Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Another template change proposal

After reading (and re-reading) through some comments concerning the template, I fooled around a bit and came up with a few new tweaks that I personally really love. The new proposal completely eliminates "same-sex marriage debated" and "civil unions . . . debated;" with "Status in other jurisdictions" in place. For this section, I only included countries/regions with no current form of recognition, though including countries without nationwide recognition, yet have certain regions that provide recognition.
Here's my proposed template; please tell me what you think. :) VoodooIsland (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I really, really like it! I think it both saves space by consolidating "same-sex marriage debated" and "civil unions debated", and is more informative by providing links to jurisdictions which previously didn't make the "debated" criteria. The only significant loss of information is that there's no way of knowing which states are debating SSM, having already legalised civil unions. However, I think that's not that important, considering that nearly all countries which have civil unions are "debating" SSM in one way or another, and beyond that it is notoriously difficult to tell which countries will move first. Again, a great idea! Ronline ✉ 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a great change that puts this template in line with most of the others within and without this subject. Fortuynist (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone likes it. I too agree that it fits in line with other templates, especially since qualifications for a debated section can be questionable. I'll go ahead and roll it out on the main template. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I approve the proposed template, it erases any (Does this belong here or not) debate issues that other people might have in the future =). Knowledgekid87 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad everyone likes it. I agree with Knowledgekid87; that is my favorite aspect of the new template. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Laos

Is it really necessary to include Laos under status in other jurisdictions? The article is basically pointless. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Laos should stay. Ron 1987 (User talk;Ron 1987) 12:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with voodooIsland, the article is basiclly a stub, has NO references for verification, and shows little if no promise for SSM. Knowledgekid87 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is basically pointless. There are no cites and all it says is that there are no legal recognition of anything and a line on public opinion and speculation. But because it exists, it shouldn't be excluded from the template.--haha169 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can keep it; but the article is pretty pointless. I had enough trouble trying to flesh out the LGBT rights in Laos article that I doubt there's much (if any) information about the possibility of same-sex unions in Laos. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a merge on the article.Knowledgekid87 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this template about legal recognition of same-sex unions, or no legal recognition of same-sex unions? Because Laos has no legal recognition of same-sex unions, which is just about the default in most of the countries of the world, and to link to their articles, or at least not to differentiate them between nations that do recognize them or is debating the subject bloats up the template and makes it not useful for someone looking for the legal recognition of same-sex unions around the world. Fortuynist (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing that it under the LGBT scope I am going to assume it is under the legal recognition of same-sex unions. Countries that dont have any info like Laos with same sex marriage though should not be included. Quote from Haha169: "But because it exists, it shouldn't be excluded from the template." Um there are topics on wikipedia that DO "exist" as well and some make into good srticles but others that do "exist" that dont meet up to wikipedia's quality standards or dont belong as its own fork get merged or deleted.Knowledgekid87 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's for individual article workers to decide. The purpose of a template is simply to include everything. If an article is cut, fine, but if it still exists, it should be included if it matches the template's scope. --haha169 (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've just put a {prod} on the "SSM in Laos" article. Hopefully it will be deleted soon, and we can remove it from this template (either that, or hopefully something will happen that actually creates a subject matter for the article). LotLE×talk 08:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Civil Unions in some regions

There are some countries, like Italy, which offers civil unions in some regions - yet they are not on the template. Is there a specific reason for their exemption? Just wanted to make sure before I add them. --haha169 (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two countries which used to be in the template but are no longer there: Italy and Brazil. With regard to Italy, it was decided to exclude it some time ago since the partnership registration schemes that exist in several Italian regions only have a symbolic function, and do not confer any substantial rights. In this sense, they are comparable to local domestic partnership schemes in several US cities, and in the Australian cities of Sydney and Melbourne. Ronline ✉ 05:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating ugly footnotes

