Jump to content

Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Hungary and Ireland

Hungarian Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ) and Irish Greens and Sinn Fein supported same-sex marriage. Ron 1987 12:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 (talk • contribs)

Those are political parties - not the countries themselves. --haha169 (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
According to this discussion, one of the criteria for inclusion in the "Recognition debated" section is the presence of a parliamentary political party that supports full marriage equality. In both Hungary and Ireland, there are parliamentary parties supporting same-sex marriage. I agree, however, that the mere presence of a political party supporting SSM does not necessarily mean there is a "debate" in the common sense of the word. Ronline ✉ 07:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

User:Jla has added Sweden to the same-sex marriage list. The Swedish Parliament is at this very moment debating the same-sex marriage bill (see the Riksdag Website for a live stream), so technically it shouldn't yet be added, but it is almost certain to pass, and we should know of its status in a few hours. SSM will enter into force on 1 May 2009; I have added this in brackets. The bill actually abolishes the existing registered partnership scheme, so I have removed Sweden from the list of countries offering civil unions. Furthermore, there has been a previous talk page discussion about double entry and it was decided not to enter countries twice in the template. As Jla pointed out, partners who have already entered into a registered partnership (between 1995 and 2009) will continue to be recognised as registered partners if they choose not to convert their partnership into a marriage (which can be done through a simple process). This is exactly the same situation as in Norway. Ronline ✉ 09:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about being a little early. As always, Wikipedia impresses by how there's always someone watching over your shoulder. ;) And also, sorry about not taking notice of the fact that there had already been a discussion on the question of double entries. --jla (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries! I was very tempted to add it early too :) The process legalising same-sex marriage in Sweden was groundbreaking in my opinion, especially the overwhelming support received in the Riksdag. I was following it very closely and it's made me intensely interested in Swedish politics now. In any case, thanks for updating the other articles and the maps. Ronline ✉ 07:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical Question

I'm just curious, and I know that the mentioned examples will never do such, but say a not widely-recognized "country" recognized same-sex marriage for it citizens, would we include it in the main template at all, or would we put it under recognized in some regions? Again, this is just hypothetical, but I'm still curious on what we would do. Wikitiki666 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that we should include it in the same way we would include a widely-recognised country. Already, the template includes jurisdictions that are not sovereign states, such as Greenland and the Isle of Man. So, say if Taiwan or Kosovo recognises same-sex marriage, it should be put under the main country list, on par with Sweden, Canada, etc. Ronline ✉ 01:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Wikitiki666 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A question about Tawain (ROC)

This is mainly directed towards Ronline as I see he/she lives there, but I suppose others are free to chip in as well. Is this legislation of SSM likely in Taiwan? I know there has been a bill pending for quite sometime but I was wondering if it has the chance of being legalized in the near future. Can anyone give some estimates of when they think Taiwan could recognize SSM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitiki666 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball for speculating future events. In any case, it would be very difficult to guess even an approximate number because neither Chinese governments currently care about LGBT issues - the economy is first on their minds. --haha169 (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, same-sex marriage will not be legalised in Taiwan in the near future. Quite a few people in high positions in government (including the President Ma Ying-jiu himself) support equal rights for same-sex couples, but the support is not enough to ensure smooth passage of legislation. In particular, the governing Guomindang Party has a significant element against any recognition of same-sex unions.
Under a DPP government (currently in opposition) it may be possible to achieve recognition of same-sex unions, even though this would most likely be in the form of civil unions or unregistered cohabitation. My view is that, at the moment, Taiwan will follow the South American model of "gradualist" reform, whereby cohabitating same-sex couples are gradually given more and more rights and recognised as equal to cohabitating opposite-sex couples. So, for example, first they may be offered the right to joint property ownership, then social security rights, then next-of-kin rights, etc. This would be achieved by changing individual legislation rather than by introducing a broad civil union scheme, and there would be no ceremonial component. An example of a country which has gone very far with this type of reform is Australia, which now grants cohabitating (de facto) same-sex couples pretty much all of the rights of marriage, but does not yet have a formal registered partnership scheme or same-sex marriage.
It is important to note, however, that popular support for gay rights is reasonably high in Taiwan: it is by far the most gay-friendly country in East Asia and home to the largest pride parade in the region. The reason why gay law reform is stalling is because of homophobia in parts of the government, and because other issues (such as the economy) as seen as being much more important at the present. Ronline ✉ 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Maybe when Nepal provides recognition, that (hopefully) being SSM, the topic could resurface in Taiwan. But like most nations, I suppose the economy is definitely the most central issue at the moment. Still, at least it could possibly resurface it. Thanks for explaining! Wikitiki666 (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove Italy from Civil Union debated template?

