Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Uruguay and Victoria

Uruguay and Victoria, Australia will have registered partnerships or civil unions by the commencement of Nov for Urugray and Dec 2007 for Australia, Victoria!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.40.222 (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Uruguay has had civil union since 1 January 2008 and Victoria, Australia will have a registered partnership called the Relationships Bill 2008 which will commence in 1 July 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.136.173 (talk) 06:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Austria

Added Austria to the list because sometime in 2008 registered partnerships will be avaliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.8.158 (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed it again, because we only have states in here where the law has already been passed. —Nightstallion 10:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Austria will indroduce the Relationship Register Bill 2008 on the 14th April 2008 to the House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.136.173 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Has Ireland passed the civil partnership/union legislation come into force as yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.59.50 (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. —Nightstallion 15:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Civil Partnership Bill 2008 will be indroduced to the House on the 29th March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.136.173 (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Italy and Hungary

Have these two countries passed any sort of civil union, partnership, domestic or registered partnership as yet?

Italy: no, Hungary: sort of yes, not much, though. —Nightstallion 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Italy nothing; Hungary will provid a registered partnership from 1 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.136.173 (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The latest gay rights in Australia

(Please note that this thread has been altered by an IP user from its original version.) In 2008, progress has been made in Victoria with the Relationships Bill 2008 and the Australian Capital Territory has a very lengthy debate to provided either a registered partnership or a civil partnership (the Civil Partnership Bill 2008 is yet to be passed, at the moment at the 2nd reading - We will keep you updated).

State and/or Territory law:

• unregistered co-habitation has been provided since 1994, Civil partnerships for the Australian Capital Territory is under lengthy debate (the Civil Partnership Bill 2008 is yet to be passed, at the moment at the 2nd reading - We will keep you updated).
• Both Registered partnership (coming into affect from 1 July 2009) and unregistered co-habitation since 2001 for Victoria (called the Relationships Bill 2008 coming into affect from 1 July 2009)
• Both Registered partnership and unregistered co-habitation for Tasmania, since 2002
• Unregistered co-habitation for New South Wales, since 1999/2002/2008
• Unregistered co-habitation for South Australia, since 2007
• Unregistered co-habitation for Western Australia, since 2002
• Unregistered co-habitation for Queensland, since 1999/2001
• Unregistered co-habitation for Northern Territory, since 2004
• Unregistered co-habitation for Norfolk Island, since 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.108.238 (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth law

• In three (3) areas of Commonwealth law for federal police, ADF or Military; Superannuation and/or Migration under the "interdependency category".

Local Government or Council law

• The City of Sydney since 2005 and the City of Melbourne since 2007 provide a registered partnership under council jurisdiction(s).

European Union

Can we write a page on Same-sex relationships in the European Union. I'd like to outline similarities, differences, and international relationship issues (i.e. same-sex couple married in Netherlands only being recognized as having a union while in Germany), as well as the status of an EU-wide push for official recognition of same-sex relationships. samwaltz (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that would be a good idea. —Nightstallion 13:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Victoria (Australia)

The Relationships Bill 2008 in Victoria (Australia) will become affective from 1 July 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.136.173 (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The ACT Civil Partnership Bill 2008 is still stalling at the 2nd reading, it might pass the legislative desk, its hard to know if the Government will intervine on it when it passes or not. The Kevin Rudd Government sayed it will allow the Bill - If no "public ceremony" is conducted, what ever that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.136.173 (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Victoria

Victoria's Relationships Act 2008 will come into force from 1 December 2008. (see Victorian Legislation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.77.73 (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory

The Australian Capital Territory provides a Civil Partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2008 (commences on the 15 November 2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.85.37 (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ACT Government

The ACT Government has just approved the Civil Partnership Act 2008 - However "ceremonies" are not allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.255.55 (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Australia

• In Victoria, the Relationships Act 2008 will provide a registered partnership, which will become affective from 1/12/2008.

• In the Australian Capital Territory, legislation passed called the Civil Partnership Act 2008, which provides a civil partnership (without "ceremonies"), this law will become affective from 15/11/2008.

