Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 20

Scotland

Request to remove reference to 'United Kingdom'. It's not really correct and it's a bit confusing to refer to the United Kingdom and then also Scotland as a sub-national entity. It would be better to express it as a bill progressing through the United Kingdom legislature for England, Wales and Northern Ireland only and the Scottish Parliament for Scotland (or similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.26.195 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

glenrhart. Actually, it's only for England and Wales. Northern Ireland is not included either. They have a separate Parliament, that has also discussed the issue. Glenrhart (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Bills that apply to more than one part of the UK, also bills that apply solely to England, always go through as UK bills. Somewhere near the end of the main text (i.e. before any Schedules), there will be a section which sets down which countries it applies to; this section is often titled "Extent" (but not always; it might be grouped with other clauses into a "Final provisions" section, etc.); for example Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 Section 18, or Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 Section 156. If there is no section or clause dealing with the extent, as with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 Section 7, it may be taken as applying to the whole of the United Kingdom. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So if Scotland pass SSM first, it will go under 'Performed in some jurisdictions', but as soon as England and Wales pass SSM it will just be United Kingdom under 'performed'? Or would it be Performed in some jurisdictions 'England and Wales' and Scotland because Northern Ireland will not recognise it? CH7i5 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

France, date when the law tooke effect???

Is it 18 May or 19 May the date when the Same-sex marriage law came into effect in France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The constitutional Council/Court (Conseil Constitutionnel) gave its "agreeement" on 17 may (validating/declaring the Act constitutional), but it still had one more step to go through: promulgation by the French president, (which lists the law in the Official Journal) which occured on 18 May, time it became official. — Ludopedia^(Talk) 15:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

UK Third Reading

The UK third reading is due to take place on the 20 and 21 May. This should be added into the artical as it currently says it has yet to be scheduled (Source: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/marriagesamesexcouplesbill.html).

After that it will have to go through the House of Lords, who could (in theory) reject it, although this would be deemed highly unusual and unethical for an unelected house to reject something that will be passed with a large majority (based on the second reading) in an elected house. However, there is a bill (I forget what it is called) that the Prime Minister could use to force the HoL to pass it. Should this information be added? CH7i5 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the Report Stage which is 20 May, see Parliamentary business for Monday 20 May 2013; this is scheduled to continue into 21 May, see Parliamentary business for Tuesday 21 May 2013. Third Reading cannot occur until the Report Stage is completed.

The House of Lords can amend the Bill (in which case it would have to go back to the Commons following Third Reading by the Lords in order for the amendments to be voted upon) or otherwise delay it, but they cannot reject it outright, see Parliament Act 1911. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The source have have put states "The Bill has been carried over to the 2013-14 session. The Bill is due to have its report stage and third reading on 20 and 21 May 2013." this is from an official government website, the report and third reading are happening at the same time.CH7i5 (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2012-13 to 2013-14 does state "The Bill is due to have its report stage and third reading on 20 and 21 May 2013", but that does not imply that they occur simultaneously - it's one followed by the other. See Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Stages of a bill and the links in that to Report Stage; also to Third Reading. If you have access to a TV set, you can see it live on BBC Parliament (Freeview 81) from about 15:30 BST (14:30 UTC) today; and from 12:30 BST (11:30 UTC) tomorrow. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: today's debate has been rescheduled to 16:15 BST (15:15 UTC) in order to fit in the "Syria Statement". --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The current article is still wrong, its currently say "A third reading has yet to be scheduled", which is not true. It is scheduled to happen either today or tomorrow, as per source CH7i5 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The last statement was from me, I did not realise I was not logged on CH7i5 (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Report stage concluded a few seconds ago, and Third Reading has now commenced. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Adoption

Remove from the following as these jurisdictions have now legalised equal marriage: Brazil, Uraguay, Rhode Island, and Delaware.

"In addition, several countries which do not have marriage equality nonetheless permit joint adoption: Brazil; most of the United Kingdom; Uruguay; Western Australia, NSW, and Canberra within Australia; Coahuilla in Mexico; a number of US states (Rhode Island, New Jersey, California, Indiana, Florida, Arkansas, Illinois, Oregon, Hawaii, Nevada, Delaware, and Guam); and in at least a few cases, Israel." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgantis (talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Dates

Unless we have s.t. specifically Usonian where we want MDY (I'm American and even I don't think that makes sense anywhere else), dates should be either DMY or YMD. Those are the two logical orders, and the two other international norms. Since our summary entries start with Y, the only possible order is YMD. Which makes sense: "the 15th of 2006" is useless, while "March 2006" is useful. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Where are people using "the 15th of 2006"? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Another editor keeps changing the dates to that order with the edit summary that this makes them "consistent". — kwami (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is using "the 15th of 2006". Nor are we using YDM. What we have is a table listing years, and under each year we have, separately, the date, which for consistency should be given in the same format as the other dates in the article, viz. DMY. Your mistake is to suppose that in this table the year is part of the quoted date. It's not, it's a heading in a table. -- Alarics (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, if the first figure is the year, the 2nd needs to be the month, not the day. YDM is ludicrous no matter how we justify it. We can change the rest of the article to match, if you like. — kwami (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You can't just dismiss my point by saying "Regardless". YDM would be ludicrous indeed, but we are not using YDM. This article uses DMY. In this table, the year is not included in the dates. It is a separate heading in the table. You cannot have "month, day" in the table when the rest of the article uses "day, month". -- Alarics (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if the year is in the row headings, it's still YDM. So, we have a choice then between YDM and YMD. The latter is the ISO standard, so the choice should be pretty clear. We also order the dates by month, not by day, so the date format conflicts with the ordering of the table. — kwami (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

How? The dates aren't at the start of a cell, they're in the middle of text - you can't sort a column by something that's not at the start. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Doesn't matter if the year is in the row headings, it's still YDM." (kwami) - No, it certainly is not. YDM would be if you said "2013 1 June" in a single sequence, which is not what we are doing here. Kwami needs to stop flogging this dead horse. -- Alarics (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"Nationwide"

Denmark and Netherlands do not allow SSM nationwide. Like the US and Mexico, they only allow it is some areas, though unlike the US and Mexico, the majority of the pop has access. The UK will presumably be similar when it passes (majority of population, but not everyone). — kwami (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the Netherlands (which includes the Caribbean Netherlands) as nation-wide is correct, since that is a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. That country legalized same-sex marriage, the other countries within the Kingdom (Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten) only recognize them but don't perform them. Denmark is slightly different, since there is (afaik) not really a (legal/political) distinction between metropolitan Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark. So, in my opinion, the Netherlands should be marked as nation-wide, while Denmark is up for discussion. SPQRobin (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for that? As far as I know, neither Denmark nor the Netherlands is a federation, unlike the US and Mexico. Both are highly centralized, with only one civil law code applying to all citizens, and provinces and municipalities have extremely limited law-making powers. If you are talking about Greenland and the Faroe Islands, they are not in Denmark proper. They are semi-autonomous associated states subject to the Danish crown and administered by Denmark. Each has its own constitution and government. (Actually, the situation is a lot more complicated than that because it represents a series of ad hoc solutions to the autonomy problem). Whether SSM is permitted in these areas or not has no bearing on the nationwide status of SSM in Denmark. Robin has discussed the situation for the Netherlands above, which is sorta similar in nature.

One caveat: don't try to understand the Kingdom of the Netherlands or the Danish Realm in terms of the British Crown. They are fundamentally different beasts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The states recognized by international law are the kingdoms: Curacao is part of the Netherlands sensu lato, and Greenland is part of Denmark. In the Netherlands, SSM is available in some Caribbean islands and not in others. True, they are not equivalent to the Commonwealth, but they are similar to the United Kingdom. Would we list the UK as "nationwide" if SSM were available only in England, Scotland, and Wales? — kwami (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. As far as international law is concerned, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not exactly considered part of Denmark. For example, neither is in the European Union. The case with the Dutch possessions is similar. Your question about the UK is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on this question. As I said in my caveat above, they are fundamentally different beasts. There is nothing even remotely similar to Greenland and the Faroe Islands in the United Kingdom. Or anywhere in the Commonwealth. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

According to their constitutions, they are part of Denmark. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, not quite. They are part of the Danish Realm, but they are not in Denmark. The situation is actually MUCH MUCH more complicated than that, and a lot of it has never been codified or formally written down in law, specifically to permit latitude in the development of the relations of these territories with the crown. Regardless, the statement that SSM is allowed nationwide in Denmark is correct. Ditto the Netherlands. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what "nationwide" means. I suppose we are talking of sovereign states. Reading Wikipedia, things are as follows, though I might be wrong:

• The sovereign states United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlands each have several constituent countries.
  • The first two (UK and Denmark) are quite similar in government structure, sharing one government but having devolved governments (except the "main" country). In Denmark, the law legalizing SSM explicitly states that it does not affect Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In a similar way, the UK law only takes effect on England and Wales.
  • The four countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands however each have a unitary but completely separate government. File:Kingdom of the Netherlands location tree.svg explains it pretty well. So the Netherlands imposes SSM on its whole territory (which includes Bonaire/Sint Eustatius/Saba) but cannot do that on the other three countries (Aruba/Curacao/Sint Maarten).
• Anyway, the internal governing of the sovereign states is not really relevant to international law. However, interesting here is that we commonly link to the Netherlands (a "country") while we mean the Kingdom of the Netherlands when talking of the sovereign state (also a "country"). The article on Denmark is about both at the same time, though we have Danish Realm.

SPQRobin (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Denmark and Netherlands are two sovereign countries not including the territories or constituent states/countries that are considered a part of them or under their jurisdiction. Kwami is misunderstanding them. 03:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

France is a sovereign country not including its territories, but if the French law did not apply to the territories, would we still say it applied to all of France? What would be the basis of our decision? How do we decide that we don't need all of the Netherlands to count as nationwide, but we do need all of Mexico?

England is both a country and a nation. If SSM passes in England but not in Wales or Scotland, would we add England to the 'nationwide' list? If we would, we should at least note that Netherlands and Denmark don't mean the entire state either. — kwami (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer your first question, yes. The French territories are not France. France is its own country. Mexico has states within the country, like the United States. They aren't separate territories. The key difference is state vs. country. We're dealing with countries. England is also a country. Wales is a separate country. So we'd list them as countries. Teammm ^talk
_email 06:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR, folks. jj (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Supports keeping those countries Denmark and Netherlands defined as two. All sources treat them as legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Teammm ^talk
_email 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Countries or states?

Since we list Denmark and the Netherlands because they're countries even though they're not states, shouldn't we list other non-state countries where marriage is legal?

According to ISO country-code assignments and our own listings, that would mean the following:

Reunion, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Fr. Polynesia, St. Martin, Wallis & Futuna, St Barthélemy, St Pierre & Miquelon, New Caledonia, Fr. Guiana, Mayotte, Svalbard, and the Caribbean Netherlands.

