Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Kosovo

Is there some big debate of same-sex marriage in Kosovo within the government, or is there merely an underground discussion? I keep seeing the country pop up everywhere and now it has a lengthy paragraph on the main page discussing the status. It's interesting, because numerous gays have sought asylum into other countries due to the apparently homophobic climate in the nation and yet the government seems to be one of the most gay-friendly in Europe. It's all very interesting. Anyway, since I've seen Kosovo referenced so frequently (even on this talk in the past), I just wanted to check and see if a debate or possibility of same-sex marriage being legislated in Kosovo is apparent, therefore, I could add it to the template if confirmed. VoodooIsland (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is not a country. 79.163.205.176 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico City is not a country, but if the government of Kosovo has the power to recognize same-sex couples for its purposes, it should be on the template. Fortuynist (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Kosovo should not be added, since it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in the "Same-sex marriage debated" section. There is indeed very little discourse on LGBT rights in Kosovo, to an even lesser extent than in other Western Balkan countries. The reason why it pops up sometimes is because of its progressive Constitution. Article 24 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Article 37, which deals with marriage, states that "everyone enjoys the right to marry" and does not make any specification as to the gender of the spouses. Thus, from a pure constitutional perspective, there are grounds to argue that denying same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, being a breach of Article 24. To my knowledge, this line of argument has not been used yet within Kosovo, not even by gay rights groups. Ronline ✉ 09:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the bit about Kosovo from the main page (same-sex marriage) and combined it into LGBT rights in Kosovo, as I feel that such a lengthy paragraph about a partially-recognized state on the main page is only going to confuse readers; and based on the prior wording; it almost hints at the idea that same-sex marriage is an achievable task (through the courts, particulary) within the near future. And such is highly unlikely, unless the courts are just as seemingly "with the times" as the government appears to be. VoodooIsland (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DC

I recently came across an article that says Adrian Fenty signed the marriage bill. [1][2][3] If so, then barring a Congress intervention (which, if Pelosi gets her way, won't happen), then DC has legalized marriages performed elsewhere. So unless Congress takes action, DC should be added to the template. --haha169 (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. 79.163.249.121 (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that DC should be added to the list of jurisdictions where marriages are recognized; however, I do not think the "Unless Congress intervenes" citation is necessary. The plain fact of the matter is that Congress can always intervene in the District's local affairs. Congress doesn't need the 30 day "review period" to overturn DC laws; they could do so 30 days from now or 30 years from now... as such, the footnote is pretty redundant. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 05:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yemen

Yemen recognises gay marriages. Yoitslinda (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. WWGB (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Maine

Main does not need "Law subject to People's Veto" placed on it. That's a weaseling way of pushing an agenda. We didn’t have that for California when prop 8 had yet to be voted for, so there is no need to put that for Maine. It has been signed into law and has a possibility of a “people’s veto”. If it is over ridden, then it is subject to be changed, but for now it is LAW, not assumption. Andrew Colvin (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who put that up (by the way, I strongly opposed Prop 8). The People's Veto has qualified the number of signatures [4]. This law will be STAYED until the election, meaning there might never be same-sex marriage in Maine. This is not life Prop 8 where some SSMs were performed (and as of current still recognized). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC) My bad, I misread the article, I thought they had the sigs already

• How is that law????? - it is NOT effective yet. Nearly all Maine legislation has a "90 day dissolusion period" - meaning that laws are only effective after 90 days of the Gov. signing of a bill, unless stated on the bill (so does Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Massacusetts, North Carolina and Kansas has the same system). It is only 55,000 signatures that WILL be easy to get that are required for the ballot box - Now I know deep down for sure this WILL be voted on in November 2009 and there will be a vote of NO for SSMs at 51 percent and 49 percent for YES for SSMs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not WP:SPECULATE on the future Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Coquille

How should we handle this business, [5], both on the template and the maps? Or should we simply ignore it altogether? The tribe is a federally recognized sovereign state, so it holds power. --haha169 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a discussion on the matter from last September. CTJF83Talk 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, as of now, it seems that the problems presented in that discussion (no cities; no marriage license) has proven invalid. Coquille has issued its own marriage license, and has married a lesbian couple (per above link). Additionally, this template does include cities now (DC and Mexico City). Therefore, any sovereign entity should be listed if they allow same-sex marriages. --haha169 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well DC is different then just any other city, and it appears that Mexico City has a similar federal district like DC does. So in my opinion, those two cities are different then say San Francisco or NYC legalizing marriage. CTJF83Talk 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ctjf83. The District of Columbia and the Federal District of Mexico are not just cities, but first-order political units within their respective countries. Any marriages performed by New York City or San Francisco are invalid because the state confers marriage licenses, not the city. As for the Coquille, the tribe does not (and presumably can not) provide any civil benefits of marriage, as all those benefits are conferred by the state. The entire thing is similar to getting married in a religion that permits same-sex marriage; you may be married in that eyes of that community but this template deals exclusively with political conditions, not social. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Epicadam, I like that thought. The tribe can only provide the benefits that Oregon already allows to same-sex couples. CTJF83Talk 18:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

