids the common problem of having the wrong little icon for some country which has changed its flag in the last decade or two. bobrayner (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed legislation

What's the criteria for determining whether legislation has been "proposed"? Something as tenuous as an opposition political party saying that it has plans to introduce legislation at some point in the future? 70.253.65.251 (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. I'd bet a small sum that your hypothetical example has, in fact, been the basis for at least one entry, which is absurd. What standard would you propose? HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Slovakia is that hypothetical. I'd do away with the "proposed" category entirely because it's a slippery slope to crystal balling the future. I bet that someone in every country in the world has "proposed" legislation about same-sex relationships. 70.253.65.251 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, the cases, such as Slovakia, should not be included in the table until the legislation is introduced/submitted. The case when the legislation is proposed by the government is different thing (at least to me). Ron 1987 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe all countries that have articles from legit news organizations should be included. Malta shouldn't be included because the party proposing marriage equality has no seats in government. However, countries in which the opposition party/parties support marriage equality should be included. --Smart (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

collapsible tables?

Maybe the tables needs to be made collapsible. It works in Template:Same-sex unions. Is this technically possible? Ron 1987 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Date section in the tables

Removing Date section from the table and replacing it by two sections Month and Year is complete nonsense and is not helpful. It's a big exaggeration. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case I agree entirely with Ron. Separate "Year" and "Month" columns make sorting more complicated because, to get a full sort on the date, you have to sort by month first and then by year. A single date column with {{dts}} used correctly is much more functional. And there is no reason why anyone would ever sort by month alone without year. In any case, the date is a single concept and it should be represented in a single column. - htonl (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Please leave the date in a single-column, it's more usable for soring, and takes up slightly less room. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the single column date is more usable. The IP made the change in good faith, but generally, major formatting changes like this should be discussed on the talk page before they are made. – MrX 22:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with above. CTF83! 00:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive and disruptive ownership of this article by Ron 1987

So long as Ron 1987 is allowed to exercise ownership of this article and edit war to preserve his status, there is no hope for this article. No one apparently is interested in shortening its length to comply with Wikipedia policy (which adding the extra month column went a long way towards). No one is interested in fixing the vast myriad of other problems, which Ron 1987 is absolutely intent on preserving despite previous blocks of his account for edit warring. So, this article has been a complete waste of my time and is a huge discredit to Wikipedia. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Article size doesn't take priority over the value of article content, and the previous section of this talk page demonstrates that it's not just Ron who thinks the separate month column was a bad idea. Anyway, WP:TOOLONG says that readable prose size is the more important consideration, not wiki markup size. But, if you want to propose a split to shorten the article, that might well be a good idea. I'd suggest at least moving the list of court cases into another article, since they're not really "legislation". - htonl (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving the list of court cases into another article is a good idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

More obstructionism by Ron 1987: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_legislation_around_the_world&diff=511854333&oldid=511854048 70.253.91.210 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A genuine content disagreement is not "obstructionism". The fact that you see it as such suggests that maybe you have a bit of a WP:OWN problem yourself. - htonl (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Obstructionism is virtually instantaneous and complete reversion of every change I make to the article that Ron 1987 doesn't like, with no attempt at compromise and screaming "NO CONSENSUS" in his edit summary, and then his strenuous attempts to canvass support for his reversions by leaving messages on numerous editor talk pages. Obstructionism is also characterized by the extremist and incivil language he has used on this talk page. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Obstructionism is also 5 complete reversions by Ron 1987 in this article in just the last 27 hours. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm letting go of this particular discussion because Ron can defend his actions himself if I want to. But, as regards the canvassing accusation, I will state that I received two messages from him on my talk page requesting my input on this article's talk page. This did not affect in any way my input to this discussion; this article has long been on my watchlist and I posted exactly what, and exactly when, I would have posted had I not received his messages. You, 70.253.91.210, have also requested input from editors on their talk pages: [2], [3], [4]. - htonl (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You're an administrator. Maybe you should block him for WP:3RR violations. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator here. I am an administrator on Wikisource. - htonl (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Failed bills in Denmark and Czech Republic