• 100 Commonwealth laws will be amended to include same-sex couples (announced by Kevin Rudd; ALP) - However, the Marriage Act 1961 will NOT be amended or changed. It will still say "a union between a man and a woman".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.255.55 (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Greece??

Why is Greece in the list "same-sex marriage"? I think it is a mistake...

Apparently, Greek law doesn't specifically say that marriage is between a man and a woman, so an official has begun performing same-sex marriages. Follow the link to the Greece page and read the references. -Rrius (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Greece does not recognise same-sex marriage. However the mayor of the island of Tios is making use of a loophole in the law to marry same-sex couples. These marriages are not recognised in the rest of Greece. I have therefore moved Greece from the "same sex marriage" section to the "same-sex marriage in some regions" sections. (R3NL (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

As I understand it, marriage is a matter of national law in Greece. The local officials don't have the right to make marriage policy. The local government is either right or wrong about its interpretation of national law, and the national government will ultimately make that decision, no? -Rrius (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, "Greece" is back on the template again under "same-sex marriage". I'm moving it to "debated". --CJ Withers (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Debated" isn't right though. That suggests that the legislature is talking about legalizing it. That is not what has happened, though: Marriages have been performed. -Rrius (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, they have been invalidated, the mayor is being prosecuted, and the "spouses" are not arguing for the marriages' validity, so taking it off completely now makes the most sense. -Rrius (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The marriages have not been formally annulled yet, and I can't find a reference for the fact that the spouses are not arguing for the marriages' validity. I agree, however, that Greece should not be listed in "Same sex marriages" section because such marriages aren't publicly available to all same-sex couples who wish to get married. The "Debated" section contains not only countries where same-sex marriage is being actively debated in the legislature, but pretty much all countries which have a Wikipedia article about the same-sex marriage debate in their respective societies. Ronline ✉ 15:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Greece obviously belongs in the template, so would Rrius be so kind as to cease needlessly removing it? Thanks. —Nightstallion 09:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not obvious at all. There is no bill in parliament, is there? That is what "debate" has meant, has it not? That you believe a thing does not make it so; likewise, it does not make the actions of those who disagree with you "needless". -Rrius (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The countries which are in the "recognition debated" section are not those where there's a bill currently in parliament to recognise civil unions or SSM, but simply where the issue has been or is currently being debated. Just check a couple of the other articles, you'll find quite a few where there's currently no bill before parliament -- and it doesn't really make sense to only link to existing articles from this template if there's currently an active debate, does it? —Nightstallion 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Most have a current or past bill. A couple have ongoing court cases. There is no verified source that the Greek executive doesn't just get to decide this issue. So far, the sources say that the mayor is refusing to annul the marriages and is being prosecuted. No evidence is presented on the page to suggest that the courts will have a role in interpreting the marriage act or the constitution. Until there is proof of a debate within at least one branch of the national government, I won't agree with you. I am not going to revert you again because I don't have the energy and because navigation templates are not that important; however, I do want you to understand that this is not as obvious as you clearly think it is. -Rrius (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rrius, there are two married gay couples in Greece and what you do is an insult to them. I personally know one of them. The marriage is valid, registered in the town hall and nothing was done against ANY law. What do you need more?! -Georgios.delft (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC);

What I need is evidence is that the marriage is recognized under Greek law. Incidentally, that is what Wikipedia needs. It is absurd for you to say that questioning the validity of the marriage is somehow an insult. The marriages performed with licenses in San Francisco a few years ago were not valid even though they were performed by or at the direction of Mayor of San Francisco. It was not for the mayor of a city to say what state law was. I seriously doubt that the mayor of this Greek city is given the right to decide what Greek law is. Your assertion that the marriage has nothing to do with "ANY" law is simply ridiculous and tends to suggest that your alleged connection to one of the couples is colouring your judgment. -Rrius (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the marriage was invalid it would be very easy to cancel it by the next day. However it's been already a month since the weddings and the government still hasn't found a way to cancel the weddings, since they don't violate any Greek law. This is already mentioned by famous lawyers and law professors of universities, months (maybe years) ago, and the gay unions had warned the ministry months ago about their intetion to use that loophole. Theofano Papazisi, a Professor of the University of Thessaloniki has said that the current law status in Greece does not forbid marriages between two people of the same sex. Is that dictum enough for you, or would you like a certificate of marriage from the municipality of Tilos?