They can actually provide tribal benefits. I'm not familiar with tribal customs, but I'm fairly certain that something comes along with the marriage - not just tax returns and hospital visitation rights. But I'll just let it go - it's not a big deal. --haha169 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating the distinction between unregistered cohabitation and civil unions

Hi. I've been reading up on Uruguay's "civil union" law (see [6] in Spanish]) and have discovered that the unions are not registered in a civil registry office like marriages. Instead, the scheme appears to be a hybrid between civil unions and unregistered cohabitation. After living together for five years, couples need to go to court to recognise their partnership. The above source recommends an attorney to do this. I'm unsure as to whether the court issues a civil union certificate which can then be used as proof when gaining the rights. In any case, I don't know much about the legal system in Uruguay, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

The reason I'm bringing up this issue here is because it illustrates the artificiality of the rigid division between "unregistered cohabitation" and "civil unions/registered partnerships" in the template. The template implies that unregistered cohabitation offers a lower level of recognition than civil unions. There are two possible arguments for maintaining the distinction, both of which are problematic:

1. Unregistered cohabitation schemes offer less rights than civil union schemes, and thus should be categorised differently. This is not always the case; indeed, the reverse can be true. For example, in Australia, "de facto partners" are provided pretty much all of the rights of marriage, except adoption and parenting rights. De facto unions in Portugal and Colombia also offer nearly all of the rights of marriage. Conversely, the Slovenian scheme has a formal registration process but confers substantially less rights than marriage. Indeed, even the Uruguyan scheme offers more rights than the Slovenian scheme (e.g. social security entitlements).
2. The ceremonial aspect of civil union schemes is symbolically significant, and thus they should be categorised differently. This is also problematic, since the schemes which this template groups together as "civil unions/registered partnerships" have substantially different registration processes. In some jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Denmark, civil unions are formed through an identical process to marriage, with a ceremony and registration in civil registry offices. In others, such as Slovenia[7], Victoria (Australia) and California (USA), there is no marriage-like ceremony prescribed by statute, but the registration takes place in registry office. In others further, like France, registration takes place by court clerks. In these latter examples, the mere act of filling out a form in a government office doesn't produce a great deal of marriage-like symbolism, so I fail to see how these are significantly different to unregistered cohabitation schemes where couples also frequently fill out forms to take advantage of their rights.

This shows that the current division is somewhat arbitrary. In saying this, I remain somewhat conflicted about how to change the template. I can think of two options:

1. Maintaining two tiers but adopting a different organising principle. So, for example, we could put all schemes that offer rights identical to marriage in one category, and all other schemes in another category (this is what the HRC in the US does). Or, we could put all ceremonial schemes in one category and all non-ceremonial schemes in another category.
2. Merging all non-marriage recognition schemes into one category. I think this would be the best option, even though the result would be a huge disparity within the category, between countries like Argentina which offer essentially one right to same-sex couples, to the United Kingdom, which offers all the rights of marriage. It would also mean that countries which haven't yet passed "marriage-like" schemes, but have some weak form of unregistered cohabitation, would not change their status when they pass the marriage-like scheme (e.g. Argentina).

What does everyone think? Ronline ✉ 12:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no international standards for what a "civil union" or "unregistered cohabitation" is. The names of the schemes and the benefits offered are unlike what an uninformed observer would expect, even in the United States, which is why the HRC (and Wikipedia maps, which developed separately) uses similar/dissimilar distinctions between same-sex unions. I support this change. Fortuynist (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I do think you have a valid point; however, that is not what this template is meant to display. Rather, this chart simply makes a distinction on what actions a state has made to advance the rights of same-sex couples. The relevant point in separating out countries that have unregistered cohabitation is that the state has not taken any specific actions to validate the rights of same-sex couples. Even though unregistered cohabitation may provide many or even all the benefits of marriage, in these cases the state is simply acknowledging the reality that same-sex couples live together and form families. That is a very different concept than the state affirming the union through a formal process. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 14:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Uruguay moved to Unregistered cohabitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Action reversed. 1) There is no consensus yet to make the change. 2) I oppose moving Uruguay because the country does have a formal recognition process via a law passed by the country's legislature. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 14:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, and who can read Spanish, here is the Uruguayan law on "concubinary unions". Indeed, it appears to be somewhat more than an unregistered cohabitation (UC) scheme, even though the language it uses is very much that of unregistered cohabitation ("concubinos" [cohabitants], "de hecho [de facto]"). Unlike UCs, a concubinary union must be dissolved by a court (Chapter III of the Law). Furthermore, Chapter IV of the Law provides for the recording of unions in a national registry which is also used for marriage (one section of the Registry is titled "Regimenes Matrimoniales", the other "Uniones Concubinarias"). Ronline ✉ 15:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Opppose - Merging all non marriage recognition schemes into one category it is not good idea. It is too general. Current sections should be stay. I think Uruguayan concubinary unions are registered, formal unions. Uruguay should be stay in "Civil unions and registered partnership" section. Ron 1987 (User talk:Ron 1987) 17:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What distinctions do you want to make between unmarriagely unions? We shouldn't have a category for each new arbitrary legal name for each country. Fortuynist (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Form - registered or uregistered as criteration of division is good and sufficient. User:Ron 1987 (User talk:Ron 1987) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