All bills voted by parliament should be included here, passed or not. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Although maybe the article should be renamed to reflect what this article really contained; failed bills aren't really "legislation" either, they are proposed legislation. In any case, the rationale that it is "already covered in 'LGBT marriage in X'" is illogical, since that applies to literally everything listed in this article. - htonl (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You might not like it, but your opinion does not mean that my proposal is "illogical." In fact, it's perfectly logical under all relevant circumstances, which includes the fact that this article is severely bloated and the fact that Wikipedia is not a repository for every fact that exists in the world and the fact that information included in one article of Wikipedia should not be included in others without good reason. This article should include passed legislation only plus legislation that failed if nothing has happened since. But to include a useless list of failed legislation that was superseded by passed legislation is just bad writing. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally make this decision that certain items should be removed when clearly there is no consensus for the change. This article is not, in fact, particularly long as Wikipedia articles go and I see no reason to describe it as "bloated". And even if it is, then a more appropriate solution would be a split, not just deleting chunks of content. Speaking of which, I've mad a split proposal one section down from here. - htonl (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral changes is what being bold is all about. And no content is being deleted. The content being removed from this summary article already exists in more detailed articles. I'd appreciate your not mischaracterizing my actions in the future. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Being bold is only the first step. Reverting and discussion are the steps that follow. And yes, you can boldly make unilateral changes, but when it becomes apparent that they are disputed by other editors, you can't carry on repeatedly making them while the discussion is going on. All the content in the article already exists in the country-specific articles, but that doesn't mean we should simply blank the whole article. I am sorry if the use of the word "delete" suggested to you that I was implying that the content was not present anywhere else in Wikipedia; that was not my meaning. - htonl (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Who, pray tell, suggested blanking the whole article? Your argument is a red herring and yet another misrepresentation of my position. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No-one has suggested blanking the article. I have drawn your rationale - that material that is contained in other articles can be deleted from this article - to its logical conclusion; all material in this article is (or should be) also contained in the "LGBT rights in X" or "Same-sex marriage in X" articles. But let's drop that line of argument, as it seems to be leading to confusion.

Fundamentally, what needs justification is why failed bills in countries that have since had successful bills should be removed. If you are looking for an article that shows only the current situation and most recent legislation, you can look at Status of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, this article is not, in fact, particularly large: the markup size is fairly big because of table markup and a large number of references; but the displayed article is not unusually long. Anyway, I have proposed below a split/rename of this article that would hopefully solve both the size problem and the scope problem; what are your thoughts on that idea? - htonl (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edited) You actually have perverted my rationale to reach a conclusion that no one wants. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edited in response) I have already suggested that we drop this line of argument. - htonl (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is nothing more than an essay. It's not even as authoritative as a guideline. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy, and it has become clear that there is no consensus for the removal of those items. - htonl (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

I propose that this article should be divided into three separate lists:

• List of same-sex marriage bills: dealing with all attempts to legalise SSM through legislation, whether successful or not.
• List of same-sex marriage court cases: what is currently the "Court challenges to enable same-sex unions" section.
• List of constitutional bans on same-sex marriage: what is currently the "Constitutional efforts to prohibit same-sex unions" section.

This would hopefully resolve the problems with the scope and length of this article. (It will not, of course, settle the flag dispute...) - htonl (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I think List of same-sex union bills, List of same-sex union court cases and List of constitutional bans on same-sex union would be more appropriate. It's not just about same-sex marriage but also other types of unions. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, that seems sensible, although the the third should probably be "List of constitutional bans on same-sex unions". - htonl (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Ron 1987 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is visually confusing. Juri Koll (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• The actual text of the list is not too long (around 37k). I oppose a split. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I should clarify that I'm not only suggesting this split because of the alleged size problem; I think it would make sense even though this article isn't too long. Or at least splitting the court cases to a new list since they're not "legislation". - htonl (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a great idea. I propose that all three of those articles be created and developed, then when they actually exist, this article change to reflect that other articles expand on it. This discussion should not happen until there is content to split, and right now there is not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Bluerasberry. --Smart (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have formally requested comment about this article in the following respects: (1) the article is too long; (2) the article includes hundreds of visually distracting flag icons that greatly increase the bloat of the article; (3) the article unnecessarily repeats superseded and purely historical information that is well discussed in other articles; (4) the article has numerous faults and shortcomings that need to be addressed, including, among other things, dead links, grammar errors, and ambiguities. This RFC is in part necessary because certain editors are highly resistant to changing and improving this article and immediately revert changes they do not like. Refer to prior discussions on this talk page. Thank you. 70.253.91.210 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I object strenuously to the non-neutral tone of this RfC statement, and I request that a non-involved editor read the discussion above and provide a neutral statement describing the dispute. I would also ask those commenting on this RfC to consider the proposal for a split which I have made in the section above. - htonl (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here's my comments:
  • (1) (Too long) It is a list; it is as long as it needs to be to include everything on the list. There is 37K text on the page when displayed. That is just the text of the article, not all the wiki markup etc. That is not too much. (WP:LIMIT) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (2) (Flags) I do not find them visually distracting. If I were looking for a specific country they would be helpful. I noticed the page took a while to load. That is probably because of these flags. I could take them or leave them. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (3) (Unessasary info) It is a list. It needs to be complete. That the information is in other articles is moot. There are notabiliry standards for inclution on a list. (See WP:LISTN) That has to be taken up item by item. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (4) (Numerous faults) So fix them. (WP:SOFIXIT) If your fixes get reverted, discuss it here on the talk page one at a time and get consensus. (WP:BRD) If that is too much work for you, do not fix it. It is not the end of the world if this article is less then perfect and this is a volunteer project. If you do not like these people, do not work on the project. Or take it slow. There is no rush to fix everything. (WP:NORUSH) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Close Non-neutral statement, incorrectly marked. Withdraw, do this right, and I'll comment on the merits. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• rethink approach. Brr, is this how a decent conversation is conducted? Everyone here seems to be interested in covering this subject; yet I hear lots of personal remarks regarding against other editors. Let's keep the discussion factual and respect eachother's positions. I will give my reaction if the request for comment is formulated more neutral and based on the issue, not the person. If that doesn't happen, I agree to close this asap. L.tak (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Terminology change