If we do not treat these as separate countries, then we are in effect saying that Greenland, the Faroes, Curacao, Tokelau, etc. are not worth mentioning, which is not worthy of an encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The five overseas department/regions of France are integral parts of the French Republic. I'm not sure why the ISO gives them country codes, as their internal legal status is no different from Hawaii's within the US, or the Canaries' within Spain. The collectivities have somewhat more autonomy, but they have representation in Paris (unlike say American Samoa in Washington, DC) apparently this law applies to them automatically, as part of France.

The minor parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Realm of New Zealand, and Danish Realm have autonomy in this regard (I'm not sure if they have voting representation in Amsterdam, Wellington, and Copenhagen), so their passing the laws themselves might be notable. —Quintucket (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"Autonomy" is not the issue: the US and Mexican states are autonomous in this regard too. What is apparently relevant is whether the polity is a "country". If we're listing countries, we should list countries. Why do we list countries of some states but not of others? — kwami (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, autonomy is not the issue. The US and Mexican states do have some autonomy in marriage laws, but they are integral parts of the single federal entities known as the United States and Mexico. The minor parts of the sovereign entities known as the Realm of New Zealand, the Danish Realm, and Kingdom of the Netherlands are essentially dependencies of New Zealand, Denmark, and the Netherlands, not integral parts of their territory.

In this regard they are closer to the US territories like American Samoa and the Northern Marianas (both of which have separate labor laws and immigration regimes) than to the 50 states and DC. It's a similar difference to that between Scotland and Jersey or Bermuda, in regards the the United Kingdom.

If this notion gives you trouble though, consider the point that Teammm raised the last time you brought this up: all reliable sources treat New Zealand, Denmark, and the Netherlands as having marriage equality nationwide. —Quintucket (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem w treating dependent states differently than integral autonomous regions. I do have a problem with treating dependent states of one country differently than dependent states of another. Several French territories, such as Polynesia and New Caledonia, are dependent territories. Why not list them separately too? — kwami (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The overseas portions of France are an interesting case. While the five overseas regions/departments are an integral part of the country in all respects, the collectivities have representation in the parliament, but considerably more autonomy than the regions and departments. It seems to me like there's a case to be made that it's an example of asymmetric federalism, similar to the UK, with the Hexapole and five overseas regions/departments akin to England, and the status of the collectivities similar to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

At one point the other parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Realm of New Zealand, and Danish realm were more closely linked to the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Denmark than they are now. And in fact I know St. Pierre and Miquelon had the option of becoming a member of the French Community, a status that would be more clearly akin to a dependent territory, and decided against it. But all this is rather a moot point, since us attempting to interpret the exact status of non-contiguous, non-integral parts of various countries comes down to original research.

I think the system we have now is a reasonable one: we state that the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Denmark have marriage equality nationwide, and then state that the dependent territories don't have marriage equality. On the other hand, for the period that the Carribean Netherlands (an integral part of the country) had seperate marriage laws, I still would have supported saying that the Netherlands had equality nationwide, since that's what the sources say. The exclusion of a tiny part for historical reasons is literally a footnote.

I could just as well argue that since certain parts of the Bill of Rights don't apply to the tribal laws of domestic dependent nations, it follows that the Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land in the United States. However that would be absurd, since the Constitution is in fact the supreme law of the land, but the Supreme Court has carved out specific exceptions to certain parts, in the very limited instance of unextinguished tribal sovereignty. —Quintucket (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Australian marriages of 1932

The recently added-then-deleted tale of male marriages in Australia in the 1930s does bring up the point that we don't cover self-declared-and-recognized-within-a-segment-of-society marriages that have gone on in various times. The Australian example could be shown as an example (similar things have happened in the US), although there is problem sourcing. If we are accepting The Arrow's contemporary reporting, then we should be using the article directly; it can be found here. (The Gay Star News which was being used as a lever for reporting it didn't even get the title right. It's not simply "Wide Open Immorality", it's "Wide Open Immorality Among Brisbane Perverts".) A look at that article and its tone, though, suggests that it may not be the most R of WP:RSs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I used it on LGBT history in Australia. Rather than evidence of marriages, it's a primary source for public uproar/panic. Very like Confidential. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

But was there actually any public panic? Or is it just a primary source for hysterical editorialising by the gutter press? -- Alarics (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we mention marriage between Marcela Gracia Ibeas and Elisa Sanchez Loriga in the history section?--В и к и T 16:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think such an event -- as well as another mentioned in that entry from 1061 in Galicia -- could be mentioned as isolated instances. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

"various" countries

The article inappropriately portrays the advance in SSM as global, when in fact it is restricted to Western countries. This is certainly worth pointing out. Apart from the supreme-court decision in Nepal, which has yet to be implemented, there is no SSM or even likely SSM in any non-Western country. Once we start getting SSM in Asian (or less likely African) countries, we can start portraying it as global. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, New Zealand is quite a long way east --Redrose64 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, can you provide a source to support the assertion "advance in SSM... is restricted to Western countries"? It seems as if it may be conclusion that you reached as a result of original research. - MrX 21:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Common sense overrides OR and in fact every other WP policy. If the only countries were in Europe, we wouldn't need a RS that SSM is legal in Europe, nor would we need a RS that it's found on planet Earth. We have had a problem in this article with overly optimistic descriptions, presumably because most editors are supporters of SSM. But exaggeration doesn't do anyone any good, and in fact is harmful. It's entirely reasonable in the lead to legal SSM to summarize where SSM is legal. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done a quick search, and there are numerous refs that support this. One is Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate (Wardle, ed. 2003). In "The Traditions of Traditional Marriage", Witte speaks specifically of the Western tradition. In "The SSM Debate and Three Conceptions of Equality", Eskridge says "lesbian and gay activists have pressed for full marital rights in Western countries with increasing success." In "Inexorable Momentum toward Recognition", [name missing] says, "international law and the overwhelming majority of Western democracies have recognized ... the right of sexual minorities to equal protection", where "international law" is identified with such institutions as the EU, and notes resistance to the idea among non-Western nations who see it as a product of Western society. Several other essays say much the same thing. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a more recent one: Comparative Sociology 11 (2012), "Current Explanations for the Variation in Same-Sex Marriage Policies in Western Countries" (David Pettinicchio): Over the last ten years, several western countries have recognized gay marriage either by providing gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, or by allowing civil unions. Other western countries have not. — kwami (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Common sense tells us that South Africa is not in the Western hemisphere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "Western hemisphere": Europe isn't in the Western hemisphere either. Like Redrose above, you might want to read our article Western world. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Before you point to that article as your defense, you may want to read it, particularly parts where it says it "is a term referring to different nations depending on the context. There is no agreed upon definition about what all these nations have in common" and the most that it can say of South Africa is that "it could be said that the country is Western or has achieved Westernization" because 20% of the people speak certain foreign-derived languages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I was hardly pointing to that article in my defense, but rather because you and Redrose apparently didn't know what "Western" meant. And yes, Western in the broad sense, but Western nonetheless. South Africa had an entirely Western apartheid govt until recently, and the SSM decision was based on legislation aimed at dismantling apartheid. (I don't know if it's only coincidence that the SS couples shown in that article are White, but I suspect not.) Nepal, on the other hand, is clearly a non-Western country; it was never even colonized by the West. Once we get countries like Nepal, Taiwan, and South Korea legalizing SSM (assuming we ever do), then this will change, but meanwhile it's quite striking that SSM is restricted to Western countries, that the advance for marriage equality has had little effect elsewhere, and indeed that countries such as Nigeria have strongly objected to SSM as a Western imposition. (The Nigerian govt certainly sees it as a purely Western invention.) We need to avoid the optimistic bias that this and related articles often display, where the progress toward marriage equality is often portrayed as greater than it actually is. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"South Africa had an entirely Western apartheid govt until recently, and the SSM decision was based on legislation aimed at dismantling apartheid." So the SSM support goes not to the Westernized history of the government, but to the laws meant to dismantle that Western aspect... so it must also be credited to the Westernness? Or is that we must count South Africa as Western because they have SSM, and to count them as otherwise would violate the claim that it is only Western countries that have SSM? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither. Perhaps you could read the article again, or check out the phrase at Google Books. — kwami (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The consensus here is clear, and common sense indicates that countries such as South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc (all of where the trend in support among young people for example is clear) are not Western, and Latin American countries are also not considered Western in the sociocultural aspect of the term. "Developed countries" may be a better qualifier perhaps, but there's no clear definition for what a developed country is, but at least the qualifier is a better one than the immensely misleading and even more ill-defined term "Western". Best, however, may be to keep the wording as it is (and according to the consensus here). --Scientiom (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? We've had objections from two people who didn't know what "Western" meant. A Western country, BTW, is generally defined as a country with a culturally dominant population of European descent. Latin America and South Africa certainly qualify. (Even the Philippines is often counted as a Western country.) You may have a point about Asian nations, but have not substantiated it. All of our sources showing rising support from the young are from Western countries. Now, if you can supply refs showing such support in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and want to add them to the article, then I would agree that the term "Western" would no longer be appropriate. But as long as our sources support a claim for Western nations, it is appropriate to note that.

BTW, if there is such support, as you claim, then it would be remiss of us not to include references to it, so blindly reverting the article is irresponsible even if you're correct.

(Also, I think some sort of geographical or cultural qualifier would still be appropriate. If Asian countries with a strong Western cultural influence like the ones you mentioned are trending toward support, I still doubt that there is a similar trend in most of Africa or the Muslim world. Some of the refs I listed above get into the cultural and historical reasons for uneven support for SSM even in Western countries; it is certainly appropriate to note that this is not a universal phenomenon, and that, while support for SSM is spreading at an amazing rate in some areas, there has been essentially no traction in others. Nigeria and Uganda, for example, have gotten even more severe in recent years. We shouldn't be writing a puff piece of what we want the trend to be.) — kwami (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As it is you who wants to introduce new wording into the lead the onus is on you to receive consensus here for your addition. Until that happens, the previous wording should stay. Several editors have already objected to your addition. --Scientiom (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Several editors who don't know what they're talking about. The fact that you could see your own opinion as "consensus" shows your bias. Sources as well as WP policy such as WEASEL and clear writing standards support the clarification. You may well be correct in your assertions (things may have changed since 2012), and I'll be happy to change too if you support them with RS's. I would welcome that, as this is an important point, and if you're correct, the article needs changing regardless of whose words we use. That is, if you're correct, your wording is irresponsible, as it does not show the extent of public support that you claim. — kwami (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the objections raised above, I think this is, at best, a rather unhelpful qualification. As noted, the onus is on you to establish agreement for the change, which doesn't include dismissing other editor's opinions.--Trystan (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The argument hasn't been over opinions (what people like), but over facts (what is true). Two editors have their facts wrong, and Scientiom has not supported his claims with RS's, so according to the way WP works, none of them count. If Scientiom can support his claimed facts with RS's, then as I've said a couple times now I'd agree with him. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an op-ed column. — kwami (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia and gaystar news.com Vietnam is contemplating same-sex marriage for next year, and Thailand is looking seriously at civil unions. Neither could be called a Western nation. One COULD argue that same-sex marriage is LARGELY a Western concept, but not exclusively so. Glenrhart (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)glenrhart.