I really dislike the "heavy" footnotes inside the template. For regular articles, extensive footnoting is great, but for templates it is just distracting. Moreover, these notes do not add anything important or helpful. Most of the notes are for various US states (US-centrism is definitely prominent here too), and contain various information about the dates on which laws go into effect or were in effect. However, the abbreviations of each state listed already links to a whole article on "Same-sex unions/marriage in [State]". Readers who are curious about the exact dates and rules for a given states can perfectly well click on the wikilink for that state/jurisdiction without needing the extra footnote. The leads of all those various articles will provide details on dates-in-effect, or whatever else is most germane to that jurisdiction. LotLE×talk 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The footnotes are only used for one purpose: to show when same-sex marriage will come into force in jurisdictions where laws have been passed but have not come into force. As such, I think the possibility of footnote bloating is limited. As to US-centrism: it just so happens that this year the US has been the country where most of the developments in SSM have take place. Nevertheless, there is nothing structural in the template to make it US-centric: if 5 European countries were to pass SSM, there would be five footnotes showing dates of entry into force. I agree that the heavy footnoting isn't particularly appealing, but it is a temporary phenomenon. Ronline ✉ 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this purpose is a completely unnecessary purpose. The US is different than many places in having so many jurisdictions that are not unified in this legal matter, so a certain "US bloat" is hard to avoid. But the specific detail of date-of-effect is too much of a digression for a template. Following the same lines, we might add all kinds of other details that could well be interesting to know, and indeed would/will be contained in the relevant full articles: How does the law in a given jurisdiction effect religions institutions that perform marriages? How are transgendered people considered in the law of that jurisdiction? Are there any limitation/difference on marriage benefits for same vs. opposite sex couples? How does the legal framework in a given jurisdiction affect rights in an encompassing jurisdiction (e.g. state/provincial versus federal; or nation versus EU)? And so on. Any jurisdiction we list here could well have footnotes about exactly what partnerships/marriages amount to legally in that place... which is why we have full articles.

I do understand why and how the footnotes got into the template. In a rapidly changing legal environment (especially in the US), editors wanted to be as correct as possible in listing jurisdictions. But it is not obvious that if we keep the heavily footnoted style, as an editorial judgment, that they will ever go away. Outside the US, we may well see other countries/regions that have changes in law before the several US states that are "pending" go into effect. And other US states may change their laws in this timeframe. And after July or September or whatever, other jurisdictions may be newly pending for whatever change they've made. Deciding now to make the template cleaner, and relegate minutiae to main articles, lets us keep things cleaner going forward. LotLE×talk 03:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've always been for making the template less bloated and cleaner. I've thought about it and I support the removal of the footnotes, except for California, which has a "sui generis" situatuon. The footnotes do give the template a "work-in-progress" appearance, and while the rate of progress in early 2009 will probably be unprecented, it is likely that progess on same-sex unions will continue at a steady rate, with the result that there will always be some footnotes. The reason I've come to this position is also because the idea of providing notifications for date-of-effect is relatively new. Before mid-2008, there were no footnotes at all, even though 2005-2006, for example, was also a period of rapid progress on same-sex unions. Ronline ✉ 11:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of the footnotes as well, but I do propose that we include an asterisk "*" next to the states which have legalized same-sex marriage/unions but the laws have not yet become effective; and we can have the corresponding text "*Law not yet effective" down at the bottom of the page. If we do not include some kind of notice for states that have legalized but not yet performed same-sex marriage; I feel this would be quite misleading. VoodooIsland (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the footnotes removal (well-intentioned, but the template is way too long already when transcluded), but asterisks don't give much information... the former method of in-line eff. dates provided the informative value of dates while not taking up much space. This is one of the reasons people check the template, for current/upcoming info. The template could use some tightening up, but why not try to lose the wasted blank space instead of the eff. dates? Wikignome0529 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The parenthetical descriptions of the various state date-of-effect were almost as ugly as the footnotes, and for pretty much the same reasons. It is just too much detail for the template, and takes up just as much visual space as the footnotes (or very close). Moreover, it required us to use a separate line for each US state, which made the US focus much too prominent. It's also not clear that date-of-effect is the most important detail to add there: what about which were changed by courts vs. legislatures vs. referendum? what about any niggly differences in laws by gender? what about restrictions, such as on out-of-state partners?. Of course date is interesting, but again that's why we have whole articles for the interesting details. LotLE×talk 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is date more relevant than all of those questions? Because this is a template of the status of same-sex unions; whether they are legal and effectual or not, not a history which may warrant a mention of how same-sex unions came to pass. Niew (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Let's give a specific example about the status of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, the first US state to allow SSM (where I happened to live at the time too), same-sex couples can marry... BUT ONLY IF they reside in a state that allows same-sex marriage. When I was there, that meant MA-resident couples only, but now presumably residents of a few other states could travel to get married on beautiful Cape Cod. On the other hand, opposite-sex couples from ANY US state could travel to MA to get married. Right now, today, the status of same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage is a little bit different in MA, and the set of people for whom it is legal is a little bit different. If we were to include everything that was relevant to the status of SSM in a jurisdiction in the template, we would need to transclude the various articles, defeating the purpose. LotLE×talk 23:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles

