Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe

Slovenia did not allow same sex marriage. The Constitutionnal Court gives 6 months to the Parliament to do it.

https://english.sta.si/3058551/court-orders-parliament-to-allow-same-sex-marriages-adoptions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiori1000 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The Crimea shown as a part of Russia on the map (top of article)
The Crimea is the Ukranion region, roughly occupied by Russian Federation troops. Please, correct the map !!!

> Yeah same. Please color Crimean Peninsulta in red.

Poland and Slovakia
Why were the Polish and Slovak bills on marriage equality and partnerships removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.48.31.34 (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Poland, Russia, Armenia.
Robsalerno- I am not opposed to removing Russia and Poland, as I actually agree with you. However, contrary to your statement regarding Armenia, a consensus was in fact reached at Template talk:Same-sex unions/Archive 20- a discussion which you yourself had been pinged too. Please take some time to review. As discussed in that consensus, regardless if there hasn't been any foreign marriage registered- the government made their position clear. Furthermore, there hasn't been any statements to date which counter the governments last known position. Therefore, we must defer to the Ministry of Justice statement as supposed to personal opinion. If you would like to remove Poland and Russia, I will not oppose further. Archives908 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've reviewed that discussion and I see no evidence of a "consensus", just you saying over and over that there is a consensus. It seems everyone else in the conversation said that this wasn't at all the case and Armenia shouldn't be included as recognizing same-sex marriage.
 * You keep citing an article on panarmenian.net which is only four sentences long and contains no direct quotes from any person or official at the Justice Ministry. The article doesn't even have a byline. The website overall looks unprofessional and is not hewing to standard journalistic practices, and thus should not be accepted as a trusted source. This is, as far as I can tell, the only source that backs up the dubious claim that Armenia recognizes foreign same-sex marriages. Other sources on the ground, notably ILGA-Europe, which works with local Armenian LGBT groups to prepare its annual Rainbow Europe report, have never once corroborated the notion that foreign same-sex marriages are recognized by the government.
 * Insisting that Armenia recognizes foreign same-sex marriages in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary due to one single unsourced claim in a stub article on a dubious news website is nothing more than wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Robsalerno (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read more carefully. The consensus was to defer to the Ministry of Justice's statement, at least until more information/an update becomes available. The statement highlights the position of the MoJ and it does qualify as WP:RS. Hence, there is absolutely no valid reason why it shouldn't be counted. Reiterating a third time, regardless if its been 5, 10, 15 years, the statement was made by a government representative and that is what we must defer to. Just because a foreign registration has not occurred, it does not mean that the position of the government has changed. The burden is yours to provide reliable sources to prove otherwise. Your personal views and opinions do not qualify as RS. Also, stop edit warring. Archives908 (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is edit-warring. There was a consensus on this point for years before you dredged up this old argument. Literally no one is defending your argument. The statement you source is not a statement at all. It is a stub article without any quotes or references to any person who has made the statement. It is a deeply suspect source. Moreover, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, the LGBT organizations on the ground, who are familiar with the Justice Ministry and its regulations, have all said repeatedly every year since this supposed statement came out, that it is untrue. Every annual report from ILGA-Europe since 2017 has disputed this statement. Here's the most recent report from ILGA-Europe: https://www.ilga-europe.org/report/rainbow-europe-2022/, with links to all of ILGA-Europe's previous country reports. They all refute the supposed 2017 statement which was attributed to no one. It is also clearly a more reliable and up-to-date source than a six-year-old, unsourced stub article from a dubious-looking website.
 * Just because you'd like this to be true, doesn't make it so. Unless you can find another source that actually quotes the government/justice ministry as saying that this is indeed their practice, or evidence that any foreign marriage has been registered, then we have to accept the overwhelming, well-documented, and deeply researched reports from the activists on the ground that confirm that Armenia doesn't belong on this list.
 * Given that the preponderance of evidence is that Armenia does NOT recognize any same-sex unions, the burden is actually on you to provide any reliable evidence that they do. A stub article with no quoted sources will not do.
 * What's worse is each time you go back an undo this deletion, you knowingly reintroduce other completely wrong ideas into the article about Poland and Russia recognizing same-sex marriage, which they absolutely do not do. Robsalerno (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Moreover, if the consensus was what you claim it to be, then this would have been noted on all of the dozens of articles that discuss same-sex marriage that are maintained by multiple authors, not just here. The fact that no one has placed Armenia there demonstrates that the consensus was that it does NOT recognize same-sex marriage Robsalerno (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will ask politely (yet again) that you please stop reverting until this discussion concludes. You made an edit, and it has been challenged. Per WP:BRD, the issue must be discussed here first before continuing to edit. Please adhere to the BRD cycle. In terms of Armenia- I have already highlighted the previous consensus reached regarding the country's inclusion. Not sure if you have read the entire conversation or not, but the conversation ended without any further disputes or opposition towards including Armenia as recognizing foreign same-sex marriages. The very last sentence of that thread says "best thing we can do is wait". That consensus has not been challenged to date. PanARMENIAN.Net does qualify as WP:RS. So, if you would like to challenge the established consensus from July 2022 and the last known government statement, then provide your sources here for review. As for Poland and Russia, if you can please re-read the first sentence of this thread where I clearly said I agree with you and that I will not oppose Russia's or Poland's removal. Understand? Archives908 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are five more sources confirming the position by the Ministry of Justice not to discriminate against the registration of foreign marriages, regardless of sex:, , , , . Furthermore, equaldex international also confirms this, see their report for Armenia: . Just because a foreign marriage of a same-sex couple has not yet been registered, it does not mean that the previous announcement made is invalid. It is WP:CRYSTAL if we assume that the Ministry/government has changed their stance to only register opposite-sex foreign marriages. That is why I have asked you three times now for reliable sources which categorically state that only opposite-sex couples can register their marriage in Armenia. Archives908 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