Kwami, I greatly appreciate the work you do as an admin and on linguistics-related articles, but the positions you've been taking on this article recently seem to be nothing short of bizarre. In this case, as noted there is no reason to add the qualifier "Western," unless reliable sources start also using it often enough that it's not undue weight. The one sociological study you cited doesn't make for a pattern. —Quintucket (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How can it be undue weight when our sources universally support it? I don't know how you can expect a higher standard than 100%. There are plenty of such refs if you care to look, some of which I referred to above, such as the Nigerian govt complaining about this being a Western idea that has no place in Africa. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Polling has only been done, AFAIK, in what you call Western countries. (I'll note that Latin America is not always considered part of the West. And South Africa, which accepted polygamy a generation before it accepted marriage equality, isn't particularly "Western" where marriage laws are concerned.) Yes, demagogic African leaders have been whining of a conspiracy by decadent secular Western governments, but third world leaders tend to blame anything they don't like on the West, from AIDs to the effects of their kleptocracy to protests against their enlightened rule. I've noticed that the richer the country is, the more likely it is to support marriage equality. How would you feel if instead of using the qualifier "Western" countries, we used the qualifier "rich" countries? Based on your commonsense-overrides-OR criterion, it would seem to be just as justified. —Quintucket (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh?! Latin America is not West geopolitically or economically. Socioculturally, we may think of excluding only Haiti. All countries largely identify with the pre-colonization European and the colonized-by-Europe history, have cultural traditions and sets largely descended from Iberia (even when those populations have black or mixed-with-black phenotypes; taking Bahia out of the picutre, you can see way more pre-modern Galicia+Netherlands in Northeastern Brazil and more early modern France+Switzerland in Rio de Janeiro than Africa), and until much recently talking seriously about the Indigenous and African elements and the issues the communities that [often at risk] continued this heritage till now face was something very rare even in Humanities' Studies and avoided in the public discourse (that is why bolivarianismo is so politically correct on this thing, adding 'afrodescendente' to the Venezuelan census, recognizing them and being multicultural here is as much a left-wing thing here as in Europe... to the exception that as you may see, we're "not white").

And even them have many local differences, so arguing that Latin American country or region X is different from Latin American country or region Y by an ongoing, permanent influence from tribe Z is something I never heard about. It would be like saying Japan isn't the East Asian civilization of Confucius and Buddha because the ancestors of the Ainu and the Ryukyuan were largely culturally different from those Asians of the mainland, their influence was uniform and permanent, it was the dominant aspect to give an impact of uniqueness in the formation of the Japanese, and because permanent foreign influence only happened when the Yamato people, Japan's base ethnicity, was already built. I'm against people labelling Brazil as Latin American too liberally because our Lusophone identity is much stronger than the one we share with Hispanic [Pan-]Americans (not that I find it something 'to be proud of', I really think we should have proud and identity on being Latin American, what doesn't lead to any loss on the love I have for my/our Portugueseness :3), and would ask those people what individual Latin American countries are but Western since our main differences essentially root from the different kind of Europeanness we have in comparison to them. The fact that Huntington called us a 'civilization' only confirms that his theory was essentially very absurd at heart. Lguipontes (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential Bias in Description of Religions Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

I contend that the phrase "progressive and modern" presents undue bias in the following sentence found in the introduction to this article: "Various faith communities around the world support allowing same-sex couples to marry or conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies; for example: ... various progressive and modern Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish groups and various minor religions and other denominations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.205.250 (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "modern", but "progressive" does have a specific meaning related to religion and isn't expressing an opinion: see Progressive Christianity and Progressive Judaism. - htonl (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And so does "modern", in Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and Buddhist contexts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If that is the intended meaning then the words should be capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.205.250 (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbers

I've seen accounts of the numbers of people who have access to SSM, but not the numbers who have actually been married. Brazil offers marriage equality to hundreds of millions, but there's still violence and intimidation, so how many couple have actually exercised their right to marry? Do we have any refs that would allow a breakdown by country? It might also be interesting to compare the rate per million, to get an idea of how frequently the right is used. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the decision to equalize união estável in May 2011 was based on the fact that the 2010 research identified 60.000 cohabiting same-sex couples (out of a population of 194 million at the time, now 201 million). But that may be underreported as we are required to tell this information to people on our own neighborhood or town, and due to the reasons you said they may be wary. And because for some weird reason, people are presented with different questionnaires (the lady said to me there was no atheist option, and marked me as irreligious; months after, I see an atheist category inside the irreligious in the tiny percents that do not reflect all those atheist organizations, websites and social network participation, even if considering the fact that we are asked about this in front of other household mates or family members).

Between 16 May and 26 June, 231 same-sex couples married here. About 2/3 of Brazil's LGBT are closeted, though those that disclose since the 2000s do so, in average, at the same age I did (13-14, "emos" xD), up from 21 in the 1990s. Finding the sources now would require time, and aren't necessary right now, but I am sure this information is accurate. Lguipontes (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html; see also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lionhead99. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Update for US

The maps and several parts of the article body probably need to be updated for the overturn of DOMA, as gay marriage is now recognized by the US federal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.176.92 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's complicated. There has been plenty of related discussion elsewhere, for example Template talk:Same-sex unions#DOMA. I would prefer not to start another. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, at least one of the maps is under discussion at commons:File talk:World homosexuality laws.svg. There are several threads on that page. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

add India to for legalizing same sex marriage

Homosexuality is generally considered a taboo subject by both Indian civil society and the government. Homophobia is prevalent in India.[1][2] Public discussion of homosexuality in India has been inhibited by the fact that sexuality in any form is rarely discussed openly. In recent years, however, attitudes towards homosexuality have shifted slightly. In particular, there have been more depictions and discussions of homosexuality in the Indian news media[3][4][5] and by Bollywood.[6] On 2 July 2009, the Delhi High Court decriminalised homosexual intercourse between consenting adults, and this new stand of decriminalisation is applicable throughout the territory of India,[7][8] where Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was adjudged to violate the fundamental right to life and liberty and the right to equality as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Decriminalisation of homosexuality is not at all the same thing as legalising same-sex marriage. - htonl (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Costa Rica legalizes same-sex marriage/civil unions?????????

What's this all about:

http://now.msn.com/costa-rica-gay-marriage-is-accidentally-approved http://wonkette.com/521771/nice-time-costa-rica-may-have-legalized-gay-marriage-by-accident-oops

Does this mean Costa Rica has recognized gay couples' unions? If so, in what form?

For it be accepted to Wikipedia's lists and maps, we need proof that same-sex unions are actually happening, and for it be regarded as marriage, it should be accepted as easily as mixed-sex ones and be called marriage. We need the President to not veto it, and a Court to rule that it legalize same-sex marriage. Let's see if they are as liberal as the eastern South Americans, and if the Colombians (and futurely Chileans) interpret this as a signal. :D Lguipontes (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

President Chinchilla signed the bill into law on 4 July.

Did Costa Rica legalized same-sex marriage?

So Laura Chinchilla, President of Costa Rica signed a bill last Friday that might have legalized same-sex marriage there... It seems lawmakers voted by accident... Reference. --Vrysxy! (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

See Recognition of same-sex unions in Costa Rica. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The answer is no, it most definitely forces Costa Rica to have many benefits for Same Sex Couples, but it is unlikely that gay marriage will happen there without the courts interpreting this law as legalizing same sex marriage(there is a case there right now, so that can get interesting, however the courts are likely to not interpret this law as such Predictor92 00:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2013

Hi, everyone. I like the change in the world map to include countries with "All the rights of marriage without the name" in light blue. However, this inclusion gives a false picture. It omits Ecuador, Ireland, and other Australian states for example. Can we 1) change the "All the rights of marriage without the name" countries to mid-blue and 2) add countries with civil unions, partnerships, etc. in light blue? Thanks! 89.132.92.91 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We've talked about this before, and it might be a good idea. However, IMO med blue would not be appropriate, because the political fight is over marriage more than civil unions – or at least that's my impression, and that's what the article is about. Maybe a 2nd light blue that's closer to grey? — kwami (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Rivertorch (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Colombia

In light of congressional failure to act within the June 20 deadline imposed by the nation's constitutional court, a civil judge of a Bogotá municipal district has granted a marriage petition by a same-sex couple. The couple intends to hold their marriage ceremony on July 24. Source: http://www.caracol.com.co/judiciales/juez-aplica-norma-del-matrimonio-civil-a-pareja-gay-y-cita-a-contrayentes-con-dos-testigos/20131107/nota/1931472.aspx Fortguy (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. We'll need to wait and see if this becomes a general right, or remains up to the discretion of the judge. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Judicial discretion is not enough. 74.107.112.196 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom (legislation covering England and Wales) about to legalize

It only needs to be signed by the Queen, as a formality, but same-sex marriage is about to be legalized in England. 100.40.17.72 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

She will apparently be signing the Bill into law either Wednesday or Thursday. It will be official then, with implementation sometime in 2014, at a date yet to be determined. Glenrhart (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)glenrhart

The bill has now received Royal Assent and is the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. Its provisions will be brought into force by the relevant Minister and is expected to come into force in 2014 (as is usual practice with UK legislation). Cpnlsn (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

references to the Royal Assent:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/17/breaking-equal-marriage-bill-for-england-and-wales-given-royal-assent-and-is-now-law/

http://globalnews.ca/news/722804/u-k-legalizes-gay-marriage-as-queen-elizabeth-gives-royal-approval/

I am guessing that England and Wales will be added to the lists of countries which partially allow same sex marriage in addition to Mexico and the USA. Cpnlsn (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a little troubled that the UK is included the 'box' as a whole country. Same sex married has only been legalised in England and Wales - admittedly a very large part of the UK. This may be discussed elsewhere but surely it can't be right.Cpnlsn (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cpnlsn, I think the law should be under some jurisdictions, it does not apply to the whole country(the argument for putting the UK is the unitary state argument)Predictor92 15:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree the current note England and Wales only would suffice for the UK being on the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the UK is a difficult case. Most countries fall easily into the one or other. However England plus Wales accounts for 88.7% of the UK population. Added to which Scotland has legislation commenced in its Parliament submitted by the government and with a commitment to enact the bill (across very similar lines to the England and Wales Bill - albeit marriage law is different in Scotland more generally - there some subtle differences). It is anticipated the England & Wales Act will come into force by Summer 2014 by which time it is likely the Scottish bill will have completed its passage even if implementation is a little behind England & Wales. Adding Scotland to the figure would give 97.1%, Northern Ireland accounting for 2.9% of the total UK population see Demography of the United Kingdom. Based on these factors as well as the fact that, although the Act only covers England & Wales, it was the United Kingdom Parliament as a whole that decided it, Scotland and Northern Ireland being devolved for the purposes of marriage, I have changed my earlier opinion and feel that the United Kingdom should be in the first box but obviously making clear in all places that the Act overs England and Wales only at this stage and that legislation is pending with regard to Scotland. Cpnlsn (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case a note reading Except Scotland and NI seems more appropriate and it could remain in the first box.