Here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitiki666 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nepal

Nepal will provide same-sex marriage effective from 7-1-2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is doubtful. Could you give some source? --Ron 1987 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron 1987 (talk • contribs)
I cannot find anything either, can this be confirmed? I originally added Nepal months ago with (TBA), but as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we only intend on adding countries that have confirmed SSM legislation from a reliable source. Vickiloves08 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Indian News Site [1] reported on it, as well as prominent gay advocate site [2], HinduAsian [3], and even Obama's Change.org [4]. --haha169 (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
How's about [5] iGovernment and Advocate.com? [6] --haha169 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In that sources haven't concrete date, when SSM will be legal. Ron 1987 (talk)11:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no concrete date. I hate to be the bringer of bad news in a week when 3 jurisdictions have just legalised same-sex marriage, but the 1 July 2010 date is fabrication. All the Court did (see [7]) was order the government to set up a committee to investigate same-sex union recognition. It didn't even specify that there had to be equal rights. So, first of all, it is uncertain that Nepal will even have gay marriage, and secondly, even if gay marriage will be implemented, it is yet uncertain by which date this will take place. Ronline ✉ 15:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Vermont - change title

Could you change title that article? Recognition of same-sex unions in Vermont Ron 1987 (talk 16:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

District of Columbia now recognizes foreign marriages

I added it to the template. Here's the source: Click Vickiloves08 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. See: ClickRon 1987 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Boo :( Vickiloves08 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Eff. Dates

What should be done about the dates? The current dates cause the template to be jumbled, and I don't really like the "( )" around the effective date. Can anyone think of any compromises? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickiloves08 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New Mexico and Rhode Island

These two states are included under the "recognizes foreign marriages" heading, but the articles appear to state that it is not certain that they actually would recognize out-of-state marriages, and the article on Same-sex marriage says that only 1 state (New York) recognizes out-of-state marriages. Clarify? -Montréalais (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island and New Mexico NOT recognize same-sex marriage Talk:Ron 1987 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No, though a SSM marriage bill is currently pending in Rhode Island, though supporters only plan on pushing for it until 2011 when the Republican governor leaves.
A domestic partnership bill will be reintroduced this year in NM thanks to Richardson, but it still does not recognize foreign SSMs at this time. Vickiloves08 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of Nepal being added

Seriously folks, I truly believe that SSM will be legalized in Nepal due to pressure from gay and gay-friendly members of the government but there is still not official date of when such will take place. While I agree that this is a more special case since SSM couples are being granted marriages licenses (even though they have yet to be enabled) — I do not feel that it should be included on the template until a reliable CLEARLY states a date that such unions will be recognized, not just when the constitution will come into force, unless such is explicitly mentioned. As Nepal seems to be a situation much like Ecuador (though seemingly more advanced ironically), I still think that we should just wait and see what happens. Please stop adding it to the template until a RELIABLE source can confirm the recognition/legislation. Thank you. :) Vickiloves08 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, same-sex couples are not even being granted marriage licences. There has essentially been no action since the court ruling, and indeed I think there is a significant chance that the ruling will be totally ignored. The problem, I think, has been an overzealous foreign press, which has sought to construct Nepal as some sort of a "gay rights beacon in Asia". To some extent that is true: the mere fact that homosexuality was legalised in Nepal, and that Nepal now supports universal decriminalisation at the UN, is remarkable in a South Asian context. However, I think we also need to consider where the country was at just two or three years ago. Ronline ✉ 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The country has undergone an internal revolution that shaped it from being more and more free every day. Within the space of a few years, it peacefully undergone what took Europe two centuries of fighting to achieve. I have no doubt that this ruling will actually start doing things soon, but if you want to keep people from adding Nepal to the template (the talk page won't really work, since most are new users or IPs), add a hidden note. --haha169 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Template redesign

I think the template redesign is fantastic! It's a lot clearer now, and I particularly like the little messages under VT and IA noting the dates when SSM enters into force. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 06:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin

What is the deal with Wisconsin? It is in section "debated", when they have amendment banning all same-sex unions? 79.163.235.198 (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DC