Hi. It appears that, according to this article, Dutch same-sex marriages will no longer be recognised in the Netherlands Antilles and in Aruba. This would thus make the Dutch situation similar to the Danish situation (where registered partnerships are not performed or recognised in the Faroe Islands). I haven't yet removed the two from the template, however, since I'm not sure what the validity of the court's ruling is. According to the article Same-sex marriage in Aruba, it was the Dutch Supreme Court which held that marriages must be recognised in those countries. The recent article states that the overturning decision was made by the Joint Court of Justice of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. I'm not sure how it is that the Joint Court court overturn a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court, but I'll look into this. Ronline ✉ 04:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Did Ireland just legalize civil partnerships; did it pass the legislature? The Reuters story's vague language contradicts other reports suggesting that it will go into "second stage debate in the Dáil in Autumn" to be possibly enacted at the end of the year. Niew (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The bill was introduced last year in 2008. It was enacted in 2009 - per the article, at least. --haha169 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The Irish Times says that it still needs to become law. --haha169 (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin

I've just got a question about the domestic partnership scheme passed in Wisconsin and coming into force on July 1. The scheme that passed in Wisconsin was different to other schemes passed in the US, since it was included as part of a budget bill. It seems that, like Maryland, the scheme in Wisconsin is unregistered cohabitation, rather than a registered system like in Nevada, Oregon, California and Washington. Is this correct? Ronline ✉ 15:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, this article provides the answer: it is actually a registered scheme:

To be eligible for a domestic partnership, two individuals must be of the same sex, both be at least 18 years old, share a common residence, not be nearer of kin than second cousins, and neither party can be married or in another domestic partnership with anyone else. Domestic partnerships will be administered at the county level, and couples must sign a legal declaration of their commitment. Ronline ✉ 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the DP law will go into effect on August 3, 2009 not July 1, 2009. http://fairwisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-rep-mark-pocan-wisconsin-becomes.html Gavino (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

Does Liechtenstein recognize registered partnerships? LGBT rights in Liechtenstein states so in two places; yet the template is silent. Is this a status comparable to the one in Ecuador, or is the article simply inaccurate? VoodooIsland (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the government is expected to implement a partnership early 2008. The statement, however, is uncited. Conversely, its been a while since the beginning of 2008. I'll go research it. --haha169 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[1] states that there is no legal recognition yet. But it seems to be moving through parliament quite slowly. It seems that a bill passed in late 2007...but I can't find its status after that vote. --haha169 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see...thanks. I'll fix the LGBT page to correspond. VoodooIsland (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleware and Minnesota limited recognition