CA ruling

Prop 8 upheld, but the 18000 marriages are still valid. I think the template should keep the formerly performed section. Removing it would be an oversimplification Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the template does not mention the 18,000 legal same-sex marriages in the state. There should be a subnote. --haha169 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a subnote. I know some people here treat California's status as being sui generis, and to some extent it is, but for that very reason it already has its own sub-category in the template. The point of this template is too offer a broad general overview of the jurisdictions which recognise same-sex relationships. Due to space and clutter issues, its purpose should not be to provide informative content or subtle distinctions. If we put our mind to it, we can provide a footnote for everything: for example, we could specify that some countries have a ceremony for civil unions and others don't, while some provide full marriage rights and others don't. I think all that is needed is California included in a "Formerly performed" section. Once users click on the actual article link, they can find out the dates when SSM was recognised, as well as the fact that the 18,000 weddings are still recognised. I think otherwise we just risk bloating a template that already has too many notes and sub-categories. Ronline ✉ 07:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with Ronline. While it would be nice to include the 18,000 people that are legally married there, templates are meant to be a brief summary of the most important information about the topic. Then again, if we go with the new layout proposal (#Proposal_for_a_.22Notes.22_section), it might not be too bad to include it at the bottom, not where CA is currently listed. CTJF83Talk 07:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria, Slovakia

Should Bulgaria and Slovakia really be included under the civil unions/partnerships debated section? If I read correctly here and here, the two countries do not seem to match the criteria. For Bulgaria, it seems that the government has a possible intention of introducing a registered partnership for opposite-sex couples only, with a few onlookers speculating that it could possibly be unconstitutional for the government to exclude same-sex couples due to the anti-discrimination law. Yet other countries have such laws and get away with not offering same-sex marriage, so why should Bulgaria be any different with registered partnerships? As for Slovakia, the debate seems to be merely within the public and the possibility of such an introduction has gathered a few signs of support from a few politicians. I do not feel this qualifies for the section. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess they should be removed. Slovakia raises the interesting question of whether a public awareness campaign constitutes a "debate" for the purposes of the template. Personally, I'd say it does, not least because it indicates quite literally that the issue is being "debated" in the particular jurisdiction. It's also a reasonably good indicator of what progress can be made in the future. Nevertheless, I agree that it very difficult to qualify the extent to which public awareness campaign constitutes "debate". In nearly all countries in Europe, and in many other countries around the world, there has been some lobbying on the issue of same-sex unions, but it would be problematic to list all of these countries in the template (this used to be done before, mind you). So, to cut a long story short: beyond public awareness campaigns/social debate, there hasn't really been any political movement on civil unions in either Slovakia or Bulgaria. Thus, they should be removed. I guess Costa Rica should be removed for the same reason. The only problem is that, once removed, articles on these countries are very difficult to access. Is there anything we could do about that? (I think that it's really interesting to read about how different countries have dealt with this issue, even if they are not politically "debating" legislation). Ronline ✉ 08:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the other nations should be easily accessed, but I'm not sure how we should do it. I know we have a template on the Same-sex marriage page, but it's at the very bottom. Perhaps we could link it to the template (visibly) so others could see it. The main reason why I don't think we should include "all jurisdictions" on the template is for there are pages such as Same-sex marriage in Vietnam and even pages that cover countries with only negative laws towards same-sex marriage, so I think users might be a bit confused by such and feel that Vietnam or say Nigeria, Uganda have been debating same-sex marriage. I don't know about the same-sex marriage situation in Vietnam, but I think China or Laos would be more likely to legalize same-sex marriage than Vietnam. VoodooIsland (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• I removed Costa Rica as well, but I did have one question. On the page Civil union in Costa Rica, it seems to mention something about a debate of civil union within the government, and possibly another via referendum (?). This could be wrong or heavily outdated, but if such is the case, I do feel we should include countries/regions that have active-interest proposed referendums/initiatives on the legislation on such as union, as with Arizona. VoodooIsland (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a "Notes" section