To establish if a country recognises foreign same-sex marriages as valid, I think we need to verify if at least one of the following criteria hold: 1) ordinary laws or governmental decrees and regulations explicitly instructing how same-sex marriages should be registered domestically with the same legal effects as domestic marriages; 2) Supreme Court or equivalent highest Court establishing a binding precedent for lower courts or local administration to register such marriages.

Armenia fails both criteria because an (unattested) email sent by the Ministry of Justice to a dubious website is no proof that the country recognises foreign same-sex marriages. It is a rumor at worst, or might be an interpetation error from somebody working at the Ministry, at best. The country is deeply homophobic and it would be surprising if the governement encouraged legal recognition of same-sex couples. The reason why other sources report Armenia as recognising may be the very fact that Wikipedia has been reporting the PanArmenian source as valid for quite a long time now (honestly, I've never been convinced myself and I am surprised by the stubborness of some editors in keeping Armenia on the list). I'm challenging this consensus.

And, to be true, Estonia fails the test too. Estonia is recognising foreign marriages on a case-by-case basis and the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the subject. The situation is similar to how Italy handles stepchild adoption. Wikipedia lists Italy as non-recognising due to the lack of binding precedents or automatic recognition for same-sex couples who are in a civil union (even if the Court of Cassation made a binding ruling, stating that same-sex couples in a civil union have such right - the judge just tasked with assessing the existence of a bondage between the child and adopting parent). Why should Estonia be treated differently then? They still have to pass legislation allowing for the celebration of same-sex unions (see Wikipedia: "Because the Riigikogu has yet to adopt the implementation acts, same-sex couples in Estonia have been in legal limbo, and have increasingly turned to the courts in order to have their rights recognised. Numerous partnerships have been performed in Estonia, but these unions were initially not entered into the population registry."). Also, it should be noted that registering a marriage in the population register does not establish legal effects per se: the law needs to create an obligation for all third parties (public and private) to recognise same-sex marriages as equal to opposite-sex marriages. Registration is by no means equal to recognition.