Can we change the terminology in the legend at the map at the top of the page from "homosexual" to "same-sex"? I, and I'm sure most gay people, are opposed to/offended by the word "homosexual" due to the negative 1970s health/mental/clinical connotations. GLAAD agrees. Thoughts? CTF83! 00:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Juri Koll (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The map's caption comes from the template {{World homosexuality laws map}}, if you want to edit it. - htonl (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait for more of a consensus, or a few more days. CTF83! 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to be sure of a consensus, you may want to post about it on the template's talk page. Incidentally, I also support the change. - htonl (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea! CTF83! 23:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Homosexual" generally isn't considered offensive when used as an adjective. However, I find the wording of the template, including the headings ("Homosexual acts legal" and "Homosexual acts illegal"), problematic because it blurs the lines between legal status of relationships and legal status of sexual activity. (I noted this back in April at Template talk:World_homosexuality laws map.) In any event, I wonder if the best place for this discussion might be neither there nor here but rather at File talk:World homosexuality laws.svg. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you support or oppose the change, Rivertorch? If you support that looks like enough consensus and enough time to change. CTF83! 23:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I think it would replace one problematic wording with another. (Sorry to have missed your question, btw. My watchlist is out of control again. Please drop a note on my talk page next time if need be.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better suggestion? CTF83! 10:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was continued at Template talk:World homosexuality laws map#Terminology change.

Rename to "Same-sex marriage legislation"

I propose we move this to Same-sex marriage legislation, which already redirects here. The "around the world" seems totally unnecessary. - htonl (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion. I say go for it. Rivertorch (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot imagine what objection there would be to Hton's proposal. Agree with RT--just do it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that Same-sex union legislation would be more appropriate. The article is not just about same-sex marriage but also other types of unions. Ron 1987 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Mm yes, I think that does make more sense actually. - htonl (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No objection. Rivertorch (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This move seems not to have done what was intended. I think that the intended target was Same-sex-union legislation (with a hyphen between sex and union). Since that is not what was discussed above, though, I haven't done another move; I'm just calling attention to the matter here. Also, it seems to me that the initial paragraph, which explicitly discusses Same-sex marriage needs a rewrite in line with the move (see WP:LEDE). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We need to decide the scope of the article and title appropriately. The current version is rather confused. The lead is about same-sex marriage, with a passing mention of other same-sex unions which provide many of the benefits of marriage. That is appropriate to Same-sex-marriage legislation. Some of the rest of the article is similar. However, the tables list all sorts of unions, not just marriage. If the article is to be at marriage, then the tables should be purged of other unions. If the article is to be about all unions, then the lead and other areas should be edited to reflect that. Either name should probably be fully hyphenated. "Same-sex union legislation" would mean same-sex legislation for unions; legislation for same-sex unions would be "same-sex-union legislation". — kwami (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Same-sex union legislation is not confused. Sorry, but your arguments are absurd. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that the lead needs rewriting to reflect the broader scope of the article, beyond just marriage. I disagree about the hyphenation. It is legislation for same-sex unions; hence it is same-sex union legislation. There is no reason that it should be parsed as "same-sex (union legislation)" rather than "(same-sex union) legislation"; and the term union has multiple meanings, not restricted to labour unions.

We already have an article on Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state - not "Same-sex-marriage law...". Here are some uses of the phrase "same-sex union legislation" without the extra hyphen:

• This paper - see page 8
• "LNP says it will repeal Qld same-sex union legislation"
• "Connecticut: Hartford: Same-Sex Union Legislation"
• "League Calls For Support On Same Sex Union Legislation"

I could not find any uses of the phrase "same-sex-union legislation" with the hyphen. Alternatively, we could rename the article to "Legislation regarding same-sex unions". - htonl (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Article still has multiple, important issues

Refer to the talk page posts since at least August 2012. Virtually none of the issues has been addressed. The only reason that the template falls off the article is that a BOT comes through, makes a couple minor changes, and deletes the template. AfricaTanz (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

These issues were discussed and there was no consensus to adopt proposed changes. Ron 1987 (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, just because a talk page has a lot of discussion doesn't imply that there's a lot of problems with the article. Now, let's look at the individual tags that were applied.