Discussion about the box should be directed to Template talk:Same-sex unions, where the topic has already been raised. - htonl (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

England, Wales and Scotland are countries with their own governmental systems, albeit all members of the UK. Wouldn't it be better to list England and Wales separately as countries with same sex marriage, rather than showing UK as one entry? 95.150.147.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are just parts of a country known as the UK. They're often referred to as "countries" for historical reasons -which confuses a lot of people in the US- but they're not sovereign states. They're not independent, they're not recognized internationally, and they don't have their own seats in the UN or EU. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have local governments in the same way as US states or Brazilian states or German lander; the national UK government supersedes these local regional governments. England does not even have a local governmental system of any sort. It's basically just a large unorganized region of the UK, similar to the Midwest or New England in the US. For law and judicial purposes, Scotland as its own legal system, while England and Wales are a combined local legal entity. Skyduster (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Er, yes we do, although it's complex. The key point is that England does not have a parliament or assembly on a level with the National Assembly for Wales or the Scottish Government. Laws affecting any portion of England greater than a single county/unitary authority/borough/etc. must come from the UK parliament, that being the next level up from the English county/etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that putting "England and Wales" in the box as "part of a jurisdiction" which has legalised gay marriage is the correct way, but in the main part of the article the United Kingdom should not be referred to as having legalised gay marriage, but rather it should be listed alongside the US and Mexico as a state which allows it in some areas. Granted, England & Wales covers a lot of the UK, it is still not true to say that the UK has legalised gay marriage. Scotland will do it by next year but Northern Ireland voted against in April 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt22891 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about the box should be directed to Template talk:Same-sex unions, where the topic is already under consideration. - htonl (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

World Map

Somebody update the world map, the Queen just signed gay marriage into law tody for Britain. RobColtsFan (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/17/britain-legalizes-gay-marriage/2524273/

To be precise, it's now legal in England and Wales, but not Scotland or Northern Ireland. Howicus (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So, update it precisely  ;) P M C 17:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've updated it, but as usual the software is beings slow about updating the thumbnails in articles. - htonl (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone update the european map? Ron 1987 (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Colombia and File:World homosexuality laws.svg

File:World homosexuality laws.svg

There is a problem. Some users made misleading edits regarding Colombia. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The only problem is that you are refusing to gain a proper consensus in regards to your interpretation of the law, as opposed to what appears to be the accepted global consensus on what the ruling meant. I asked you several times to do so, and you still will not. Instead of just posting links and saying "I'm right!", you should get others to agree with you. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Accepted global consensus? Don't be ridiculous. Read the sources. Situation is unclear. And I'm not the only person who disagreed with that edit. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm being ridiculous? Everyone except you and one other user seems to agree that the ruling was explicit in extending all rights after 2 years. And instead of gaining a consensus for your alternative interpretation, you edit warred on Commons to force this alternative interpretation. If you're right, you should be able get a consensus, and that's what I asked you to do, and that's what every user here is expected to do in a situation like this. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Court ruling says that same-sex couples should have all rights, but there is no word about that these rights must be granted under the name of marriage. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is the discussion where this consensus has developed? - htonl (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And there's no proof that it doesn't include marriage. You're battling us over the simple omission of a single word. You agree that the ruling extends all rights, but you contradict that statement by saying "not marriage" which most people would certainly consider as a right along with everything else. You are the one describing an apparent contradiction of what "all rights" includes, you are the one who must prove it to be true. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What a rubbish. Saying that the Court granted same-sex couples the designation marriage is nothing more than original reaserch, not supported by the sources. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you yourself admit that the court ruled for the extension of "all rights". When I'm told I have all the equal rights of straight people, in my mind that naturally includes marriage. Why would it not? You haven't provided any proof that the ruling explicitly means "all rights except marriage", so you are the one with original research, your interpretation is original research. Prove to us that it doesn't include marriage. Prove to us that the omission of a single word, but without direct mention of it's deliberate exclusion, means that marriage is not considered part of "all rights". Fry1989 ^eh? 00:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who speculates by saying that it could include designation marriage. You don't have an evidence for that. The map should not be changed unless we have evindence. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. US states that have marriage in all but name are not shown as having SSM. The name is part of the thing. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(I have already posted a similar comment as this on the Commons discussion.) Presuming to interpret the decision ourselves, in either direction, is original research. All that we should do is report on what reliable sources are saying. And they are saying that the situation is currently unclear: [6], [7] [8] [9]. That is what we must report. - htonl (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not speculating anything, I'm using common sense. You are the one insisting that an omission without an explicit deliberate exclusion is a sign that the name "marriage" is off the table. THAT is pure speculation without any source or reason. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a common sense. You are trying to impose your interpretation. Your claim is not supported by the reliable sources. Situation regarding marriage is unclear. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not insisting anything about how the judgment should be, is, or will be interpreted. I'm insisting that Wikipedia reports on what the reliable sources say. - htonl (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

FAIK, Fry, there now is marriage equality in Colombia, but you haven't provided a ref, and without that we can't claim that there is. — kwami (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The ref is the 2-year old court ruling which is the most reliable piece of information we have regarding this issue in Colombia. You guys are the ones who can't provide proof of a deliberate exclusion of the word "marriage", you're simply assuming it was deliberate and trying to force that on us without any actual proof other then further speculation by a few newspapers. None of you can explain the omission as being deliberate, and you haven't shown any proof that "all rights" doesn't include marriage. This is a joke, you guys whine about there being no refs but you ignore the most important ref of all saying "all rights shall be extended". Fry1989 ^eh? 18:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This only happened last week. A two-year-old ruling is two years too old. We need a ref that it actually happened, not just that it was supposed to happen. Come on, that should be obvious. — kwami (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Two years old means it has had two years to be scrutinized and interpreted, not that it's two years out of date. Can any of you provide sources that in these past two years there has been large debate on what exactly the omission of the word "marriage" means? Or that it was even deliberate? As for the claim that it was "supposed to happen, but we don't know if it has" is just laughable. If a court, or a parliament, or another legal body makes a delayed enactment of a ruling to take effect on a certain date, unless there is a reversal of this decision before the enactment date, it happens. That is the rule of law at it's simplest. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You don't have any evidence that it happened. You are trying to impose your interpretation. Wishful thinking is not a fact. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not presume to call me ridiculous because I understand the rule of law. If a court makes a ruling to come in effect at a later time, unless there is a reversal, the ruling does in fact come into effect. It is a pure fact that this ruling has come into effect. Whether it has been implemented is a different thing, but by law it has come into effect. You are trying to force your interpretation that the omission of a single word was deliberate. I will not be treated with such disrespect simply because I hold a different view, and mine is based on law and fact while yours is pure speculation through and through, sourced only by further speculation on the part of a few newspapers who "wonder" what the reality might be but don't have an actual answer. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact that the ruling has come into effect. It is not an established fact that the ruling definitely requires marriage, or that it doesn't. If you read the articles I quoted you'll not that they are not merely speculating. They refer to different government officials who disagree on the meaning of the ruling; and they note that some couples have been refused marriage licenses. The newspapers don't have an answer precisely because the situation is currently unclear. In any case, it doesn't matter. You don't get to privilege your interpretation over what is reported in reliable sources. - htonl (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are those which hold an answer one way or the other, not ones that guess. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed The ruling was clear, all the rights of marriage includes the word. I think that Fry1989 has the correct interpretation. Until we see conclusive evidence that there isn't the possibility of marriage at any of the notaries we should assume it is de facto legal. Chase1493 (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which interpretation we, as editors, believe is correct; if we base article content on that sort of decision it is original research. I repeat again: we report what reliable sources say - verifiability. And no, Fry, reliability is not determined by the willingness to make definite statements on uncertain situations. - htonl (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and it doesn't matter what the court ruling is if it's not enforced. If notaries are free to deny marriage to gay couples, then marriage is not truly open to them. We had the same issue with one of the Brazilian states. And it's not clear that actual in-name marriage is included in the ruling. When we get a ruling that it is, and that notaries denying marriage are breaking the law, then we can add Colombia. Blue means "you can get married here", and as far as we can tell, that's not clearly the case in Colombia. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In Colombia the rights are NOT the same: see here : http://www.matrimonioigualitario.org/ There you can find a table with the differences.

There is already one couple married, I'm not asking to change Colombia to dark blue, or adding it to the chart, (something that I think will happen soon with some Constitutional Court rulling after couples being denied marriage licenses by notaries, and couples asking for an amparo, protection), but one thing is a fact, two men married each other, the marital status is married, and the Colombian State recognize them as Spouses for every legal purpose. I think there should be a mention in any paragraph of the Same-sex marriage article, explaining the situation, same as what was mentioned with Brazil when couples were given marriage licenses by judges case by case. Now they are the first one, but other Judges are preparing the ruling and in few weeks there will be more. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.101.38 (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

According to some sources, it's not marriage, but some form of civil union. See [11], [12] Ron 1987 (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Martina Moreau revision

As I said before: there is already a table (and text) for that. That is a big change in the article format with no prior discussion, so I ask for the current version to be kept until we can reach a consensus. Raniee09 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Colima, Mexico

I have read two sources in Spanish, one on CNN Mexico, that the Mexican state of Colima just approved Civil Unions on July 4th. MySpanish isn't perfect so could someone please confirm, and add if needed? Glenrhart (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)glenrhart July 5, 2013

Colima legalizes same-sex civil unions???