I feel the template looks a bit cluttered with the notes right under the countries/states, so here's an idea I came up with that might make it less cluttered. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Definitely seems less cluttered. (By the way, if anyone loves updating maps and would be interested in helping me update a US map relating to cannabis legislation, feel free to message me.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) VoodooIsland (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm mixed. I love the cleanness of your infobox, but is it too much of a pain to scroll to the bottom to find out what the numbers mean? Is there a way they can click on the numbers and it goes to the bottom to show what the number means? Like the internal links. CTJF83Talk 02:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

1,2,3,4,5 on the bottom should link back to their top anchors, too, like references do on articles with ^s. Links both ways are done with {{ref}}. Fortuynist (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if we can link both ways, I say go for it!! CTJF83Talk 02:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ctj. --haha169 (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean, I liked the idea even before, but that is definitely even better. This also allows the opportunity to add longer notes, if needed, without distracting from the upper sections. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I support VoodooIsland's idea, but I think that even if the footnotes are relegated to the bottom, they need to be used sparingly. I think that the only time when we should be using notes is to indicate the date of entry into force for a law that hasn't yet entered into force. Footnotes should not be used to make distinctions or to provide additional information more generally. The point of this template is to categorise and to provide a directory of links, rather than to provide substantive information. Ronline ✉ 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked more closely at the template, do we need a list of places it is banned? Especially, do we need to list every US state specifically? CTJF83Talk 07:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think it's particularly important to make a separate list for countries where it is banned. Personally, I don't see a big difference between jurisdictions where SSM is not performed (and hence "banned" in the common usage of the word), and those countries where it is constitutionally banned. The only difference lies in the process of legalising it in the future (e.g. the constitution has to be changed, not only statute). Aside from the US, there are relatively few jurisdictions that have passed explicit bans on SSM. A further problem is that, outside of the US context, it is often very difficult to determine whether SSM is banned. In some countries, such as Poland, many have argued that same-sex marriage cannot be legalised under the current constitutions. This is not because of an explicit ban against SSM, but because the Constitution happens to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Other countries, such as Ireland, Hungary and Germany, have clauses stipulating that "marriage must be specially protected", and this is used by some to argue that SSM cannot be legalised. Again, the question is, do we classify these as bans or not? All in all, I think that the distinction between a constitutional ban and mere non-performance of SSM is a useful concept in the US context, but not really outside it, where constitutions are much more difficult to change. Ronline ✉ 08:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just included a list of countries with constitutional bans on my own personal template to help me remember them, I wasn't thinking of adding them to main template since it would look very cluttered. Anyway, I'm glad everyone has liked my idea so far, but could someone fill it in because I'm not sure how to link the numbers to the bottom notes section. Thanks! VoodooIsland (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Killiondude fixed so the references link both ways, I'd say it's ready to be the main template! CTJF83Talk 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it's up! VoodooIsland (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Portugal

Portugal was recently moved from the "Unregistered cohabitation" category into the "Civil unions" category. I've changed it back, since the Portuguese "união de facto" scheme does not provide for registration. This is explicitly mentioned here (ILGA-Portugal, in Portuguese), which states in paragraph 1, "Outra limitação relevante da União de Facto é a impossibilidade de registo" (Another limitation of de-facto unions is the impossibility to register). Couples living in a de facto relationship gain almost all of the rights of marriage, but only after they've lived together for two years. Ronline ✉ 08:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain what exactly a Unregistered cohabitation means? CTJF83Talk 08:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unregistered cohabitation" refers to schemes which provide rights to couples (same-sex and opposite-sex) but do not any registration in order to receive these rights. They originated in the 1970s and 1980s as a means of providing rights to cohabitating unmarried opposite-sex couples, in the context of increasing rates of non-marriage. Couples could gain many of the rights of marriage if they could prove that, while unmarried under law, they were living together as a "married couple" in practice (de facto). Gradually, these schemes were extended to same-sex couples. The name "unregistered cohabitation" is actually not used anywhere officially. The status is called "de facto relationship" in Australia and Portugal, and "common-law marriage" or "concubinage" in some other jurisdictions. Furthermore, many countries in the world which now offer same-sex marriage and civil unions also offer "unregistered cohabitation" rights to same-sex couples. These include Sweden, the Netherlands, Hungary, parts of Spain, Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, etc.

Rights are gained through application and proof. A couple must show that they are in a relationship, and usually that they have lived together for a certain period of time. Unlike a "one-stop" marriage or civil union registration process, getting rights under unregistered cohabitation can often (but not always) be a tedious process. For example, to gain access to joint social security benefits, a couple would have to go the Social Security Office and say that they are in a cohabitating or de facto relationship. They may be asked to produce proof of this, such as statements from friends, joint bank statements, passport stamps showing joint travels, etc. Ronline ✉ 09:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)