Dictum is never enough. Provide verified sources. So far what we have verified is that the officials of the national government are going to prosecute the mayor and invalidate marriages. There is no need to be combative. -Rrius (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, till now the marriages are valid. So we can be up to date and put Greece with the other six countries. If the marriages are invalidated (there's no way that happens, but anyway) we can again update the page and put Greece back where it is now. That's why we are here I suppose! To keep the page up to date. -Georgios.delft (talk) Georgios.delft (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC);

That would be perfectly reasonable at the same-sex marriage article or something of that kind. At the moment, it would be misleading to say that same-sex marriage is available in Greece. There have been two, and their validity is in debate. The category that comes closest to describing the situation is the one one it is in, "Same-sex marriage debated". -Rrius (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Queensland (Australia)

Queensland (Australia) is "considering" relationship registories or a domestic partnership. South Australia already has a domestic partnership since 1/6/2007. SSO QUEENSLAND CONSIDERS RELATIONSHIP REGISTER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.111.130 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dates when legislation comes into affect

• California (USA) same-sex marriages will become affective from 1/7/2008
• Victoria (Australia) domestic partnerships will become affective from 1/12/2008
• Hungary registered partnerships will become affective from 1/1/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.111.130 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about for California? -Rrius (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Norway

According to the wikipedia article and this link, among others, the effective date of the law is 1 January 2009. I will try to get a better reference from someone who understands Norwegian and can therefore use the bill or Norwegian news reports for reference. -Rrius (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I found this article, which says "late this year or early next". -Rrius (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And this one says 1 January 2009. -Rrius (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Austria and Ireland

Has Ireland provided and/or legalized Civil Partnerships yet?

And has Austria provided and/or legalized Registered Partnerships yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ireland just introduced a bill this week (it may only have been put before the cabinet, and not yet before the legislature). According to the country article, it is not expected to complete passage until mid-2009. I'm guessing that means it would take effect in early 2010. According to this article, Austria has not acted yet. -Rrius (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And with the coming snap election, we're not likely to. :( —Nightstallion 12:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Section headers

Okey doke, so I changed the header style by adding a solid background and I did it with some shade of gray (Platinum, I think) to avoid implications produced by using color and to more adequately distinguish the headers from the text. Apparently, the gray I chose was difficult for some to see. I would invite folks to make suggestions on how to distinguish the section headers. If you think I was on the right track, maybe check out a couple possible versions of the solid-background headers and suggest a good gray shade (see User:Zuejay/sandbox3), or a different single solid color background for the section headers (see List of colors - let me know if you'd like to see your suggestion on the template, I'll add it to the sandbox!). Or, if you think its perfect the way it is, you can certainly say so. Thanks! ZueJay (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
PS - If anyone knows how to left align the text for the US under "Recognition granted, same-sex marriage debated", I think that'd make the template look better. ZueJay (talk)

I prefer the lavender one; it is easy to pick out the headings, but also easy to read the heading. -Rrius (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lavender gray or Lavender (web)? I think Wikipedia uses something like Lavender (web)... ZueJay (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I meant lavendar (web). I only looked at the label of the one liked. -Rrius (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. I only look at the ones I like too ;) Should I give it a go? ZueJay (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. -Rrius (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Recognition debated

What is the wikipedia policy as concerns "issue under consideration" or "recognition debated"? I think we should limit ourselves to parliamentary debates only, or bills introduced into parliamentary committees. Wikipedia should be precise and as most objective as possible. The definition of debate is way too vague. Who is debating? Politicians? Parties? the Press? the LGBT groups? Probably even some people in Russia and Iran, Saudi Arabia and Congo are debating some form of union for homosexuals, but this does not mean this debate is leading to anywhere anytime soon.