Here are some sources:

http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/07/04/congreso-de-colima-aprueba-uniones-civiles-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo http://www.informador.com.mx/mexico/2013/469585/6/congreso-de-colima-aprueba-enlaces-conyugales-de-parejas-gay.htm http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/888990.en-colima-aprueban-enlace-gay.html http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/888910.aprueba-colima-matrimonios-homosexuales.html

Gracias! Informador.com was one of the articles I read. Glenrhart (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)glenrhart

What happened? Added, then removed two days later, both without comment? Colima, most certainly, has civil unions, and because of court action this will eventually be full marriage.Glenrhart (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)glenrhart

Please, not to be rude, but the Spanish language version has Colima as a state with civil unions, as does the map of Mexico that indicates availability of same- sex marriage. Why was it removed from the master list of jurisdictions with Civil Unions? If I knew now to change it, I would. But it has appeared, and disappeared, neither with comment or explanation.Glenrhart (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)glenrhart

At the end of the table there is "V T E" that stand for "View this template", "Talk" and "Edit". You should click on the "E" and then save your edits. Someone is unjustly cancelling Colima from the table... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.154.18 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2013‎

An amendment to the state constitution, which allows civil unions still needs approval by 10 municipalities. If I understood sources correctly, the changes in the state civil code will be necessary in order to implement the reform. Ron 1987 (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. An answer at last!Glenrhart (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)glenrhart

Someone does now need to add Colima as having civil unions. As of three days ago, Colima got the requisite majority of its ten municipalities to approve of the constitutional change: Colima has civil unions, effective immediately. You may check every major news source in English or en español . Check gaystarnews.com, CNN, all major US networks, BBC, and every single Mexican news source. Glenrhart (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)glenrhart

Yes, the constitutional amendment was ratified, but the bill amending the state civil code still awaits for approval. See [13], [14]. Ron 1987 (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Effective date for England and Wales

Where are the dates "mid-2014" or "mid-2015" coming from? The Act as passed specifies no date from which it will be lawful to perform a same-sex marriage; it states in Section 21 "this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes". On that basis, mid-2014 or mid-2015 are both possible; but it could be later than that - or as early as today. Do we have any reliable sources which give a target date, other than newspaper articles from mid-July 2013 which state merely "same sex weddings are expected to begin in summer 2014" or words to that effect. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, those newspaper articles are based on specific statements from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, giving that date of summer 2014. As the DCMS are the people who will ultimately issue the commencement order, it's the best we can do in terms of a date for now. - htonl (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is currently a request for comment on what shade of blue should be used on File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg to represent full marriage equality. Fry1989 ^eh? 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Hello, I would like to edit same-sex couples can legally marry in eleven states only to in thirteen states on the main page of same-sex marriage. Letterbomb32 (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2013

Incorrect grammar: "The term homosexuality has been coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 19th century, but the history of same sex couples, just as homosexuality itself dates back to the very beginnings of humanity."

Correct grammar: "The term homosexuality was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 19th century, but the history of same sex couples, just as homosexuality itself dates back to the very beginnings of humanity."

Incorrect grammar: "Contemporary recognition of same sex marriage by a state has been started in Denmark in 1989."

Correct grammar: "Contemporary recognition of same sex marriage by a state was started in Denmark in 1989."

THANK YOU.

108.240.4.229 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done (sort of). I made changes to both sentences, but not precisely as you suggested. See what you think.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The First Country to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

Which country was the first to recognize same sex marriage?

In the 'History' chapter under the heading of 'Contemporary' it says:

'Denmark was the first state to recognize same sex marriage in 1989. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.'

That is confusing to say the least and probably wrong as well. As far as I know Denmark legalized same-sex unions in 1989 but didn't allow for full marriages until 2012. So perhaps the text should be changed into:

'Denmark was the first state to recognize same-sex civil unions in 1989. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.'

77.161.57.183 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed the text to:

Denmark was the first state to recognize a legal relationship for same-sex couples, establishing "registered partnerships" very much like marriage in 1989.

and added a citation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please edit the world map to darken the Canary (Spain) and Azores (Portugal) islands? Even better would be to put a dark blue dot as for smaller islands. Right now, it looks like they don't have marriage equality. Making clear that they do will also render (almost) the entire North Atlantic visible as a marriage equality zone :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.92.91 (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Also the island of Madeira? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.92.91 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mexico

How is Chihuahua different from Oaxaca? I've even seen claims for Colima. Time to review? — kwami (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is different from Oaxaca, where it was just one three(?) marriage, and there are needed "five individual cases have to decided this way [to establish precedent]." It is similar to Quintana Roo's case, where due to lack of estoppel it became unconstituional to forbid gay marriages in the state. Mexican laws are really vague and it would be easier for us if SSM were approved in the whole country, but this is like Brazil's case, where state by state it became eventually approved in the whole country. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

People . THIS NOTE IS SOOOOO WRONG. IN CHIHUAHUA, AS LGBT COUPLE YOU CANNOT GET MARRIED YET! JUST ONE GAY COUPLE HAS THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED, THEY NEED OTHER 4 TO BE AVAILABLE TO LGBT COUPLES THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED. http://diario.mx/Estado/2013-09-05_195fab8f/celebraran-en-chihuahua-primer-matrimonio-homosexual/

IT'S ONLY AVAILABLE FOR THE GAY COUPLE. THAT'S IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.147.1.126 (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Prehistory Section

This section should be removed, as it is about homosexuality in general, not same-sex marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.10.37 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing it (the following), as primate sex before records is obviously not relevant to marriage or legislation of the article. Material reads "Main article: Homosexual behavior in animals Homosexuality is widely present in nature, including but not limited to primates, human ancestors. The eldest sources relating to homosexuality date back to prehistoric Italy.[41][42]" Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Markbassett (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Add burdens and benefits ?

Seeing the US section 3.1.8 say "deny federal benefits of marriage" started me thinking that missed the burdens and vague so didn't explain the benefits or progress into the either that is ongoing. Should this article either point by link of benefits or by starting a section under section 5 Issues or not go there at all ? Seems like lesser points, but where would one detail out the federal benefits and burdens of marriage that do not apply to domestic partnerships and civil unions ? (Things such as criminal conflict of interest statutes and financial disclosure reporting requirements or any joint property and joint debt laws.) Markbassett (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey

Gay marriage just legalized, Christie vows to appeal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/nyregion/new-jersey-judge-rules-state-must-allow-gay-marriage.html?_r=0

Please update relevant charts/graphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.242.61 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, it hasn't actually been legalized; it is scheduled for the future, with an appeal already called for and quite likely at the very least to mess with that schedule. It's arguable, because if nothing happens, then yes, it becomes legal.... but the odds of nothing happening at all are slim (Christie vowing appeal makes it most likely that there will be an appeal, and that the ruling is likely to be delayed until the appeal is heard). At best, we need to put this with very clear caveats. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam's new legislation

http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/13750/vietnam-to-remove-fines-on-samesex-marriage

What does 110/2013/ND-CP really mean?

I think we need to clarify what this removal of fines means. It looks like Vietnam is enacting a unique "neither legal nor illegal" view to same-sex marriage, but towards the bottom of the article, it says, they can "share a household registration book, meaning they are allowed binding relations in terms of property, children, and related rights and obligations." So the marriage isn't registered, but the household can be?

What does that mean? Is that analogous to the unregistered cohabitation of certain countries? Or do we need to create a new status such as "legal, but only 'household' recognized?" Anyone out there who can clarify this? Frimmin (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, the government's decree just removes fines, but the bill removing the explicit prohibition on same-sex marriage and giving cohabiting same-sex couples some level of legal recogniton is not yet approved by the parliament. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, two separate things, a decree and an amendment being discussed. This is why I never went into politics. Too complicated!Frimmin (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's amazing this is happening in Vietnam. That's a very conservative country sexually. Not as unexpected as an Arab country, maybe, but it would be quite something if Vietnam were first in Asia. — kwami (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Totally minor copyedit needed.

I can't fix this because I don't have an account, but someone should insert the missing comma between "Reform Judaism" and "Unitarian Universalism" in the fifth paragraph of the article. 72.76.11.8 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. - htonl (talk)

Portugal and Brazil

Why refer the situation in Portugal to that of Brazil? Portugal didn't copy or get inspiration from Brazil, for sure: Portugal legalised same-sex stable unions over a decade before Brazil did. In fact, Portugal legalised same-sex marriage before Brazil gave the initial step of legalising stable unions... The analogy makes no sense. Portugal got inspiration from other European countries, namely its neighbour, Spain. Gazilion (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you know the situation, you should fix it. — kwami (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico in map?

Why is New Mexico colored blue in the map? Only 8 counties allow ssm, so why color all the state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.56.180 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Because no-one has shown that you cease to be married if you move to or live in one of the other counties. If only eight counties had DMV offices, that wouldn't mean you couldn't drive across the whole state. — kwami (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

But then you could put the whole USA blue? You could marry in New York and then return to your state. Or what is the difference here? You can't marry in the whole New Mexico, as you cannot marry in the whole USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.203.30 (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you get married in New York and move to Alabama, Alabama will not recognize your marriage. AFAICT you won't have hospital visitation rights, or any inheritance managed by the state. You won't be protected from testifying against your spouse in state court. You might not have custody of your children, and could lose them if your spouse dies. This is a big difference from Mexico (not NM), where the fed requires the states to recognize all marriages. AFAICT, no-one's found problems like that in New Mexico. If there were problems, like being forced to testify against your spouse in a neighboring county, then I'd agree that coloring NM solid blue would be inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, understood. But then why don't you put Mexico blue? Regarding your arguments, you can marry in Mexico City and move somewhere else, where your marriage will be recognized. I think it would be more appropiate to color only those places where you can really marry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.99.89 (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In Mexico, you can't just go to the next state and get married. You have to be a resident. In New Mexico, you can just go to the next county. So everyone can get married in NM, but not in Mexico. — kwami (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Corrupted text

The article contains the following nonsense text: "Societal attitude towards same sex couples and formal unions of same sex couples differed greately depending on the times and places - from full acceptance and integration, theough neutral tolerance, to the lack of recognition, discrimination, neutralność tolerancję, po nieuznawanie, dyskryminację, persecution and physical extermination" Could someone correct or remove it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Polish, but I don't know what it means. It was added with this edit; perhaps Martina Moreau (talk · contribs) could fix it up? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I recognize that it's a foreign language. My point is that it doesn't belong where it is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The text removed. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Text corrected. Now it reads: "While few societies have recognized same-sex unions as marriages, the historical and anthropological record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, through full acceptance and integration, sympathetic toleration, indifference, prohibition and discrimination, to persecution and physical annihilation." I hope that helps :)--Martina Moreau (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Illinois