If this test is accepted consensually, then the only independent country in the world that recognises foreign same-sex marriages would be Israel. Finedelledanze (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * And who exactly are you to determine if the statement by the Ministry of Justice is true or a translation misinterpretation? To guess that the statement by the MoJ is an "interpretation" is pure WP:CRYSTAL and is unacceptable. We must defer to what WP:RS we have available, not speculation or opinion. Granted we do not have a lot of information to go on, and that is precisely why the previous consensus established was in favor of waiting until there is more RS to either back up the initial statement or outright discredit it. There are also notes in the article describing Armenia's precarious position because of this very reason. It is also frustrating when editors erroneously state Armenia as recognizing same-sex marriage. Armenia has not recognized same-sex marriage. The announcement made by the MoJ states that Armenia recognizes all foreign marriages, regardless of sex. Please stop confusing the two. There is a drastic difference between national recognition for citizens, and the recognition of marriage certificates for foreign nationals. This thread is exclusively focused on the latter. Terminology matters in such discussions, so if everyone can please be mindful of that and try to be concise. The Civil Code for Armenia also makes no mention of sex in the recognition of foreign marriage certificates. Therefore, I am not convinced that Armenia has explicitly limited the registration of foreign marriages to opposite-sex couples only. I have asked numerous times for sources proving this, yet nothing concrete has been provided. Hence, logic dictates, that we must defer to what little RS we do have available until either 1) more information becomes available or 2) other RS is provided which definitively proves foreign marriage registration does have rules based on the sex of the couple. Our personal opinions or interpretations of legal text is irrelevant. Until either of these criteria is met or challenged, I support the maintenance of the last consensus. In terms of Estonia, this thread is already complex enough and I think it would be wise to start a new thread for a new country, especially since circumstances may be different for each. Archives908 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And a reminder to all parties to please stop restoring/editing until a consensus is reached. Robsalerno made a bold (B) edit, I reverted (R), and now we must (D) discuss. Finedelledanze- since you are new to this conversation, please adhere to WP:BRD. Archives908 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong feelings about the substantive matter, but surely if our WP:RS are inconclusive, it is better to err on the side of caution and not include armenia as recognising foreign SSMs? In general, Wikipedia leans towards not including information that is not fully supported, rather than including dubious information until it's proven wrong. To me, that's what a stance of "wait and see" implies. The same goes for which state to leave the article in after an edit war. Jdcooper (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with that. In this case, however, I don't believe the source from PanARMENIAN.Net to be dubious. One editor has claimed that the government statement is a "misinterpretation". However, to make a decision based off of speculation is not reliable and I would rather defer to what little RS we do have instead of basing our decision on personal opinions. Surely, there is logic in that. Archives908 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's actually why Armenia was removed from the list time ago. Finedelledanze (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Jdcooper and @Finedelledanze.
 * That's exactly the point I was making. "Wait and see" implies that we should see if any foreign same-sex marriages are actually registered, or if any clearer or attributed statements from the ministry ever come out. On top of that, the consensus was clearly iterated by the fact that Armenia hadn't been on the list for these past years.
 * Whether we believe PanARMENIAN.Net is generally an RS or not, we really can't treat this unattributed stub article as an RS. It has no named sources, quotes, or even a byline. Moreover, it's so far out of the norm for Armenia that it needs to be held to a higher proof standard. Instead, you've reversed the onus of proof, forcing us to disprove an article that doesn't have anything to falsify. No quotes that can be researched, no officials that can be contacted or quoted.
 * In any event, here's the actual Justice Minister directly quoted in a 2019 article saying explicitly that Armenia does NOT recognize same-sex marriage. https://www.panorama.am/ru/news/2019/08/26/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8F%D0%BD-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8/2158112
 * As for your five other sources, as you can see, none of them are independent confirmation.
 * Equaldex isn't an RS in itself. And the only source it cites is a blog that doesn't itself cite a source for its claim. It is likely tracing back to the same dubious source (PanARMENIA).
 * The article in TandFonline does not cite a source for its claim that Armenia's MOJ recognizes same-sex marriage. It is likely tracing back to the same dubious source (PanARMENIA).
 * Asbarez.com does not cite a source for its claim that MOJ recognizes same-sex marriage, though it does have an Armenian-American assert it. It is likely tracing back to the same dubious source (PanARMENIA).
 * The LogoTV.com story does cite a source, but it's the PanARMENIA article that itself is unsourced.
 * The OutSports.com article does not cite a source for its claim that MOJ recognizes same-sex marriage. It is likely tracing back to the same dubious source (PanARMENIA).
 * It seems very clear to me that the correct thing to do is remove Armenia from the "recognizes foreign marriage" row, put it in the "constitutional ban" row, and add a note that says something like:
 * "In 2017, a single news source claimed that it received correspondence from an unnamed Ministry of Justice official suggesting that the government would recognize same-sex marriages conducted abroad. The article has frequently been cited by other sources, but has never been corroborated by any Armenian government official. No Armenian LGBT groups have reported that a same-sex couple has been able to register a foreign marriage or that they believe it would be possible. In 2019, the Minister of Justice clarified that the government does not recognize same-sex marriage." Robsalerno (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Do we have a link to the 2019 MoJ statement? I may have missed that.