• {{Cleanup}}, specifically for the flag icons: In the discussion above there seemed to be consensus for removing the flags of subnational units, but no consensus to remove national flags. Once the subnational flags are removed I presume no-one will object to removing this tag.
• {{repetition}}: I can't see any "repetition or redundant language" in the article, unless you are referring to the existence of multiple entries for different bills in a single jurisdiction. But this is not repetition, since they are different bills.
• {{very long}}: While the article is 137 KiB, which is fairly long, it does contain a lot of table markup and an enormous number of references, which bulk up the raw size, so the actual prose size is not so huge. The removal of the court cases to a separate article, as discussed below, will also address this problem.
• {{MOS}}: I would like to see some explanation of what MOS issues you think there are, as they are not obvious to me, unless this also refers to the flag issue.
• {{context}} and {{confusing}}: I do not see any basis for these tags, so if no explanation is forthcoming I will remove them.
• {{off-topic}}: This tag is accurate with respect to the list of court cases, the removal of which is being discussed below.

If there are no objections I intend to remove the subnational flags; I believe there was consensus for this in the discussion above. - htonl (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, we should change the table in this way:

State/Territory	Date	Same-sex union	Upper House		Lower house		Head of State	Final outcome
			Yes	No	Yes	No
Ontario (Canada)	June 1994	Domestic partnership	n/a		58	69	-	No
Australian Capital Territory (Australia)	1994	Unregistered cohabitation	n/a		Passed		Signed	Yes
Greenland (Denmark)	April 1996	Registered partnership	n/a		104	1	Signed	Yes

I think the separate column Country is not necessary here. The table is more readable without it. Note: My proposal includes national flags, not regional. What you think? Ron 1987 (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion for or against flags. There is maybe 5 countries whose flag I recognize. I do however think we should either do all tables with flags or all without. I don't think it looks as nice if one table has flags and one doesn't. I do, however, support listing US States in subnational. 50 is a lot, but we can Template:Hidden so it's not excesively long. Someone shouldn't have to click on the US table to see the state statuses. CTF83! 11:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(Re Ron:) The disadvantage of removing the "Country" column is that it would make it impossible to sort the table by country. (Re CTF83:) The Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States article is two-thirds the size of this one, and including it in here truly would make this article far too long. We could think about making the link to that article more prominent here, though. - htonl (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The hidden template would add one line to the article. Or, perhaps splitting all sub-national to a new article? CTF83! 04:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(Re Htonl:) I think it's not so important in this case. I'm against to removal of sub-national flags without some other changes in the table. (Re CTF83:) In my opinion, US states should not be listed here. It's unnecessary expansion of the article's size. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Gay adoption in Switzerland - Parliament voting 113/64

Gays win limited support for adopting kids — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.185.74 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal no. 2

Maybe we should to reconsider proposal to split the article or at least separating the court challenges to a new list since they're not "legislation". In contrary to AfricaTanz, I don't think that the article is too long, but, any way, the split would be the usefull thing. Ron 1987 (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that splitting out the court cases is imperative, since they don't fall within the definition of "legislation". Above I proposed List of same-sex marriage court cases, but we could also go with Same-sex union court cases or Same-sex union case law or any of a bunch of other variations. Any thoughts on a title? - htonl (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Same-sex union court cases is the best variation. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible tables

Since the lists are becoming somewhat long, could we merely turn the current tables into collapsible ones? (Tigerghost (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC))

Good idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What would we be collapsing? Collapsing parts of tables is useful if there's more detailed info that can be hidden while a summary stays on display. In this case the whole article is the tables, and if we collapse them there's not really anything left. MOS:COLLAPSE says "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content [...] Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text [or] navboxes ..." - htonl (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the proposed UK legislation as UK (England and Wales)

The table on past and proposed legislation at the national level has a row called 'United Kingdom'. This doesn't reflect the entire truth of the situation, as the proposed bill in the British House of Commons is to apply to England and Wales only. A separate bill has been proposed in the Scottish Parliament to apply to Scotland.

I propose that the UK row is modified to say something like 'United Kingdom (England and Wales)', and either left in the national level section (to reflect the fact that it is being voted on by the legislature at the national level) or moved to the sub-national level section (to reflect the fact that it applies only to one sub-national jurisdiction (England and Wales). It's quite reasonable to choose either option, but I would opt for the former, as personally I feel that the table should reflect the level of the legislature that is voting, not the complexities of each state's jurisdictional structure. Climatophile (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonable proposal. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Same sex Marriage debate in Colombia's Senate will be in April 2013

It will be voted on April 10 or the following week, it wasn't postponed indefinitelly. The second cite, ref, explains that the re-scheduled decision is been under consideration after a first information that said it was suspended, Senate's President will meet LGBT activists on monday april 8, after that meeting it migth be scheduled for april 10 or the following week, in any case it will be in april. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.191.138 (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