Can it be verified that DC in the US does recognise same-sex marriages from abroard - just as NY does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

here is the link: DC council votes to recognize gay marriage
But I guess it wouldn't be finalized until May 5th 68.146.90.91 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Even then, it has a 30 day approval/voting period by the US Congress, where passage is not certain. Fortuynist (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New Template Changes

Beginnings of this discussion originated from here

You wrote in the edit summary that "repeated violators will be blocked", or something along the lines of that. I am not violating anything. I am editing a template. I am going to undo your edit now until you are able to tell me what specifically you do not appreciate about my work. In that case, we will be able to make a compromise. Thank you, obentomusubi 06:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The "repeated violators will be blocked" portion was unnecessary, yes but my two cents as one of the reverters; I think that your [obento musubi] new edits to the template makes everything too spread out. Personally, I like it when things are clustered closer together so it leaves more room for the text in the article.
In any case, when you make any major organizational changes to a template, you should usually refer to the template talk page first, especially if it is a highly-trafficked one. A discussion between editors will produce the best possible result and it will avoid edit-warring and unnecessary arguments. Is it OK if I move this discussion over to the template talk page and we can continue this there? --haha169 (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm personally fine with your moving it to the template talk page. obentomusubi 07:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, I have gathered that there are Two Supports from Obento Musubi and Ronline, One Neutral from me, and OTwo Oppose from Vickiloves, VoodooIsland, and perhaps the IP, 24.239.216.49. Is this a correct assumption? --haha169 (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I just viewed the prior template (the one that's all stretched out?), and I'm sorry, but I can't stand it. Put me down for oppose. Thanks VoodooIsland (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Austria

I don't know if this would be considered to be chatting, but why are countries such as Austria only just now taking up legislation for registered partnership bills when other countries have moved on to SSM and it's apparent that the S-B-E status will never hold up in the long run. Based on an 06, about 49%+ of Austrians supported SSM, and as this number has likely jumped at least three more points based on other statistics, why doesn't the government just save itself time and provide SSM? The same goes for Hungary, Australia and others. (besides the super conservative countries like romania, poland etc) VoodooIsland (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes time. A civil union is considered as a half-step between no recognition and marriage. Although there are anomalies, like Iowa and Nepal, most nations and entities have so far accepted homosexual marriage through the civil union step.
And yes, you are right that this is considered chatting. If you want to ask a question of this nature, you could ask on an appropriate online forum or ask it on a user's talk page. --haha169 (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining—I'll use the correct place next time. VoodooIsland (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries, people do it all the time on talk pages like this. It isn't heavily enforced on template or image talks, so it shouldn't be such a big deal. (Heck, I think I've done it once or twice). --haha169 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The barrier to full equality in countries like Austria is the political landscape rather than public opinion. In Austria, the current government is a grand coalition made up of the Social Democrats and the Austrian People's Party. While the Social Democrats would probably support full same-sex marriage, registered partnerships is as far as the People's Party is willing to go at this point. A country in a very similar position is Ireland, which is also in the process of legalising civil partnerships but not SSM due to the conservative governing party not supporting anything beyond civil partnerships. Australia is the most peculiar of all: SSM is supported by the majority of the population, yet the current Labour (left-wing) doesn't support anything beyond state-based registered partnerships. Ronline ✉ 14:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone :D VoodooIsland (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, should Ireland be removed from the SSM debated section and just kept in the civil unions debated? VoodooIsland (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The SPÖ is far too spineless to even stand up for SSM in Austria; the Greens, KPÖ and LIF (with the latter two irrelevant) are the only ones who really want SSM. In Australia, Labour seems to be treading very carefully on a number of issues where the popular opinion seems to be clear (SSM, republicanism, ...). —Nightstallion 23:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask you actually: will Austria actually be legalising registered partnerships by 2010? Ronline ✉ 02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The law hasn't been passed yet, and the ÖVP is bickering about where such partnerships would be established and whether there would be a ceremony or not. I'm highly sceptical, I have to say, but we'll see. —Nightstallion 23:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

British Crown Dependencies really necessary?