 * IMHO, this would make the proposed clarification note even unnecessary. Finedelledanze (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here we go again...for the millionth time, we need to stop assuming that the MoJ statement was "compromised" or a "misinterpretation". Finedelledanze- did you even read the statement? Because you earlier said the statement was an "interpretation", yet now it seems you don't even know where the link is. I shall reiterate, it is not appropriate to WP:CRYSTALBALL and assume that the MoJ statement was not accurate and we can not assume that the other sources provided in this thread all received their information from Wikipedia prior to publishing their respective articles. You are not employees of the Armenian MoJ nor journalists of these independent news outlets, and if you are, then you should disclose a WP:COI. Assumption, guesswork, and personal opinions are not facts. PanARMENIAN.Net on the other hand, is considered a WP:RS. Therefore, there is no reason to assume the article was falsified in any way. If there are other MoJ or other governmental statement(s) or updates conflicting or countering the original statement, then please present the source(s) for review and consideration. Otherwise, we cannot assume that it is forbidden to register foreign same-sex marriages, especially since there is zero mention of sex within the Civil Code. Just because it hasn't occurred/been documented, that does not mean it would be illegal or that the MoJ's statement is outright null and void. Although I do agree that the case of Armenia is very intriguing/complex, it is not up to us to decipher the plausibility of Armenian law. I have always maintained that we should defer to what RS is available as supposed to pure speculations. Also, Finedelledanze, there is no "proposed clarification note". User Robsalerno already added the note to the article without discussing it first. Nonetheless, I believe the note to be perfectly appropriate as it does elaborate into the precarious position of Armenia and clearly states to readers that no same-sex marriage has to-date been registered. I think that is more than a fair and reasonable compromise. Archives908 (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Archives908 - we don't have to presume the story is dubious. It just is dubious because it doesn't quote anyone or any organization. It just asserts a wildly implausible statement as a fact with no documentation. That assertion got repeated all over the internet, and no one can source it back to an original person who is quoted as saying anything.
 * In any event, like I said above, a more reliable source directly quoted the justice minister in 2019 saying that Armenia does not recognize same-sex marriage. (Here it is again in case you missed it: https://www.panorama.am/ru/news/2019/08/26/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8F%D0%BD-%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8/2158112) More reliable sources on the ground -- actual LGBT organizations doing the work -- have reported for years and years that there is no ability to register foreign same-sex marriages in Armenia. These are very reliable sources who are backing up their statements with quotes and research.
 * The only sources you cite are very old and have no sources. Even if you assert PanArmenia.net is an RS, its reporting is outweighed by the more recent and more reliable reporting by other outlets and research organizations.
 * You are the one who is actually "crystal-balling" by asserting that at some point, someone, somewhere in Armenia will be able to register a foreign marriage, in the face of all evidence saying this is not possible.
 * For that matter, why are we accepting your assertion that PanArmenia.net is an RS at all? It's quite clearly not abiding by journalistic standards, at least in the cited source:
 * - no byline
 * - no direct quotes from any authorities
 * - the article is a brief with no context
 * Again, I'm baffled that you keep asserting that there is a consensus that Armenia recognizes same-sex marriage when you are literally the only person arguing that it does and everyone else participating in the conversation is telling you quite clearly, and with evidence that it does not.
 * Since it seems quite clear that the consensus is actually that it does not, I'm going to do what I suggested above and move Armenia and the note to the 'constitutional ban' column only. Robsalerno (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You make it seem that there are a hundred people arguing against me in the this thread. There's you and one other.... Besides, so what if I am outnumbered, it does not automatically imply that only your argument is correct and mine isn't. The source you included above has nothing to do with the recognition of FOREIGN same-sex marriage. I'm starting to think that my responses are not being read because I have already advised you that there is a difference between NATIONAL recognition and INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION. The source from 2017 strictly focuses on the international registration of same-sex marriages in Armenia while the 2019 source strictly focuses on national state-level recognition. We already know that Armenian same-sex couples cannot legally get married in Armenia -that is NOT in dispute here. There is a difference between the two and you keep confusing them. Please stay focused on the international recognition of marriages. There are no sources which outright deny that same-sex couples cannot register their foreign marriage license in Armenia. While I admire your bold editing tactics, please present your suggestions here before editing as we have not reached any consensus yet. Archives908 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, the 2019 MoJ statement is not explicit about recognition of foreign marriages but clarifies the Armenian government's position: no SSM in Armenia. It doesn't matter if the marriage was performed in Armenia or in another country, when a foreign certificate is registered in the population registries there is no difference between the two.
 * What do you mean by 'international registration' vs 'national state-level recognition'?
 * Embassies cannot legalize by apostile all foreign acts that are contrary to the domestic public order, such as SSM or polygamic marriage certificates.
 * If this were the case, it would make no sense and would contradict the Minister's statement. Don't you think? Armenian same sex couples could just go abroad, get married and have their wedding recognized like if they did it in Erevan. Finedelledanze (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! No same-sex marriage in Armenia... for Armenian citizens. The 2017 statement referred to foreign nationals registering their marriages in Armenia (ie. non-citizens). The former Minister said that all foreign marriage certificates would be valid in Armenia regardless of sex. This is completely separate if Armenia were too legalize same-sex marriage for its citizens- which they have not. Whether the 2019 statement contradicts the 2017 statement is inconclusive since the new Minister did not at all refer to foreign marriages. Therefore, the 2019 statement does not definitively invalidate the 2017 statement. Archives908 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Archives908 And you have even fewer people on your side (exactly zero).
 * Plus, you're being misleading again. The 2017 statement has never been attributed to a minister (or any other person).
 * The 2019 statement from the actual Justice Minister could not be more clear:
 * "The state does not recognize such marriages. The question of whether they will live together or not is their business. My personal position is this: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and this concept is not subject to change. Only a family recognized by the state, that is, the union of a man and a woman, can adopt a child. You can refer to the example of Georgia in this matter.”