France

The article that was voted on yesterday is the essential aspect of the bill that legalizes marriage equality in France. From my understanding (and I could be wrong) they don't go back and vote on the entire package once every article has been voted on. Therefore, the vote count in this article should go to this first, essential vote. Some of the other amendments that they will be voting on have been introduced by conservative parties and are there only to obstruct passage. --haha169 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The vote on the entire bill is expected later this week. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple entries for Chile

Until yesterday, we had one entry for Chile; now, we have ten. They all appear to be sourced, but I don't speak Spanish, so cannot check that these refs all support the ten entries against which they have been placed. Are all of them necessary? I note that of the ten, seven are under "Efforts to enable same-sex unions":

Country	Date	Same-sex union	Upper house		Lower house		Head of state	Final outcome
			Yes	No	Yes	No
Chile	July 2003	Civil union	—		Failed		–	No
Chile	March 2008	Civil union	—		Failed		–	No
Chile	March 2008	Marriage	—		Failed		–	No
Chile	October 2009	Civil union	—		Pending		–
Chile	June 2010	Civil union	—		Pending		–
Chile	August 2010	Marriage	—		Proposed		–
Chile	August 2011	Civil union	—		Pending		–

and there are three under "Constitutional efforts to prohibit same-sex unions":

Country	Date	Ban on	Upper House		Lower house		Head of state	Final outcome
			Yes	No	Yes	No
Chile	January 2011	Marriage	—		Pending		–
Chile	May 2011	Marriage	—		Failed		-	No
Chile	August 2011	Marriage	—		Pending		–

Notice that in each of these two groups, there is more than one entry showing "Pending". I don't know how the Chilean parliament operates, but in other countries it's rare for there to be two separate items of pending legislation where there is a significant overlap - either they would be combined into a single bill, or one would be dropped entirely. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm the author of that entries. I'm a Chilean and speak spanish. When I noticed that the only entry was dated on 2013 and the two references for that entry pointed out that they come from 2010 I started to make my research in the National Congress of Chile and the National Library of the Congress of Chile. I realized that the only entry had wrong information and that there are several other former and active initiatives in the Congress that have been or will be debated and voted. Please notice that all the entries have references and this references link to the official web site of the bills in the congress. There, you can read the bill and the process (in spanish of course).There have been also efforts to ban same sex marriage in the Consitution, one of them failed. I know that the fact that several bills are "pending" or "proposed" about the same subject may generate doubts. How is this possible? Why are not merged? The reallity is that the subject of same-sex relationship recognition in Chile is higly polarized, so the dabate has been almost impossible. That results in that many bills are "sleeping" in Congress because there si no political disposition to debate, or discuss a fussion of bills (but notice that there are big differences between them). After I posted the entries with their references, Ron 1987 deleted them, arguing that These bills died in the committee, they were not voted by the parliament. I don't know if he can read spanish but as I said before if you read there the official information, these bills are not dead, they are active, non has died in a committee.Kallme (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In practise these bills are dead, they stalled in the committee. Apparetly, there is no intention to consider them by lawmakers. Only civil unions bill proposed by President Pinera is debated by parliament. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I must insist about putting back these entries. The concerns are based in personal appreciations ("apparently dead") and not in objective facts. If you think these bills are "dead" please provide references that confirm the rejection of discussing them. I believe if there are active bills in parliament and are awaiting for voting they must be included unless there is a proof that they were rejected. We can not include or exclued based on our apreciations about these.

The entries that I added are not only backed by the official information from Congress but also by newspapers articles that show the social repercussion of them, includying the efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage in the Constitution.

Also I want to point out that it has been argued the Piñera bill is the only one active but it must be noticed that Piñera has send no bill about civil unions, the bill you make reference to is from 2011 and wasn't proposed by the president. Kallme (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that these bills were not debated since 2-3 years. It's a clear indication that they will not be considered by the parliament. Including these bill in the table is a complete absurd. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Arguing that the bill is dead because there is no desition in a 2-3 period is a personal apreciation. On this subject, for example, the Congress of Chile approved an antidiscrimination bill on 2012 that was proposed in 2005 (but dates back from 1997). If you believe that 2 years of waiting for discussion is too much does not guarantee that the bill is dead. Each Parliament has its way to work, the chilean Congress works differently. Kallme (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

These bills should not be included, unless there is an indication that they would be ever voted by parliament. It worked in that way until now. Argument about personal apreciation is absurd. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but I still believe that the entries should be included. I will ask for a third opinion acording to the Dispute resolution policy between two editors. Meanwhile the dispute is resolved I will correct the information of the only existing billKallme (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC).