Less provocatively, in the template we have Hungary, which recently introduced partnerships and is likely not to have mariage for the next 10 years, especially if Fidesz wins next elections. In Italy Berlusconi's government is not passing any law for de facto couples, either gay or straight. Same in France, is Sarkozy in favour of gay marriage? And in Taiwan or China, is there any law pending in parliament?

My opinion is that these countries (and many others) should be removed by the sections "recognition debated" and "samesex marriage debated". There is already another page for this kind of information and it is "LGBT rights by country".

I'm waiting for your opinion. Finedelledanze (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in all respects. However, see the section above entitled "Greece??" for a preview of where this will go. -Rrius (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Denmark

Has Denmark legalized GNMs (gender-neutral marriages) yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.140.62 (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Pieuvre (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Icon

An icon has been added to the top of the template. I kinda like it, but I wonder if the very long template should take up any more space where transcluded than it already does. I'm going to leave it unless others object. -Rrius (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do like it, it looks much better now!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.130.110 (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also like it, it is much more pofessional now; however, you are correct that it is veerrryyyy long, particularly for a sidebar template and especially when some of the articles it is placed on are stubs. Is there some way to use the autohide feature on each section, like Template:Infobox actor does for awards? ZueJay (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the icon, and unfortunately did not see this discussion until afterwards. I removed the icon on the following basis:

1. The icon was irrelevant. Scales of justice typically depict the judicial process or justice. Legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been achieved by both political and judicial means in various jurisdictions (sometimes both in the same jurisdiction), so it is not clear how an icon representing the judicial process is representative of all the jurisdictions contained in the template. On the other hand, if the icon is deemed to represent "justice", then the template arguably violates WP:NPOV, given the controversy in some jurisdictions over the subject matter. I would also note that although the scales of justice are always sometimes used to depict the "law", and therefore could arguably be relevant to a template that strictly addressed legal issues, same-sex unions are as much a social issue as they are a legal one, and therefore the icon is far too limited in its scope.
2. The template is already very long. It seems counter-intuitive to be using the autohide feature to be hiding actual substantive template content (as proposed above) in order to make room for decorative pictures.
3. This template is used in articles that usually contain their own graphic images. When looking at the template in isolation, the icon might look interesting, but in the context of articles it is just graphic clutter.
4. Finally, WP:NAV makes clear that navigational templates are not arbitrarily decorative. There needs to some justification to add graphics. I would suggest that "it looks nice" is not a particularly good justification, esp. since the icon does not add any substantive content to the template. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Add prohibitions

This template is already quite large, but wouldn't it make sense to list countries that specifically outlaw gay unions in various ways? It seems like this is the next logical category after 'recognition debated'. ike9898 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. ZueJay (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a list article instead and link to it of one doesn't already exist. There are nearly 200 countries in the United Nations so it may make sense to err on keeping this list smaller in that respect. Banjeboi 09:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is especially important not to do it here because it would require two new categories: statutory bans and entrenched bans (e.g., US state constitution bans). The latter would require a subcategory for jurisdictions discussing such a ban, such as California, Iowa, and Florida. -Rrius (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

What is the current situation in Sweden - Has gender-neutral marriages been legalized there yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.64.209 (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since November SSM is being put to a vote, and will possibly be legal from 1 july 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlanes (talk • contribs) 06:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

California

Given the fact that California has an initiative on the ballot that would get rid of SSM, should California be listed in the "Recognition granted, same-sex marriage debated" section? Or would that be too confusing since it is the opposite of the others on the list? -Rrius (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that California has approved Proposition 8, should California be removed off the Recognized in Some Regions on the [1] template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spambait (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though the election results aren't certified and there's a court challenge, the fact remains that California is not granting licenses, so why not have it reflect reality? Theknightswhosay (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with former recognized places. CTJF83Talk 08:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)