 * He doesn't draw a distinction between foreign and domestic same-sex marriages because there isn't one. That's also implied by using the word "recognize" instead of "perform" or "authorize." It doesn't recognize marriages performed elsewhere.
 * The annual reports from ILGA, working with Armenian LGBT groups on the ground there, have all confirmed this. There has been literally no actual credible source backing up PanAmernia's 2017 unsourced, uncredited stub article assertion for nearly 6 years.
 * We keep giving you all this evidence that the state does not recognize any same-sex marriages, foreign or domestic, and you just keep ignoring it or presenting other ludicrous definitions to defend your point. "International registration" is a meaningless term -- what does that entail? "Recognition of Foreign Marriage" is for countries that apply all the rights of marriage to people married outside of their borders. The main examples here are Israel and, for a while, Mexican states that were forced to recognize out-of-state marriages even when they didn't allow same-sex marriage themselves. There is no evidence Armenia offers anything like this to its people.
 * It seems clear from this discussion that the consensus is to leave Armenia off and wait-and-see if anything changes. Anything else is crystal-balling. Robsalerno (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So what? This isn't a competition, it's a discussion. Pointing out that "I have zero support" is not constructive and does not mean my points are automatically invalid. Stick to content, not degrading jabs. Back to the topic- the 2017 statement was made by a representative from the Ministry of Justice. Annual reports from ILGA have nothing to do with what the Ministry of Justice released. You haven't provided any evidence that the statement from 2017 is definitively null and void. The statement from 2019 only mentions the status of same-sex marriages in Armenia, nothing at all about recognizing foreign marriages. You have already added a detailed note which provides clarity to readers regarding the country's precarious position. I believe that addition is a reasonable and fair compromise of both our arguments, is it not? I assume you would agree since you went ahead and added that note. It acknowledges the 2017 statement, the fact that no foreign same-sex marriages have been registered to date, and the governments position regarding same-sex marriage within the country. It seems all your concerns have been addressed in the note you added, so I'm not sure exactly why we keep going round and round here. If you have alternative options for us to establish a consensus, I'm open to hear your suggestions/recommendations. Otherwise, I believe you already implemented and covered both our points fairly with your last addition. Archives908 (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Archives908 Because you keep talking about how the consensus is on your side of the argument, despite the fact that literally no one agrees with you. Literally everyone else who's edited this document says precisely the opposite -- that Armenia should be removed. This is not degrading, it's literally just stating the fact that your opinion is unsupported by anyone, despite the fact that you call it a consensus.
 * Regarding your points:
 * - We do not know that the 2017 statement was made by a representative of the ministry of justice. We don't know where or who it comes from at all. We don't even know who reported the statement, because the story has no byline. It's completely unattributed. That's why it's dubious.
 * - Annual reports from ILGA are valid and reliable sources. They're reporting facts on the ground, they cite their sources, and they've been updated every year. They're thus way more reliable as sources than the unsourced, uncredited, six-year-old byline in a dubious web site's stub article. They are researching the laws and procedures, and if they find there's no recognition of foreign same-sex marriage in Armenia, then it's pretty clear that there isn't.
 * - The 2019 statement from the justice minister is not limited to domestic marriages. If it were, he would have said something like "except for foreign same-sex marriages, which we recognize." But he didn't. He said, twice, "The state does not recognize same-sex marriage" and then gave an exclusively heterosexual definition of a family as understood by the government. There is no asterisk to his statement. It's crystal clear. No recognition.
 * You're twisting everything around to support this wildly out-there, unsourced claim, and making it such that no reputable source, not even the Justice Minister himself, is reliable enough to change your mind.
 * The note is not a reasonable compromise, because it still maintains a clear inaccuracy on the chart. It would make much more sense to remove Armenia from the "foreign recognition" and place a note about how there was once this one wildly hard-to-believe claim made in an unsourced article on a dubious web site that got repeated in a few other news outlets in 2017, but it has never actually been shown to be accurate, and that the Justice Minister has since clarified that the government does not recognize any same-sex marriages. Robsalerno (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not entirely new to this discussion as I've been editing these pages since 2008. And we had a similar discussion a couple of years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Same-sex_unions/Archive_20#Armenia) that resulted in the decision of removing Armenia from the list, after it had been there for a while.
 * Evidence to date:
 * - The decision to add Armenia again to the table was not taken consensually in the Talk page. The table was edited on 25 Jan 2023 by user 80.48.31.34
 * - Constitution of Armenia (Art. 35) restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples
 * - Armenia's family code (Art. 143) allows for recognition of foreign marriages upon consular legalisation
 * - The family code (Art. 152) forbids the application of foreign family law that is contrary to Armenian public order, that is the internal set of laws and rules (on top of which is the Constitution). This is the saving clause that, for example, allows countries without polygamy not to recognise polygamic marriages that are valid in a foreign country. And it is the same motivation that the Italian Supreme Court used, for example, to deny recognition of foreign SSMs in its 2010 ruling.
 * - The PanArmenian source (however credible or not, we can debate it) is making reference to an interpretation note received by email from the Ministry of Justice. But this is just an indirect source: the email is not attached and in any case it has no legal effects. There is no law, decree or regulation issued by the MoJ (or MoFA) instructing embassies and consulates abroad to legalise same-sex marriages as valid. If we had this, we could definitely say that Armenia is recognising foreign SSMs.
 * - No local or international LGBT association (eg. ILGA Europe) is officially of the opinion that Armenia recognises SSM.
 * - No recognition has occurred to date.
 * -The fact that some sources, from academia or media, report Armenia as recognising may be due to the very fact that Wikipedia listed Armenia as recognising, leading to possible confusion in the public. We should use official governmental documentation as a source.