Please add Illinois to the list of the United States' States with legal recognition of same-sex marriage! The legislation has been passed by Illinois' legislature and now awaits the Governor's signature; he has said that he will sign it, and the law will take effect next Summer! Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/05/illinois-house-passes-gay-marriage-bill-tuesday-paving-the-way-for-legalization/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.72.33 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That will be added in the appropriate places once the legal niceties - signature by the governor - are complete. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Please edit the timeline regarding the Australian Capital Territory. And, in the map, New Mexico should not be painted dark blue because marriage is not legal in all its territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.6.235 (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT, it is legal. Do you have a ref to the contrary? — kwami (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's this news article, about the Supreme court hearings, in addition to the references we have in the article. I'm guessing your point that a marriage in one county will likely be recognized in the rest of the state, though? —Quintucket (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Whatever the court decides, people are getting married, and I haven't heard of the state or another county declaring those marriages to be invalid. As long as a court or government says they're married, and no-one elsewhere or higher up disagrees (as happened with the SF marriages in 2004), then AFAIK they're married. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

When did it become legal to marry on US military bases? People are getting married now, but I don't have a start date for the timeline. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I meant, that in the timeline, "Australian Capital Territory" is under "in progress". But it is already legal (though not yet into effect)? So please change the timeline to reflect that it is now legal in the "Australian Capital Territory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.14.184 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed it and it was changed back, because it's not been finalized. — kwami (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheyenne/Arapaho

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes has been repeatedly inserted in the Timeline as joining the SSM club in 2013. Problem is, we don't know that that's true. We know that they joined by 2013, that they gave out a marriage license this month... but the best source we have thus far indicates that this is the third such license they've granted. The first one could have been this year, could have been ten years ago, we really don't know. As such, it is best that we leave them off of the timeline until we actually know where they fall on the timeline. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No, we should note that the date may have been earlier, as we already do, and adjust if we find an earlier date. The solution to ignorance is not greater ignorance. BTW, the fact that licenses were issued does not mean that the couples married. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The solution to ignorance is not making stuff up, which is what you are doing by placing this under 2013. If the point of a timeline is to show an order to events, then you are messing it up by putting an uncertain event in a certain place. And by stating October 31 or earlier under 2013, you are both still implying that it is within 2013, and you are predicting an uncertain event, as many a wedding goes awry and that one is still about a week away. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You do know that reporting a source is not the normal definition of "making stuff up", don't you? — kwami (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What source? I don't see any source there. What source do you have that indicates that the Tribes started granting SSM in 2013? (I assume that's what the timeline is supposed to represent; there is no marking of the timeline indicating what it's a timeline of.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Any source. We have several that they started granting SSM by 2013. Perhaps earlier, thus the comment. If we can confirm an earlier date, then we will change the timeline. But we're only as good as our sources.

Your right about the wedding date, however. When they get married is irrelevant; the precedent is that the license was issued. That should be the date. — kwami (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that we don't have any source that says that they started granting SSM in 2013. The timeline appears to be of when various jurisdictions started granting SSM, and as such, we do not know where this belongs in the timeline and should not put it there. But if that's not what the timeline is, please explain what it is a timeline of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There is marriage as of Oct 2013, so it's under Oct 2013. That's also the date it became a news item. If you can find an earlier date, we can move it to that.

And why aren't you concerned about the date marriage became available federally on military bases? — kwami (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are marriages in plenty of places as of October 2013, so by that logic we should put the whole chart under October 2013 and be done with it. You have failed to answer the question of what this is a timeline of. If it is a timeline:

• of when same-sex marriage started in various jurisdictions, then the should remove the Tribes, as we do not have that information for the Tribes and should not be making it up.
• of when people became aware that SSM was legal in various jurisdictions, then we must ask "which people?" (the folks who got the earlier marriage licenses with the Tribes seemed to have been aware), as well as whether we should set the date to when people were aware that SSM would become legal in a jurisdiction.
• of when Kwamikagami became aware that SSM was legal in various jurisdictions or what Kwamikagami's best guesses are for when something happened, in which case this doesn't belong in the article at all.

You blew off the WP:BRD cycle for this, you cannot show that you've gained consensus for this addition, please revert it until you can generate such consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

And now you have added a reference which specifically states that there were prior licenses and does not state when they began, whether it was "2013[...]by October" as the timeline currently indicates or whether it was some other year entirely. Again, I ask that you follow WP:BRD and revert the material until we have actual verifiable information. --17:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(1) We state that there was marriage by a certain date. (2) We have a ref that there was marriage by that date. QED. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that what we're stating? Are you saying that the unlabeled Timeline table is not a listing of when same-sex marriage started in the jurisdiction? Because if it is, by filing this under 2013, you are presenting it as having started in 2013. If it's not, we don't know what they heck the entire timeline is discussing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you're complaining because I found an Al Jazeera source that provides more info than we'd had. The whole point of an article is to provide as much info as conveniently as possible. You wish to make it inconvenient because we don't have perfect knowledge. Well, we don't have perfect knowledge about anything, so by that logic we should delete the entire article. — kwami (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I am complaining because you edit-warred your material in, then deleted a CN flag without inserting a source that actually substantiates the claim that the table appears to put forth, that SSM started in the Tribes in 2013. I don't think it is making it more convenient to make up information and present it as fact. I think it's a damned inconvenience, and does a disservice to those who might rely on this page. If things like WP:BRD and WP:V are inconvenient to you, well, welcome to Wikipedia. --18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming our readers are literate. We say that they had SSM by Oct 2013. We have a ref that they had SSM by Oct 2013. Your objection that it the ref doesn't substantiate that claim is absurd. Unless you have something intelligent to contribute, I'm done here. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"We say that they had SSM by Oct 2013." So you're just ignoring my pointing out that this unlabeled timeline is putting some Tribes event clearly in 2013, and that the (by October) is merely a parenthetical to that placement, and inventing what people will read it as? Given your clear lack of achieving consensus on this edit, given your announcement that you are apparently going to avoid discussion, given your choosing to ignore WP:BRD, and given the problems with WP:V on this placement, I have removed it. I recommend that you gain consensus before adding it back in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nat here. By placing a jurisdiction in the timeline with a particular date, we are stating that SSM became legal in that jurisdiction on that date, not sometime before that date. - htonl (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's why we say "by October"! We used to qualify it "or earlier", and that's fine too. If you have a better way to clarify the wording, great, but it's silly not to include a polity just because we aren't sure of exactly when it happened. Oct 2013 is when it made the news. Many of our other dates are off as well, as they reflect different criteria in different sources, but they give the reader some idea of how things are progressing. We shouldn't pick and choose who to include and who to not. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's silly to not include something on a timeline because we don't know when it happened? Have you considered that perhaps the point of a TIMEline is to show when things happened? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We have a ref'd date. We know that SSM was available by that date. We say just that, that SSM was available by that date. With our current sources, that's the best we can do. Your argument is like saying we couldn't put a person on a timeline if we didn't know both their birth and death date. Sometimes we don't one one or even both, and in such cases we mark it with a dotted line, question mark, or the like. Readers are intelligent enough to understand what that means. They're also intelligent enough to understand that "by Oct 2013" means that it may have occurred before Oct 2013. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not have a ref'd date for whatever this is supposed to be a timeline of. "They're also intelligent enough to understand that "by Oct 2013" means that it may have occurred before Oct 2013." Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but that thing you quote is not what we're saying. As formatted, we're saying that in 2013, the Tribes did whatever-the-timeline-is-of by October. That places it between January and October of 2013. I'm intelligent enough to see that. Now you may want to try reading the articles on consensus; at this point, you are now outnumbered on the assumption that your edits convey what you claim, and that they should be included. You clearly do not have consensus for the inclusion. Are you going to stop edit-warring in this material until you have consensus? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. This isn't a democracy where we count votes. The quality of the arguments matter. The argument that "by Oct 2013" means Jan–Oct 2013 is, well, to avoid the charge of PA I won't give my opinion. Again, if you find the wording confusing, you're welcome to change it. You're not welcome to delete polities from what is intended to be a complete list just because you disagree as to what the word "by" means. You have no rational argument from deleting referenced entries from the list. — kwami (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The only person who is claiming that it says "by Oct 2013" is you. That you have some intent to make this list "complete" does not excuse putting assumed information in. You seem to be grabbing WP:OWNERSHIP of this article. You do not get to make your own consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But you *agree* with the claims! How can you agree that they issued a license in Oct 2013, and that they had issued licenses previously, but not that they had first issued licenses "by" Oct 2013? And again, if you have trouble with the word "by", change it to something better! Just don't make it worse. Trying to prevent someone from screwing things up is not OWNERSHIP, it's simply being responsible. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing the wording will not change the fact that it is in a 2013 box on the timeline and reflects an event - the introduction of SSM - that we do not know happened in 2013. If you cannot be bothered to understand this objection, please at least recognize the fact that other editors have. You have no other editors posting on your side. The only person declaring your victory is you. Go start Kwamikagamipedis if you wish to be the sole arbitrator of what is included. -Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's your reading of the current wording and format. Changing the wording might prevent other readers from reading it the same way. To me it's perfectly obvious that "by" a certain date means on that date or earlier, and that the years at the left indicate that the dates to the right belong to those years. I suppose we have two choices here: Either we can list all the polities, and do our best to find a wording and presentation that everyone is happy with, or we delete polities whenever someone is unhappy with one of them. In the latter case, we should flag the section as incomplete, notifying readers that we haven't included all the relevant polities because we can't agree on how to do it. Simply pretending that things you don't like don't exist is not acceptable. Certainly someone editing the SSM article should understand that! — kwami (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• As long as we put an event in a box marked 2013, it is communicating that this is an event from 2013.
• If we're not trying to put things in the order they happened, then it's pointless to have a timeline.
• Things that are "perfectly obvious" to you do not read that way to the only other readers who have made their voices heard, and this page does not exist just for you to read.
• "Either we can list all the polities, and do our best to find a wording and presentation that everyone is happy with, or we delete polities whenever someone is unhappy with one of them." Or, now here's a radical thought: we edit according to Wikipedia standards, which includes things like WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS and WP:V and other things you seem willing to ignore.
• It is the nature of every timeline to be incomplete; timelines are summary items, and cannot reasonably be expected to document every event in a process.
• Who the hell is pretending anything doesn't exist? (Heck, I'm willing to bet you found out about marriages in the Tribes because of information that I edited into Wikipedia.) I just don't think that we need to make up information in order to satisfy some need of yours to have information there even if you cannot find said information.

• The article already has an as-complete-as-we-know listing of jurisdictions offering same-sex marriage in the SSM template. We need not be faking dates simply to put that same information in another form... particularly where the faking of dates undermines the advantages of that form.
• Even if we had the right dates now and placed the Tribes appropriately, we should not be trying to convey to our readers that the list is "complete"; the fact that there were licenses being issued in the Tribes before we knew about it is a case study example that things may be going on that we don't know about.
• I would be perfectly happy with deleting the whole timeline if we cannot figure out what it's a timeline of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If there arises a consensus that says that we need a second complete-as-we-know-it listing on this page in the timeline area, then we can remove any item whose time position we do not know and place it in a box below the timeline, marked "other jurisdictions". --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Taking a date from a source is not "faking data". The fact that you would say such a thing demonstrates that you are not operating in good faith, or at the very least that you're being irrational. You appear to be unwilling to actually work to improve the article. Again, if you consider the presentation of Arapaho/Cheyenne to be misleading, then figure out a way of presenting it that won't be misleading. Since I can't know how you're going to read things, you'll have to do that yourself, rather than just complaining about it. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who appointed you the boss of this article? I am at the moment working quote hard to improve this article, by getting some misinformation removed from it, Your invention of rules under which that misinformation might be removed does not actually place those rules upon me.