Do you think the British Crown dependencies should be included or removed in the template, such as Isle of Man, Jersey, etc? VoodooIsland (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

They should be included, since they are separate jurisdictions when it comes to marriage or civil unions, and often have separate laws. Civil partnerships (UK-style) are not performed in the British Crown Dependencies, even though in Jersey there is a proposed law to legalise them. We also include Greenland, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, which are not sovereign states but have separate laws for same-sex unions than the state they are dependencies of. Ronline ✉ 02:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Should Rhode Island be under "recognized, not performed?" the article makes me believe so, but I cannot be for sure. (Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island). VoodooIsland (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tasmania

How can Tasmania be debating same-sex marriage if it is banned at a federal level in Australia? VoodooIsland (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a very interesting and controversial constitutional issue. In Australia, there is no constitutional ban on SSM or any specific legislation which prevents individual states from recognising it. In 2004, the conservative federal government simply expanded the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act, so that it was explicity "between a man and a woman". This statutory ban can be changed by Parliament at any time. Under Section 51 of the Constitution, the federal government has power over marriage, but this power is concurrent rather than exclusive, which means that states are not prevented from legislating in this area. The problem, of course, is that in areas of concurrent power, Federal legislation prevails over State legislation to the extent of any inconsistency. Constitutional scholars are thus divided over whether states can individually legislate for same-sex marriage while the federal Marriage Act maintains the words "a man and a woman". The "commonsense" view is that a gender-neutral state marriage act would be overriden by the federal Marriage Act, since the two would be inconsistent and the latter would automatically prevail. However, another view is that state legislation of same-sex marriage would not be inconsistent with a federal ban since a state same-sex marriage would not be given federal rights (similar to the situation in the USA). Since federal marriage would remain between a man and a woman, there would be no inconsistency. This position is explained in greater depth here.
In practice, if Tasmania legalises SSM, the government will probably take Tasmania to the High Court, and the Court will decide the constitutional validity of state SSM legislation. However, there is actually very little lobbying for state SSM in Australia. In my view, it will be easier and much more important to achieve SSM on a federal level than on a state level, and the LGBT movement acknowledges this. Ronline ✉ 08:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! :)VoodooIsland (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The notion of samesex marriage is widely deplored by Australians, hence it is illegal throughout the country and anything solemnized anywhere there that purports to be such is wholly disdained and unrecognised - and always has been so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.217.228 (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

South Australia

I've removed South Australia from the list of jurisdictions recognising registered partnership. Like the Tasmania SSM issue, this is another pretty confusing issue. Since 2007, South Australian same-sex couples in a de facto relationship are extended almost all of the rights of marriage. To prove that you are in a de facto relationship, you are not obliged to sign a registry. Instead, a number of factors are taken into account, such as the length of the relationship, whether it was sexual in nature, common address, etc. Essentially, this is an unregistered cohabitation scheme, similar to what also exists in all of the other Australian states and at federal level. South Australian law does, however, have one peculiarity, the Domestic Partnership Agreement. Some people view this as a "civil union", but it is actually quite different to what is available in the ACT, Victoria and Tasmania, or in the US states of California, Washington and Oregon. A Domestic Partnership Agreement is essentially a private contract between the two parties, somewhat akin to a pre-nuptial agreement. It does not have to be registered with any public authority in the same way that a civil union is registered. Furthermore, as outlined here, Domestic Partnership Agremeents are not in themselves sufficient for a couple to be recognised as de facto partners (or "domestic partners"): partners must have actually lived together for 3 years before they can access rights. This factsheet by the SA Department of Justice provides more information on Domestic Partnership Agreements in South Australia. Ronline ✉ 08:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) VoodooIsland (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition in France ?

The recognition of SSM in France practically doesn't exist. The Dutch-French couple who did it have just been able to get tax recognition, nothing more. Besides, any marriage performed abroad is of pretty much no value in France, so I'm not sure if France should be under "Recognized, not performed". --Petero512 (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Do not add Bulgaria. In that and that article haven't any sources. In Estonia, Social Democratic Party support SSM . Ron 1987 (User talk:Ron 1987) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I put a references tag in both articles. Is Croatia debating civil unions? The article had references, but the links seem to be broken. VoodooIsland (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I found sources. See [8] Ron 1987 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cuba

What is the latest news on civil unions in Cuba? VoodooIsland (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Check [www.google.com/news Google News]. --haha169 (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

Civil unions are debate in Michoacán, Colima, Jalisco, Guerrero, Puebla and Veracruz. Also same-sex marriage is debate in Mexico City. See [9]. User:Ron 1987 (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say add it to the template, then change those respective regions to yellow on the North America map. --haha169 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Same-sex_unions/Archive_6&oldid=299041945"