 * Am I missing something? Finedelledanze (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Archives908 I suggest we go back to the 25 January version, where Armenia was not listed as recognising foreign same-sex marriages, while you build more consensus around your viewpoint (and possibly produce further evidence in support of it). Please don't undo revisions that trace us back to the January 25th version, as that was the baseline version for this page until now. Please note that the PanArmenian 2017 article states that "marriages between Armenian citizens, those between Armenian citizens and foreigners or stateless persons, which have been registered outside Armenia, are valid inside the country after consular legalization". This also is in contradiction with your previous position that 'only international marriages between foreign nationals would be registered' according to the 2017 source.
 * Again, and this is the most relevant piece of evidence, the 2017 source does not quote the Armenian government or refer to official documentation, while the 2019 article posted by @Robsalerno does quote the MoJ. In my opinion this and the evidence gathered above (constitutional ban, art. 152 of family code, lack of evidence from verified international and local sources) clearly disambiguate the situation and make any clarification notes unnecessary. Wikipedia cannot report fake news or rumors, unless they have a clear social or political resonance (eg. Pizzagate). Finedelledanze (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Finedelledanze 100% agree. Robsalerno (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Same. The sourcing does not seem strong or clear enough (yet) to warrant stating as fact on a Wikipedia article that foreign SSMs are legal in Armenia. Jdcooper (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Recognition of foreign same-sex marriages in Estonia
I'm aware that for a good while now we've had consensus on Estonia recognising foreign same-sex marriages. However, the more I read the page Recognition of same-sex unions in Estonia and the sources reported there, the more I get convinced that this is not the case. Therefore, I suggest we agree on criteria that clearly define what recognition of foreign SSMs does mean.