Consensus is not unanimity. Only one editor has stood for the inclusion of this misinformation in the article; more have voiced otherwise. As such, I'll be removing the misinformation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And now it's "misinformation". There is no misinformation, apart from that characterization; you're simply too lazy to word it in a way you find acceptable, and somehow think that your transparent misrepresentation won't be recognized as lies? I tagged the section as incomplete, in case someone else wants to take up this idiotic argument.

BTW, you might want to fix the formatting that you messed up. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the timeline of?

The timeline bears no label nor legend indicating what it is a timeline of; it's a list of jurisdictions and dates without any clear indication of what happened on those dates. We cannot just go off of the preceding paragraph, which covers various events including recognition of marriage-like partnerships, permitting of same-sex marriage, granting of same-sex marriage. (Let us be clear that permitting and granting are not the same thing; if no one is applying for the marriage license, then it may be permitted without having been granted. While we're used to seeing people line up for these licenses on the first day they're available, when you have a jurisdiction of 12,000 people, it may be legal for a while before anyone applies. Heck, that situation may even describe New Mexico.) The list itself is not consistent; it includes dates that some locales started legally granting SSM licenses (and I would have to check; in some jurisdictions there may be a delay between the filing for a license and the granting thereof, so the date may be of permitting filing), but it also includes US military bases, which as far as I know do not grant marriage licenses at all, although the military does recognize extant marriages... but if recognition is what we're going by, then we have to deal with the states that started to recognize without granting. Either we need to figure out what the timeline is of and label it as a whole (and remove things which do not match that description), or we need to label the individual events with more than just a jurisdiction name, but with some statement regarding what happened there on that date. Additionally, the timeline seems to be using bold and italics to indicate something, but there is no legend. I can probably hazard a good guess at what they're intended to mean by reverse engineering, but if we require the readers to do that, it would seem to lose the point of having that coding at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Good. A rational argument. I agree. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Along those lines, what determines "in process"? Should Tasmania and NSW be added? — kwami (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've understood the Timeline to indicate the date on which the law (or judgment) legalising SSM came into force - not when the law was enacted, nor when the first marriage actually happened. I don't know why US military bases are even on the list - is there any US military authority which licenses or registers marriages? I thought the US military just recognizes state marriages. As to "in process", it seems to me to be inappropriate to be included in a "timeline" at all. - htonl (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "in process", barring some reasonably specific dates being linked to it, should be kept off of the timeline. Per WP:TIMELINE, "Timelines describe the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it." In this case, the event may be a slow one - the legal acceptance of SSM - but if our goal is to have a timeliny timeline (rather than just a list of places that approved SSM and when), the having events which had a significant impact on this course are more important than having every single jurisdiction. If this were a timeline in the SSM in the USA article (which I'm using as an example simply because I can talk about it with more confidence, and not with the indication that these same events should be included in this article), I'd more be worried about seeing where the passage of DOMA was and various voting days that added more to the propositions-which-banned-SSM fell on the timeline than about making it complete from the other end. The "law (or judgment)" stamping may become tricky in places such as New Mexico, where the law may have always been in place and judgments just failed to stand in the way of it, and how might we differentiate it from a state that specifically passed a pro-SSM law and found it legally challenged for the first time the next year, a challenge which it then survives. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I see this as equivalent to the animated gifs of the EU map, where countries are filled in with the passage of time. (An animated map for SSM might be nice too.) As for US military bases, I remember people getting married in states that did not rec SSM, but it counted because it was on-base. Am I misremembering s.t.? — kwami (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The US military instituted a policy for giving up to 10 days' leave for personnel based in non-SSM states to travel to other states where they could get married. I don't think they would have needed to do that if people could get married on-base. Anyway, what would the legal basis be - there's no federal marriage solemnization law. - htonl (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Enactment of marriage laws (table)

Should New Mexico be added to the Enactment of marriage laws (table)? The Note Says "This table shows only states that currently perform same-sex marriages. It does not include states that recognize same-sex marriages but do not perform them." New Mexico fulfills both these requirements. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It performs them, so it only fits the first. — kwami (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Idiotic changes this evening

Someone has managed to edit the article to read that same-sex marriage "is a myth", and it's cited by "common sense". Can someone who can edit this please edit this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt22891 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Gay "marriage" is a myth in the same way a married bachelor or a square circle or a female man is a myth. The definition of marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman. Posting links to some online dictionary is not proof that this isn't how marriage is defined. This article is ridiculous and a prime example of wikipedia's Liberal bias.Ananagram (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just in case this is headed toward an extended 'discussion', pls don't take the bait and feed the troll. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree or at least strongly sympathize with the troll; but I am sure having his view on this page violates many policies, such as WP:RS. jj (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the user in question not only violated WP:V WP:NPOV, and WP:POINT, but marked its edits as a minor edit to conceal the fact. Said user probably wasn't trolling so much as engaging in idle vandalism, and I'd be in favor of a topic ban if it ever tries something like that again. It's the same sort of behavior I encounter with ethnic nationalists, which frequently drives me temporarily away from Wikipedia.

In this case though I actually do have a dog in the fight (I have gay friends and family), so my reactions may be overwrought. I put it then to opponents of marriage equality, if I made an edit which defined marriage as:

Marriage is an arrangement whereby a man purchases a young virgin from her father and adds her to his own household. Neo-colonialists in the developed world have tried to define "marriage" as a union of two people based on "love" and "monogamy," however traditionalists in the developing world across all major religious groups have been fighting hard to preserve such essential features of a stable marriage as polygyny, bride price, and child brides.

and marked it as a minor edit, would you think that my behavior was understandable and required only a revert and light chastisement? After all, everything I wrote is arguably true, if you ignore the diversity of traditional marriage practices, the overwhelming insistence on marriage involving exactly two consenting adults in the modern world, and shifting of practices even in traditional cultures. —Quintucket (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, stating facts is not trolling, and the fact is marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman of different sex by law.

Actually, Wikipedia is not a forum to even discuss your feelings. The article reflects the law and reality. Peace MKleid (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I could provide reams of citation showing this, and it isn't listed anywhere in this article. There ought to be something on the article dealing with such criticism of same-sex marriage. Ananagram (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Just because you believe that the proper definition and the utilization of other sources defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman doesn't make it so. Most, if not all, credible English dictionaries have revised their definitions to inlcude "A similar arrangement made by two members of the same-sex." So unless your going to call: Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and others "innacurate" then I would love to see the sources you're providing that run on the contrary. Keep your personal opinion out of this, both points of view are represented fairly and equally. Chase1493 (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's rather pointless to appeal to the definition "by law", when a substantial part of this article discusses how those laws have changed in various jurisdictions. - htonl (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Come on, folks. This was indeed an idiotic edit, and we don't need pages of discussion belaboring it. — kwami (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree, and while I will always keep my personal feelings out of our edits, posts like above strike a nerve with me. Just as Quintucket noted, some of us have a "dog in the fight." I am gay and making inflammatory remarks and calling legal as well as personal beliefs "myths" is down right rude and disrespectful to the wider community and visitors trying to become informed on this topic. I would never berate somebodies beliefs if they were opposed to a topic like this, all I ask is for a reciprocal amount of respect in return. Sorry if that was too personal or emotional but I have been dealing with people like this my entire life and found wikipedia as a way to remove the emotional or slanderous aspects that controversial topics like this bring out. Chase1493 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No need for you to apologize. Engaging people like this just makes things more emotional, as logic doesn't play into their POV (assuming they're even acting in good faith, which is dubious). — kwami (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Kenya and Nigeria: The title shouldn't obscure what this article is about

I know that we chose "same-sex marriage" because "gay marriage" is often used pejoratively (usually with scare quotes around "marriage") and "marriage equality" is only used by supporters, whereas many mainstream media sources use "same-sex marriage" as a neutral alternative.

I also know that some sources, particularly the BBC, have been using the term for a certain form of African traditional marriage, where an older woman without children marries a younger woman who sleeps with a man to produce heirs for the older woman, or where two older women marry as a form of platonic companionship. While these are neither "gay marriage" nor "marriage equality," the fact that some sources cover them as same-sex marriages means that I don't object to including them here. (Someday I suspect nearly all reliable English-language sources will use "marriage equality" and we can move the article, and make "same-sex marriage" focus on both topics.)

However the fact of the matter is that most people in speaking either use the term "gay marriage" or "marriage equality," which shows that the topic is fundamentally about the right of people to marry the person they love, regardless of sex. As such, the African traditional marriages don't really fit with the topic that people are looking for, and I would argue that it is misleading to characterize Kenya and Nigeria as having a "national debate." The people and leadership in these countries are overwhelmingly homophobic, women in these marriages take pains to point out that they're really straight, and the debate in those countries is whether lesbians are as immoral as gay men, and how severely punished gays should be.