Let's consider for the moment just the three Civil union bills shown as "Pending". The first of these was apparently introduced in October 2009. I think that it's extremely unlikely that a second bill for the same matter would be introduced in June 2010 if the first was still pending; by that time, the first would almost certainly have been rejected. What stage it had reached we haven't been told, but in the UK (and USA), it is not necessary for a formal vote to be taken for a bill to fail in its passage through parliament - it might run out of time (see filibuster), or fail one or another of the rules of Parliamentary procedure. A bill that is "pending" is still under consideration - if it's no longer under consideration, it's not "pending". Similarly, the introduction of a third in August 2011 is a strong indication that the second had also been rejected. It is of course possible that the August 2011 bill is still pending. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

France

As I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, gay marriage bill in France will have second reading only in National Assembly, not in Senate:

The vote, by a show of hands, puts the bill on track to be signed into law within weeks following a second reading and final vote in the National Assembly, where several technical amendments introduced in the Senate are expected to be approved.[5] --В и к и T 12:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Some sources says that the bill still need an approval by both chambers. See [6]. But, if you want to make the change in the table, feel free to do that. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Qs

Two questions regarding the article, to anyone who can answer: 1. Does not the SSM bill in France have to pass the Senate in a second reading, or is a second reading only required in the National Assembly? 2. The details of the vote in the German Bundesrat is not provided, it just says 'Passed', why's that? (Sure enough, the method of voting is different from other such chambers in that Bundesrat's Lander (state) delegations must vote as bloc, but it is still possible to list the vote.)

--Scientiom (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Im not really sure about France, but I don't think that the Senate has to vote on it again, since they made the amendments on the bill and so it's going to the Assembly again. About Germany - every Bundesland has a certain amount of votes, corresponding to the population size, so it's a kind of weighted vote.. and so I think we should just state that it passed, because I don't think it would make a lot of sense to count the individual Länder which voted in favour, cos that could lead to a confusing result.Olliyeah (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Rio De Janeiro

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/rio-de-janeiro-state-legalizes-gay-marriage190413 --haha169 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil#Rio de Janeiro. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Croatia

Should we add a section for popular referendums like in the US section, since petitioners are gathering signatures to put it on the ballot? http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/politics/2013/05/17/Croatia-petition-anti-gay-marriage-referendum-underway_8722272.html Olliyeah (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it's necessary. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We already have "Constitutional efforts to prohibit same-sex unions", so we can put Croatia there, if they manage to collect enough signatures. The deadline is May 26th. Also, the Croatian Constitutional Court will have to answer some questions, especially:

1. Is it the referendum constitutional?
2. Is it allowed to collect signatures in front of churches and "from door to door", because current law states that the organizers must in advance report to authorities all places where they will collect signatures.
3. What turnout is needed for referendum to be legitimate?--В и к и T 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Serbia

Should we add Serbia? From Blic: Serbia plans to legalize gay civil unions.--В и к и T 13:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the Government or some party declare intention to introduce it in parliament. Ron 1987 (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK.--В и к и T 14:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition. Let's wait that "public hearing" scheduled for June 4. Perhaps we will then know government's position or position of major political parties. Contrary to media reports, draft law (pages 68-85) is about registered partnerships not unregistered cohabitations.--В и к и T 16:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

United States DOMA

Should the US as a whole become same-sex marriages recognized, considering DOMA is now gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.122.244 (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Map

The file File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg should have its brown removed as the definition "Restrictions of freedom of expression" is not defined sufficiently. See the talk page of the file for further info. -- Lejman (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam

According to Decree 110/2013/ND-CP, Vietnam remove fines on same-sex marriage. Same sex couples are not allowed to register their marriage, but they can cohabit as a couple and share a household registration book, meaning they are allowed binding relations in terms of property, children, and related rights and obligations. So I think you should change the status of Vietnam's Homosexuality legal to unregistered cohabitation. http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/13750/vietnam-to-remove-fines-on-samesex-marriage

I'm sorry because there are many pages which need to be changed and the wiki code is quite complicated for me so I can not do it by myself --138.25.202.174 (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

British Home Nations

At the moment, we have England and Wales under "national level" and Scotland under "sub-national." I don't have a strong preference for which one we pick, so rather than being BOLD just yet I'm opening it up here for discussion. Would editors prefer to move the England & Wales to subnational, or Scotland to national? Obviously Britain represents a different case from other countries with a federal system, as the countries of the United Kingdom are nations but not sovereign states in themselves. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I'm English), England & Wales is under "national level" because it was the national government - specifically the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - that passed the law relating to England and Wales (which also includes clauses specifically relating to Scotland and to Northern Ireland); whereas it is the devolved Scottish Parliament which is debating the proposed equivalent legislation for Scotland - the Marriage and Civil Partnerships Bill (Scotland) (which will have no effect outside Scotland) hence Scotland is under "sub-national". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The glitch is that national ≠ state. The devolved Scottish Parliament is just as much a "national government" as Westminster, it's just not the Union government. I get that the spectre of the West Lothian question is behind this (as you point out, England and Wales is unique in having Westminster legislate on matters which pertain only to it), but I don't think we need to resolve all that in order to have a coherent approach in this table. At the end of the day, the home countries aren't "subnational" in the sense used here to in description of other countries' political units. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Lithuania