An IP address raised a rather interesting question concerning the possiblity of limited (likely unregistered similar to Maryland) in Minnesota or Deleware here. I'm not sure if the mentioned would qualify, as they could be neutral without being in an "unregistered cohabitation" scheme, but I could be wrong. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Delaware should be include. Concerning Minnesota I'm not sure. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.53.237 (talk)

There's currently a bill pending in Rhode Island that would (only) give a "domestic partner" the right to make burial arangments for their deceased domestic partner. If this passes, and is featured on the map and template, then Delaware should definitely be included on both. VoodooIsland (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either of these should be featured on the map. The schemes in Delaware and Rhode Island essentially provide one right to domestic partners (either same-sex or opposite-sex); in itself, this doesn't constitute recognition of "unregistered cohabitation". I think that once we begin reflecting these laws on the map and template, it opens a floodgate and weakens the distinction between schemes which offer a much broader variety of rights and have greater social recognition. Ronline ✉ 03:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Performed" versus "grant"

"Perform" is a perfectly fine word when discussing a marriage rite. However, what we are discussing here is not the performance of the rite (which in many cases is not a government action) but the bestowing of a specific legal status - which is more properly a "grant" rather than a performance of some kind. I tried changing this (boldly) but had the change reverted who thought "perform" simply better, so I thought I ought get some more voices in on it. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally neutral on the subject. I feel that granted sounds the best under certain headings (such as "Formerly granted" in replace of "Formerly performed"), but I personally like performed in other headings the best. I feel performed is the best choice for the regions recognizing same-sex marriage or civil unions, as most have some form of ceremony to iniciate the civil union (and all for the marriage). VoodooIsland (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I should note the list doesn't really indicate ceremonial recognition. While there are surely places where having such a ceremony without legal backing will land one in trouble, there have long been various form of personal commitment ceremonies in places where the commitment has no legal backing. And I think that splitting the terminology between "perform" and "grant" will just confuse the issue, making it look as if we're talking of two separate things. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. I agree that we definitely shouldn't include two (it would certainly confuse many), but I feel that the current titling could be improved. "Legal in some regions" would probably sound the most accurate universally, but it sounds very Kindergartenish for some reason. I tested out the granted in some regions again and I feel it fights very well (over performed) in all section titles except for the "...some regions" concerning civil unions/registered partnerships. I guess it'll rub off on me the more I preview it, but "granted" would also fix the inconsistencey for unregistered cohabitation in some regions. However, the only issue is that it if we changed it, it might look a tad off with "granted" here and there and then "Recognized, not performed" planted in the middle. "Recognized, not granted" doesn't sound as nice in my opinion, but I suppose we need to make some sacrifices in order to find the better improvement. I definitely think we should take a vote and let others chime in before anything is changed. VoodooIsland (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While a WP:VOTE is not precisely called for, what I'm looking for is consensus... and so far in discussion, it sounds like we have two voices for "grant" and none for "perform". Barring further voices weighing in, I'll put in the change soon. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

For countries that already have specific pages such as "Registered partnership in . . ." (i.e, no page titled "Recognition of same-sex unions in . . .") with then a section concerning information about same-sex marriage in the country, should we split these up and create a page such as "Same-sex marriage in Slovenia" and then do a See Also link at the top of the Registered Partnership in . . . page? I'm not talking about every country, but countries that have significant info or can have it added, such as within Slovenia, where such an article could serve extra significance. There are pages for a few, such as in the UK and France, and these all have substantial amounts of info concerning the same-sex marriage status only. Countries with active debates about same-sex marriage could serve additional worth with seperate articles, but only for countries that do not already have a "Recognition of same-sex unions in . . ." page. For example, Argentina, which currently uses a "Recognition of same-sex unions in" titling to cover all of its information, would stay how it is. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the news coming out of Slovenia is fantastic. Despite the country's strong liberal current, I didn't expect it to be just the 6th country in Europe to legalise SSM. I've been bold and moved the article to Recognition of same-sex unions in Slovenia. I don't think splitting up the article is good, particularly when there isn't enough info to warrant a split. I think that once Slovenia legalises SSM, the article should be moved to Same-sex marriage in Slovenia, with a subsection covering the history of recognition, including registered partnerships. Ronline ✉ 06:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Granted" vs. "performed"