As such, I really think that we should remove Kenya and Nigeria, and move the links and a brief discussion to the "Modern" subsection of history. If people aren't amenable to that, my alternative suggestion would be to create a new section, called something like "Non-homosexual marriages between women" or "Traditional marriages between women." But as I say in the title, we shouldn't let the fact that the "neutral" title obscure the fact that these African marriages wouldn't be included in either of the more common terms. —Quintucket (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I shouldn't've put them there. (If it was me.) 'Case studies', maybe? People are going to come here looking for it, perhaps thinking that it is gay marriage (which I suspect it often is, if covertly: In interviews, a lot of the women say that they don't like or aren't interested in men, though it's impossible to say how often this is because they're gay, and how often it's because they've been or have seen other women being abused), so we should have it somewhere easy to find. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, maybe we could call it "heterosexual same-sex marriage". That'll get people's attention. — kwami (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

heterosexual same-sex marriage - sounds good to me, it's very neutral and also gives us a nice page title should we decide it needs its own page. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well. —Quintucket (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Who says these people are heterosexual? If what you're talking about is marriages in which the couple is not expected to or expecting to have sex, that could be either non-sexual same-sex marriage or same-sex marriage of convenience". --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Between the two I prefer the second one. However I'd really prefer something like "Traditional non-sexual marriages" or "African traditional customs," as a sub-section of the history section. I just kept them in the "around the world" section for now since we have the Nigeria and Kenya subsections. —Quintucket (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: I prefer the second option because as I understand it, these marriages are in fact usually heterosexual on the part of the younger woman, and non-sexual on the part of the older. The older woman abstains from sex and takes the man's role, while the younger woman has sex with a man to produce an heir for the older woman. —Quintucket (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not the marriage that's heterosexual, even if one of the people in it might have heterosexual relations beyond the marriage. I'm not sure marriage of convenience 100% fits, though. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

They definitely are not marriages of convenience: Their purpose is to expand the family and produce heirs, which is the motivation for most prototypical marriage too. Also, my suggestion of wording it "heterosexual same-sex marriage" wasn't entirely serious: We don't have any sources calling it that, and I suspect it may be a bit confusing. We could try one of your suggestions, or a common term in the lit. — kwami (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a term that we can calque into English? (Similar to the article on Albania's sworn virgins?) I've seen these stories a fair amount on the BBC, but they just call them "same-sex marriage" without qualification, which as I've said is disingenuous and seems unique to the BBC. However it appears that the only sources we have are an archived editorial and a textbook that I can't check, so I can't see what the literary term is. —Quintucket (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, the ongoing criminalization of homosexuality in Nigeria, which is at least partly a response to SSM abroad, has nothing to do with this and really does belong where it was. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What you describe may be partially true. I have heard suggestions that the religious right, having lost the battle against the demons of modernity in the United States have taken the fight to countries where modernity is less of a concern (and where their money goes further to boot). Certainly the fact that all of the countries which have been tightening the screws recently have large population of evangelical Protestants. That said, what you describe is a reaction to same-sex marriage in other countries, not a debate on the issue in the countries concerned. —Quintucket (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. But it's an entirely different issue than traditional marriage, unless at some point the latter gets caught up in it, which so far it seems it hasn't. — kwami (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand your argument. How is increased homophobia, even if partially as a reaction to marriage equality in other countries, a national debate on "same-sex marriage"? Nobody's talking about legalizing marriage equality, and even if the sponsors explicitly said "we need to kill the gays before they take over our country with their homosexual agenda and impose same-sex 'marriages'", that would still be a debate on homosexuality, not marriage equality. (And in fact that the connection between these laws and marriage equality is far more tenuous than that example, with the "moral degeneration" of the West being only a subsidiary argument to the "eww gay sex is gross and unbiblical!" argument.) —Quintucket (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were saying that Nigeria does, in fact, have a national debate on marriage equality. Did I misunderstand you? —Quintucket (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't intend to say that. If I did use the word "debate", I misspoke. There have been Nigerians citing the example of traditional Igbo marriage to claim that Nigeria does have a tradition of SSM, but that seems to be little more than a curiosity, and certainly doesn't rise to the level of a national debate. — kwami (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Science Porves that Same-Sex Marriage is Unnatural

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/science-of-gay-marriage/158265/. Should we mention this as a criticism?Ananagram (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

We need scientific sources for scientific claims, and "unnatural" isn't even a scientific claim. Read WP:RS. — kwami (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsensical, and to use it as a citation for the claim you added to the article is just laughably ridiculous. - htonl (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure this isn't satire? He claims to be the first person to have discovered that pi is not equal to 22/7. He also claims that the fact that opposite ends of magnets don't attract proves that marriage equality is wrong, and that in mathematics "A + A = A", which would imply that "1 + 1 = 1". I know that some people allow their religious beliefs to cloud their understanding of science, but I have a hard time believing that anyone can possibly use scientific language to sound this stupid. —Quintucket (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Nigerian "scientist" is not using scientific language to sound stupid...he IS stupid, which results in his misunderstanding of actual science. Teammm ^talk
_email 05:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. So it's really not satire? —Quintucket (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this is one of those cases of truth being stranger than fiction. It's not surprising: Nigeria suffers from some of the most virulent homophobia on the planet, and there's no reason or logic involved. (LGBT rights in Nigeria provides a pretty good overview.) I think it's sad that some would choose to use garbage sources to inflict such preposterous bullshit on the English Wikipedia, but I guess that's not surprising either. Rivertorch (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Polygamy

I'm not so sure about this[15] revert. After all, this is a common concern (though how much it's a legitimate concern and how much it's trumped up I don't know). If we do keep it, I think it should probably go under 'controversies', as otherwise we'd be giving it too much weight. Also, leaving it at the weaselly "many feel that the door has been opened" isn't acceptable, IMO: If we're going to bring it up, we should actually address the subject. Is there anything to such claims? Have they been debunked? For example, has any court decision ever tied the two together, saying we can't allow SSM because that would be a slippery slope to polygamy/whatever? (With polygamy you can have consent, which makes it more similar to SSM than the sillier things it's been compared to.) Has any decision ever denied such a link? I think if we limit ourselves to RS's such as reviews of judicial decisions, as opposed to AM-radio bombast, we should be fine, and I think it would be a good thing to include. I can certainly see that there may be readers who are concerned about this, and expect to find an answer here. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

None of the links were to AM-radio bombast, though one is a link to an FM-radio transcript. A British parliamentarian's opinion is not a trivial item. Not sure where in the article this should be inserted, I'm open to change. But I think this angle belongs in here somewhere. Peacefully, Pete unseth (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of using bombast! Just a note I think we want to be careful of our sources. As for the MP's opinion, if you allow that, we'd need to allow American members of Congress, and they're often little different from AM radio. (And frankly, British politicians don't always sound more rational than their American colleagues.) Likewise, I don't think we should use arguments made before a court. I think it might be wiser to restrict ourselves to actual legislation and court decisions, as that should hopefully weed out most of the bullshit.

I agree that this belongs, but simply mentioning it would be like saying "some people think the Earth is flat" on that article. Who thinks it? Are they mainstream or fringe? Have they been debunked, or is this potentially a real concern? Etc. If someone comes here looking for this, they know that some people have said it. What they want to know is if there's anything to it, and we don't give them an answer. IMO, a non-answer is worse than saying nothing, except that it might encourage other editors to fix it. — kwami (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with kwami. It's a variation on a highly offensive slippery-slope argument that actually predates the relatively recent battles over marriage equality. It used to go something like this: "If we give equal rights to those people, then we'll have to give equal rights to [insert paraphiliacs of your choice]." On the marriage equality question, I've heard similar, tiresome arguments involving practitioners of incest and bestiality. So yes, claims such as the one about polygamy are out there and perhaps they're evident enough to warrant mention in the article, but I don't think the sources provided in the edit I reverted support the "many feel that the door has been opened" wording. In terms of those who actually believe it, it seems like a fringe view; others may not actually believe it but repeat it in a calculated effort to foment opposition to marriage equality. In any event, it's a speculative argument that is noteworthy only if reliable secondary sources indicate either that it's commonly used or that it's been famously used by notable people. If that's the case, then I'd favor inclusion—but the sourcing needs to be good and it must be carefully worded to avoid synthesis and undue weight, and if at all possible we should provide context. Rivertorch (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Polygamy actually is a reasonable extension of SSM. Most of the others are just silly: You can't marry your dog, because even if bestiality were legal, a dog is cognitively incapable of entering into a contract. But why shouldn't three or four consenting adults be allowed to marry? It's a legitimate question, and, as has often been pointed out in the SSM debate, it is a traditional (and biblically justifiable) form of marriage, and the ban has caused harm to immigrants and their children by breaking up their families. I suspect that the significant legal difference is that there is no demonstrable harm in SSM, while polygamy has (and in some places still does) lead to protracted abuse. The same for that German couple, who got married only to discover later that they were brother and sister (also a traditional form of marriage, dating back at least 5,000 years) – they weren't doing anyone any harm, but legalizing their marriage would be tricky because of the possibility of future harm that would open up. I suspect there are good 2ary sources on this that objectively analyze these as claims of fact, and on how the courts have addressed them. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there are, I don't know. I don't really see that polygamy is an "extension of SSM", though, any more than the reverse would be true. Have there been any cases in jurisdictions with marriage equality where someone has notably tried to legalize polygamy, using the legality of SSM as a justification? If not, then it's all quite abstract and deserves mention only if there has been significant discussion about it in secondary sources. Rivertorch (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that there has, and I agree. And yes, of course it would go both ways: If the argument is that the govt should not legislate who you can love, or decide who you can marry, then theoretically that would apply to polygamy as well as to SSM. The difference is that the govt / society has an interest in preventing people from harming others, and while SSM does no harm, polygamy arguable does, at least in its unregulated form. (Though I've known plenty of polygamous families that seemed to be better for the wives and children than some of the dysfunctional and abusive monogamous families I've known.) And yes, I think we should go with court decisions and legislation rather than with mere musings or political propaganda. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a bunch of things we would need to be at least cautious about if we were to include any of this:

1. Any claim that "many believe" something needs to be sourced with some actual reliable claim that this is something that many believe.
2. The argument may not be sufficiently international to be presented as a general argument being made; just eyeballing it, this looks like a line that has been trotted out heavily in the US, less in Canada and England, and only slightly elsewhere
3. There are actually two different arguments given that seem to be converging here. One is used against judicial rulings claiming that accepting the arguments that SSM is required under whatever constitutional or non-descrimination argument being made would require accepting those same arguments if the issue of polygamy was raised; the other general used in legislative situations is that public acceptance of this form will open the gates to public acceptance of anything that anyone can call marriage
4. We cannot say that we'll incorporate the polygamy argument and ignore the man-marrying-horse argument because we think the former makes more sense. The two arguments are too often voiced in the same breath.
5. We have to be very cautious about trying to cast an air of legitimacy around this. There's a real disconnect between same-sex marriage and polygamy; the jurisdictions that accept polygamy are actually apt to be the last ones we'd expect to pass new laws allowing same-sex marriage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

At first reading, I agree with everything you said. And yes, the irony of your last point has not escaped me. — kwami (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Addition of one word- one country name in the list

Sreehari.available (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Under the Side Pane where it shows: Legal recognition of same-sex relationships Add country India also References:

Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_India Quoting: (On 2 July 2009, the Delhi High Court decriminalised homosexual intercourse between consenting adults, and this new stand of decriminalisation is applicable throughout the territory of India,[7][8] where Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was adjudged to violate the fundamental right to life and liberty and the right to equality as guaranteed by the Constitution of India.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_of_India Quoting: (Homosexual intercourse was a criminal offence until 2009 under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This made it an offence for a person to voluntarily have "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." This law was struck down by the 2009 Delhi High Court decision Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which found Section 377 and other legal prohibitions against same-sex conduct to be in direct violation of fundamental rights provided by the Indian Constitution.)

Well, the list in this article is for countries that officially recognize same-sex marriages (or have something along the lines of a Civil Union). India has decriminalized same-sex intercourse, but to go on this list they'd have to legalize same-sex marriage. See what the difference is? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)