My proposal is the following: 1A) ordinary laws or governmental decrees and regulations explicitly instruct how same-sex marriages performed abroad should be treated domestically, or 1B) Supreme Court or equivalent highest Court sets a binding precedent for lower courts or local administration to register such marriages; 2) registration of the foreign marriage certificate in domestic registries should also produce legal effects, that is, set an obligation for third parties, both public and private ones, to recognise the foreign SSM as a domestic opposite-sex marriage ('recognition'), such as employers, public and private insurers, and so on. Without a formal obligation created by law or judicial decisions, information published on civil registries does not necessarily produce legal effects erga omnes.

In a nutshell, registration should not be discretional, and should produce actual legal effects (recognition).

If we can agree on this definition, then I'm afraid that Estonia fails the test. There seems to be no instruction from the government, no binding decision from the Supreme Court, as to date only rulings on a case by case basis have been made. In addition, it is not clear whether registration produces also an obligation to recognise such marriages (eg. can an employer deny these couples the rights and benefits enjoyed by couples with a domestic marriage certificate?).

The lack of binding judicial decisions reminds me of how Italy handles stepchild adoption. Wikipedia lists Italy as a country without stepchild adoption due to the lack of binding precedents or automatic recognition for same-sex couples who are in a civil union (even if the Court of Cassation made a binding ruling, stating that same-sex couples in a civil union have such right - the judge just tasked with assessing the existence of a bond between the child and their adopting parent - and indeed all couples who apply for stepchild adoption are not turned down). Why should Estonia be treated differently then? Finally, Estonia still has to pass legislation allowing for the celebration of same-sex unions (see Wikipedia: "Because the Riigikogu has yet to adopt the implementation acts, same-sex couples in Estonia have been in legal limbo, and have increasingly turned to the courts in order to have their rights recognised. Numerous partnerships have been performed in Estonia, but these unions were initially not entered into the population registry."), making the legal effects of such unions not very clear.

Based on this test, then the only independent country in the world that recognises foreign same-sex marriages would be Israel.

Glad to hear your thoughts on this.Finedelledanze (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Czechia/Czech Republic under both "marriage" and "non-marital partnerships"
Czechia appears under both "Marriage" and "Non-marital partnerships". What's the point of this? While it's true that as of today it is hard with law will actually be passed (full marriage equality or "marriage equality but-let-s-not-call-it-marriage", as per the agreements of last summer/autumn), having the issue duplicated under two categories is misleading, as it seems that both could pass in the end, which is infact instead the least likely (if not outright impossible) outcome.

The two sections must be merged and kept under "Non-marital partnerships" for the time being, as this is the minimal outcome of the discussion in parliament. Touyats (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with merging the sections, but I think they should be merged to the "marriage" section, as that is the change which is pending. Passing the compromise bill would not actually be a change in the recognition of same-sex unions, just the conferring of more right onto couples with registered partnerships (albeit under a new name). The situation could easily be explained in one paragraph in the marriage section. I've given it a try below:


 * : A bill amending the Civil Code to allow same-sex marriage was introduced in the Chamber of Deputies on 7 June 2022. The draft was signed by one representative each from five parliamentary groups: Mayors and Independents (STAN), TOP 09, the Pirate Party, the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) and ANO. Debate on the bill began in May 2023.  The bill passed its first reading by 68 votes to 58 in the Chamber of Deputies on 29 June 2023.  On 23 October 2023, the parties in favor of equal marriage reached an agreement with opponents that the law would be approved and unions equal in rights to marriage would be recognized, as long as those unions were not called 'marriage'. Conservative parties in return withdrew a proposal to ban equal marriage in the country's constitution. This law would therefore not provide for fully marriage equality, as the resulting unions would not be called "marriages". In November 2023, the Chamber's Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee failed to reach an agreement on whether to approve the same-sex marriage bill or a bill providing partnerships equal to marriage in all but name. A second reading in the Chamber of Deputies took place on 7 February 2024.  Both the marriage and the partnership bills were approved in second reading. They await further discussion in committees before returning for a third reading.


 * Jdcooper (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)