Why is Lithuania marked as "Restrictions on freedom of expression" on the map? I can't find any particular law that points to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.129.148 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Austria

There is missing same-sex marriage bill from Austria in the table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.144.150 (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that shows that a Bill has been introduced into either the Federal Council (Austria) or the National Council (Austria)? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Austrian bill is already mentioned in the table. SPQRobin (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Greenland

There is missing same-sex marriage bill from Greenland in the table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.144.150 (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that shows that a Bill has been introduced into the Parliament of Greenland? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I added Greenland to the table, with sources (unfortunately there are no English-language sources). SPQRobin (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wallis and Futuna - flag

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Same-sex union legislation

 – Redrose64 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

France / Wallis and Futuna - flag

You wrote: "If you are engaged in a[...] dispute [...] then please discuss the matter."

Fine ... so ...

Prove me wrong ! (You should do BEFORE you undo edits and accuse people of "persistent vandalism".)

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/

Good luck Knisfo (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The established convention at Same-sex union legislation#Sub-national level is that the first (State/Territory) column shows the local flag, not the flag of the ruling country - that goes in the second (Country) column.

But do I take it that you, 176.4.122.175 (talk), 46.114.56.53 (talk) and 46.114.8.119 (talk) are actually the same person? Please see WP:3RR and WP:BRD. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wallis and Futuna doesn't have an official local flag. The French flag is WaF's flag.

The local flag may be "commonly used" ... but that doesn't make it its official flag.

---

"Britain" is "commonly used" - to refer to the UK ... but try to change the "United Kingdom" article's name to "Britain" ... it would be reverted within two seconds only. (and rightly so)

Drugs are "commonly used" ... but that doesn't make them de facto legal.

---

(and yes, ... 46.114.XXXX, it's me (at work)...that other one ...never seen)

Knisfo (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam

It failed in Vietnam... source here Titanicophile (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine

There is nothing about same-sex marriage in the new Ukrainian Constitution. :) Titanicophile (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

All versions of the Ukraine Constitution that I find online have an article 51 that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. SPQRobin (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Whaaat? This is really strange, I had seen a new where it was said the ban was dropped.. I'll try to find it back. Titanicophile (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So... I just checked and it seems you're true. Maybe the new mistaked with Tunisia, where they wanted to put a constitutional ban (but it failed)... So, thank you, and sorry for the disturbing. Titanicophile (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fail in Estonia?

This (conservative) website says that but I don't know if it's true... link Titanicophile (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not true. See [7], [8] Ron 1987 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The links seem older than the "fail announce", but I believe you, so. Thank you! Titanicophile (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

should someone add Estonia at table in autum next too Finland ?

Scotland

Regarding these edits by Ron 1987 (and others in recent days by other users), the text currently gives the impression that SSM is now available in the UK except Northern Ireland - but in fact it's not yet available in Scotland, only in England and Wales. Scotland is rather like Luxembourg: the law has been passed, but is not yet in effect. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's different : on Wikipedia, we say same-sex couples can marry until the law has been voted (legislative action) AND promulgated (executive action). If there is a waiting time before the law apply, it doesn't bother, we consider that the law already applies because it is now official, even if there is the waiting time. Scotland had the vote and the royal assent : it's official (even there is the waiting time) ; Luxembourh had just the vote and the Great-Duke didn't sign the bill into law : it's not official for the moment. Titanicophile (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Royal assent in Luxembourg is no longer legally required. Normally you've got the following (simplified) process: parliamentary vote --> royal assent (executive action as part of legislative process) --> promulgation (executive action as first step in the law's execution) --> coming into force. So we do wait until royal assent has been given, but in the case of Luxembourg, while it seems in practice he still signs laws, it isn't constitutionally needed and after the parliamentary vote the law must directly be promulgated/executed. SPQRobin (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

2013: Costa Rica: civil union law missing in article

• Handelsblatt.de:Ehe-Gesetz, Konservative in Costa Rica legalisieren versehentlich Homo-Ehe (German)

188.96.229.243 (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The law "doesn't work" : the Parliament legalized the civil unions without wanting to legalize them.. the situation is a bit strange, so the law doesn't apply. If I understood well. Titanicophile (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Montenegro

There is the intention to legalize same sex marriage in Montenegro. Should it be added to the page? http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/monenegro-plans-to-legalize-gay-marriages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baronedimare (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think so, but it has to be referenced from press coverage. A website is not enough. Juri Koll (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Austria - IV access