I think that the recent change from "performed" to "granted" makes the template rather ambiguous. While "granted" may be correct legally, it is very uncommonly used in plain English when referring to the recognition of same-sex unions. A Google search on "grants same-sex marriage does reveal a few important articles that use the term. Nevertheless, I believe it is more appropriately (and commonly) used when referring to the initial decision to "grant" marriage rights to same-sex couples (e.g. "4 June 2009: NH grants SSM rights"), rather than the ongoing process of facilitating same-sex marriage ("7 countries now grant same-sex marriage"). Furthermore, to people who are not aware of the discussions on this page, phrases such as "Recognised, not granted" are very ambiguous. In many contexts, "recognised" is used as a synonym for "locally granted". Thus, it is rather confusing for the template to state "Recognised, not granted". The former heading, "Recognised, not performed", was at least clearer in suggesting that, while some jurisdictions provide same-sex couples in foreign marriages with full rights, such marriages are not performed locally. Thus, I think the template should be changed back to "performed" instead of "granted". Ronline ✉ 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To me, though, "performed" is also ambiguous, in that there have long been ceremonial marriages performed in places without legal recognition... but such were not available universally(some regimes out there are quite harsh.) Performed but not recognized, if you will. To me, it's "recognized" that is precise but unclear - if you don't already know the situation, it's not something that will come to mind. and "Recognized but not performed" sounds to me like they grant, they just don't ceremonialize. Me, I'm of the opinion that the world should embrace same-sex marriage just to make this template easier to follow... Nat Gertler (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ronline's opinion Ron 1987 (talk)12:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To me "performed" has a sense of immediacy... "granted" sounds like a promise kept, that can take effect later. "Performed" is my preferred wording. Now while I do understand the argument that same-sex marriages can be performed but not given recognition by the appropriate state actors, the title of this sidebar, Legal recognition of same-sex couples", gives enough context to disambiguate that. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Maryland

Maybe Maryland should return to "Civil unions and registerd partnerships" section. See [2] [3] Ron 1987 (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

New Caledonia

Considering, New Caledonia's unique status and system of government, should it be included under civil unions and registered partnerships? I recently passed a civil union law. [4] VoodooIsland (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about the same thing a few days ago. New Caledonia essentially approved PACS, the law already in force in Metropolitan France. We already have the precedents of Greenland, the Netherlands Antilles, Aruba, and the Isle of Man, which are included separately on the list despite not being sovereign states. I also read somewhere that LGBT rights groups are pushing for French Polynesia to perform PACS, which suggests that PACS does not automatically extent to the French overseas territories (except, supposedly, the DOMs like Reunion and French Guiana, which do not have any autonomy).

So, yes, I am in support of including New Caledonia. I think we should also include Jersey and the Faroe Islands if those two dependencies pass a civil partnership law in the future (which is somewhat likely). Ronline ✉ 10:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have written a new section at Pacte civil de solidarité. According to the TETU Magazine source I used in that article, PACS is now also available in Wallis and Futuna. This, of course, raises some problems with regard to clutter. Groups in Mayotte and French Polynesia are also lobbying for PACS to be introduced, which would mean the addition of two further jurisdictions. We can either include all of these separately, or simply include a footnote next to France, specifying something along the lines of "including New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte, etc" or "including overseas collectivities, except XYZ". A similar note can be added next to Denmark ("including Greenland"). At the moment, I propose that we don't do this, since footnotes themselves can create a lot of clutter. If, however, lots of dependencies begin legalising same-sex unions (Faroe Islands + Jersey included), then it may be the only way to go. Ronline ✉ 10:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes should be created. Including all territorries to the list it is bad idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)