Today the Austrian parliament passed a law allowing lesbians access to IVF. Should we add it or not? I wasn't really sure since the registered partnerhship law wasn't amended in order to to allow it. Olliyeah (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicaragua

Nicaragua just ban marriage and adoption http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/nicaragua-makes-gay-marriage-adoption-illegal090415 --201.219.190.155 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The ban was added to the Family Code, not the Constitution. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

French contributor, I can't understand why my contribution on votes in Northern Ireland are always deleted whereas it's a sub-national level.Nikola62 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

A lot of the countries listed as having constitutional bans are very dubious cases, indeed. For example, take the recent amendment adopted in Armenia, viz., "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry with each other.” I am not a jurist, but such a wording does not per se prohibit same-sex marriage. A lot of countries have similar clauses, like Belarus, Kenya, and South Sudan, for example, and I think that these do not belong in the table. 76.18.71.168 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Same-sex union legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150709121416/http://suracapulco.mx/archivos/288901 to http://suracapulco.mx/archivos/288901
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141104154150/http://laverdadnoticias.com/ingresan-al-congreso-uniones-gay/439414/ to http://laverdadnoticias.com/ingresan-al-congreso-uniones-gay/439414

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending/ Proposed

What is the difference between "pending" and "proposed" legislation? AAlbear (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex union legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/A7C96DDA582FCCDDCA2573A7007A3B1D/$FILE/561144bi1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we go back to the old map?

Can we go back to the old map? This one is pretty difficult to follow — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAlbear (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you --Baronedimare (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

European Union

What about this: A proposal to recognize same-sex marriage across the EU. Does this count? I'm not very familiar with EU politics, though. Here is a link to the article I found: TenorTwelve (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The resolution is non-binding, with no legal effect. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Georgia

It sounds like the President of Georgia is blocking an anti-same-sex marriage referendum from happening. Should this still remain on the list or are there more avenues being taken? TenorTwelve (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yea we can take it down for now. However, Georgian Dream (the party that will inevitably win the next election) has already stated they will be legislating a constitutional ban should they have a majority in parliament. Chase1493 (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing court cases and decriminalization legislation/court cases

Hi!

I am posing this question here because it has not been addressed in the desired Wikipedia article.

So I was wondering if we could create an "ongoing litigation" section of the same-sex union court cases page. I like the idea because it would function similarly to this page; the possible downsides include: 1. There may be too many cases or countries. 2. It may get confusing with different levels of court appeals and the finality of rulings.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

I was also wondering if we could create a page for legislation and/or litigation for the decriminalization of homosexuality.

Anyone got feedback? I'd like to see these.

Thanks! -TenorTwelve (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

TenorTwelve (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I think there is already something like that here.

Talking about the page for the decriminalization of homosexuality, I totally agree with you. It would be really helpful.

Kind regards --Baronedimare (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! You have a warm soul. I guess at some point I could work on some of those as a project if/when I'm available, or if somebody gets there first. Thanks for the encouragement! TenorTwelve (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Australia

I am reading that a marriage equality bill has been introduced in Australia's Parliament. This is not referring to the proposed plebiscite, but an actual bill with the intent of legislatively legalizing same-sex marriage. Does this merit its inclusion on this chart? Should we wait until the plebiscite is dead or does this merit inclusion simply because it's a bill? What timeframe would we classify this as? Pending, unknown, 2016, or something else? Thanks, TenorTwelve (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Bahamas

Does this count? A politician in the Bahamas said he supports civil unions. Is a bill or proposal necessary to add something? TenorTwelve (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Reunification procedure

Hello. I have another idea to consider that could potentially be bizarre.

So if Cyprus and Northern Cyprus choose to reunify, one of the countries laws could apply to the entire island (I think---unless it would have to be completely rewritten for both). Cyprus allows for civil unions and in Northern Cyprus there is no relationship recognition, though homosexuality is legal. Granted this has not happened (though there are talks), so this is just an abstract, theoretical discussion at this point. But how should we proceed if a reunification does go through? Would there be ways for us to indicate on this page that the population under civil unions increased by a changed border or is this a moot conversation because such a jurisdiction already exists but would qualify that more people and land are under that jurisdiction already in existence?

Although this would be much less likely (I think), this discussion could also apply to a theoretical reunification of Ireland and Northern Ireland where Ireland has same-sex marriage and Northern Ireland has civil unions.

Anyone have thoughts on how or if we should indicate this on this page if theoretically a reunification of countries with different LGBT laws were to happen? Thanks, TenorTwelve (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong

I previously added a section to the sub-national level for Hong Kong in China that there was a proposal that couples married abroad could have a few legal benefits, such as burial rights. I am wondering if we need to put an X by it or erase/rename it. I'm trying to figure out if these two articles indicate that the proposal has been shot down. Can anyone help me on the interpretation and governmental procedure for Hong Kong? Thanks, TenorTwelve (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)